28–780 PDF 

Calendar No. 535 

109TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 2d Session 109–293 

TRANSPORTATION, TREASURY, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED AGENCIES 

APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2007 

JULY 26, 2006.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. BOND, from the Committee on Appropriations, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H.R. 5576] 

The Committee on Appropriations, to which was referred the bill 

(H.R. 5576) making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, District of Columbia, and independent agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes, reports the same to the Senate with an amendment and recommends 

that the bill as amended do pass. 

Amounts of new budget (obligational) authority for fiscal year 2007 

Total of bill as reported to the Senate .................... $89,389,989,000 

Amount of 2006 appropriations 1 ............................. 102,948,146,000 

Amount of 2007 budget estimate ............................ 86,748,272,000 

Amount of House allowance 2 .................................. 86,656,536,000 

Bill as recommended to Senate compared to— 

2006 appropriations .......................................... ¥13,558,157,000 

2007 budget estimate ........................................ ∂2,641,717,000 

House allowance ................................................ ∂2,654,889,000 1 Includes $20,685,563,000 in emergency appropriations. 

2 Excludes $575,200,000 considered by the House for the District of Columbia. 
(2) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Program, Project, and Activity ............................................................................... 4 

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

Relationship With Budget Offices .......................................................................... 5 

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

House Appropriations .............................................................................................. 7 

Title I: Department of Transportation: 

Office of the Secretary ...................................................................................... 8 

Federal Aviation Administration .................................................................... 21 

Federal Highway Administration .................................................................... 39 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration ............................................... 51 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration .......................................... 57 

Federal Railroad Administration .................................................................... 66 

Federal Transit Administration ...................................................................... 72 

Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation ....................................... 87 

Maritime Administration ................................................................................. 88 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration ........................... 92 

Research and Innovative Technology Administration ................................... 94 

Bureau of Transportation Statistics ............................................................... 95 

Office of Inspector General .............................................................................. 95 

Surface Transportation Board ......................................................................... 97 

Administrative Provisions—Department of Transportation ......................... 98 

Title II: Department of the Treasury: 

Departmental Offices ....................................................................................... 100 

Financial Crimes Enforcement Network ........................................................ 107 

Financial Management Service ....................................................................... 108 

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau .................................................. 109 

Bureau of Engraving and Printing ................................................................. 109 

Bureau of the Public Debt ............................................................................... 110 

Community Development Financial Institutions Fund ................................. 111 

United States Mint ........................................................................................... 112 

Internal Revenue Service ................................................................................. 112 

Department of the Treasury: Administrative Provisions .............................. 122 

Title III: Department of Housing and Urban Development: 

Tenant-based Rental Assistance ..................................................................... 124 

Project-based Rental Assistance ...................................................................... 127 

Public Housing Capital Fund .......................................................................... 128 

Public Housing Operating Fund ...................................................................... 128 

Revitalization of Severely Distressed Public Housing [HOPE VI] ............... 129 

Native American Housing Block Grant .......................................................... 130 

Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund Program Account ............................ 131 

Community Planning and Development ......................................................... 132 

Housing Programs ............................................................................................ 158 

Government National Mortgage Association .................................................. 164 

Policy Development and Research .................................................................. 165 

Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity ............................................................. 166 

Office of Lead Hazard Controln ...................................................................... 167 

Management and Administration ................................................................... 168 

Office of Inspector General .............................................................................. 169 

Working Capital Fund .............................................................................. 170 

Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight ............................................ 170 

Administrative Provisions ................................................................................ 171 

Title IV: The Judiciary: 

Supreme Court of the United States .............................................................. 173 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ............................... 174 
Page

3 

Title IV—Continued 

U.S. Court of International Trade ................................................................... 175 

Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services ................. 175 

Defender Services ............................................................................................. 178 

Fees of Jurors and Commissioners ................................................................. 179 

Court Security ................................................................................................... 179 

Administrative Office of the United States Courts ........................................ 180 

Federal Judicial Center .................................................................................... 181 

Judicial Retirement Funds .............................................................................. 182 

United States Sentencing Commission ........................................................... 182 

Administrative Provisions—The Judiciary ..................................................... 182 

Title V: Executive Office of the President and Funds Appropriated to the 

President: 

Compensation of the President ....................................................................... 184 

White House Office ........................................................................................... 184 

Executive Residence at the White House ....................................................... 185 

Council of Economic Advisers .......................................................................... 186 

Office of Policy Development ........................................................................... 186 

National Security Council ................................................................................ 187 

Office of Administration ................................................................................... 187 

Office of Management and Budget .................................................................. 188 

Office of National Drug Control Policy ........................................................... 189 

Funds Appropriated to the President ............................................................. 191 

Unanticipated Needs ........................................................................................ 195 

Special Assistance to the President ................................................................ 195 

Official Residence of the Vice President ......................................................... 196 

Title VI: Independent Agencies: 

Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board .................... 197 

Consumer Product Safety Commission ........................................................... 198 

Election Assistance Commission ..................................................................... 198 

Federal Election Commission .......................................................................... 199 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation .......................................................... 199 

Federal Labor Relations Authority ................................................................. 200 

Federal Maritime Commission ........................................................................ 200 

General Services Administration .................................................................... 201 

Merit Systems Protection Board ..................................................................... 210 

Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental 

Policy Foundation ......................................................................................... 211 

National Historical Publications and Records Commission .......................... 214 

National Credit Union Administration ........................................................... 215 

National Transportation Safety Board ........................................................... 217 

Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation ....................................................... 218 

Office of Government Ethics ............................................................................ 219 

Office of Personnel Management ..................................................................... 219 

Office of Special Counsel .................................................................................. 223 

Selective Service System .................................................................................. 225 

United States Interagency Council on Homelessness ................................... 225 

United States Postal Service ........................................................................... 227 

United States Tax Court .................................................................................. 229 

Statement Concerning General Provisions ..................................................... 229 

Title VII: General Provisions This Act ................................................................... 230 

Title VIII: General Provisions, Departments, Agencies, and Corporations ........ 232 

Title IX: Air Transportation to and From Love Field ........................................... 235 

Compliance With Paragraph 7, Rule XVI, of the Standing Rules of the Senate .......................................................................................................................... 236 

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

Senate ................................................................................................................... 237 

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

Senate ................................................................................................................... 238 

Budgetary Impact Statement ................................................................................. 249 

Comparative Statement .......................................................................................... 250 
(4) 

PROGRAM, PROJECT, AND ACTIVITY 

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

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

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

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

Committees on Appropriations, or accompanying conference reports 

and joint explanatory statements of the committee of conference. 

This definition shall apply to all programs for which new budget 

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

grants and discretionary grant allocations made through either bill 

or report language. In addition, the percentage reductions made 

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

in the budget justifications submitted to the House and Senate 

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

REPROGRAMMING GUIDELINES 

The Committee includes a provision (sec. 710) establishing the 

authority by which funding available to the agencies funded by this 

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

Committees on Appropriations of any proposal to reprogram funds 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

from the congressional budget justifications or the table at the end 

of the Committee report, whichever is more detailed. 

The Committee retains the requirement that each agency submit 

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

authorities provided in this act. Specifically, each agency should 

provide a table for each appropriation with columns displaying the 

budget request; adjustments made by Congress; adjustments for rescissions, if appropriate; and the fiscal year enacted level. The table 
5 

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

The report must also identify items of special congressional interest. 

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

justification of increases and reductions and the specific impact the 

proposed changes will have on the budget request for the following 

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

The Committee expects each agency to manage its programs and 

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

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

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

notes that when a Department or agency submits a reprogramming 

or transfer request to the Committees on Appropriations and does 

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

responsibility of the Department to reconcile the House and Senate 

differences before proceeding, and if reconciliation is not possible, 

to consider the request to reprogram funds unapproved. 

The Committee would also like to clarify that this section applies 

to Working Capital Funds and Forfeiture Funds and that no funds 

may be obligated from such funds to augment programs, projects 

or activities for which appropriations have been specifically rejected 

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

above the amounts appropriated by this Act. 

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, offices, and 

commissions. The Committee has often pointed to the natural affinity and relationship between the budget offices 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 any office or officer in the departments, agencies, and commissions, the primary conjunction between the Committee and these entities must be through the budget offices. To 

help ensure the Committee’s ability to perform its responsibilities, 

the Committee insists on having direct, unobstructed, and timely 

access to the budget offices and expects to be able to receive forthright and complete responses from that office and its employees. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET JUSTIFICATIONS 

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

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

goals that can be used as a valid measure for the success of a program and its funding requirements/needs. In too many cases, the 
6 

PART analysis appears to be overly subjective and designed to 

reach certain preconceived conclusions about a program’s validity 

and accomplishments and its budget needs. 

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

contributions of a program and to what extent a program should 

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

to accommodate an increasing amount of PART performance data 

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

Committee. This trend has made it increasingly difficult for the 

Committee to perform a meaningful review of budget justifications, 

including the ability to conduct necessary budget oversight work as 

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

analysis. 

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

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

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

the format and presentation of budget materials is largely left to 

the agency within presentation objectives set forth by OMB. In 

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

should consult with your congressional committees beforehand to 

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

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

While the Committee values the inclusion of performance data 

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

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

justifications submitted with the fiscal year 2008 budget request by 

agencies funded under this act must contain the customary level of 

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

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

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

agency must also provide adequate justification for funding and 

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

year 2008 to the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. 

The Committee is aware that the analytical materials required 

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

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

advance on its planned presentation for its budget justification materials in support of the fiscal year 2008 budget request. 
7 

HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS 

The Senate Committee recommendation excludes District of Columbia appropriations items that were funded by the House in this 

bill. The Committee believes that it is appropriate to fund those 

items in a separate bill. For ease of comparison, the Committee report excludes in the ‘‘House allowance’’ those items that are addressed in the District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2007, an 

original Senate bill. 
(8) 

TITLE I 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

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

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

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

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

Utilization, Intelligence, Security and Emergency Response, Chief 

Information Officer, the General Counsel and Public Affairs. The 

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

Civil Rights and the Department’s Working Capital Fund. 

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $84,051,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 92,742,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 65,973,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 92,742,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation finances the costs of policy development and 

central supervisory and coordinating functions necessary for the 

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

assistant secretaries, general counsel and other support offices. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total of $92,742,000 for salaries 

and expenses of the Office of the Secretary of Transportation, including $60,000 for reception and representation expenses. The recommendation is equal to the budget request and $8,691,000 more 

than the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

The accompanying bill authorizes the Secretary to transfer up to 

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

The Committee recommendation continues language that permits 

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

for salaries and expenses. 

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendation in comparison to the fiscal year 2006 enacted level and the 

budget estimate: 
9 

Fiscal year— Committee recommendation 2006 enacted 1 2007 request 

Immediate Office of the Secretary ...................................................... $2,176,000 $2,255,000 $2,255,000 

Office of the Deputy Secretary ............................................................ 691,000 717,000 717,000 

Office of the General Counsel ............................................................. 15,031,000 15,681,000 15,681,000 

Office of the Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy ................. 11,534,000 11,934,000 11,934,000 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs .............. 8,400,000 10,002,000 10,002,000 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs ............... 2,270,000 2,319,000 2,319,000 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration .......................... 21,811,000 25,108,000 25,108,000 

Office of Public Affairs ........................................................................ 1,891,000 1,932,000 1,932,000 

Executive Secretariat ........................................................................... 1,428,000 1,478,000 1,478,000 

Board of Contract Appeals .................................................................. 690,000 707,000 707,000 

Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization ................... 1,252,000 1,286,000 1,286,000 

Office of Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response ................. 5,102,000 7,041,000 7,041,000 

Office of the Chief Information Officer ............................................... 11,776,000 12,281,000 12,281,000 

Total, Salaries and Expenses ................................................. 84,051,000 92,742,000 92,742,000 

1 Includes reduction pursuant to division B, title III, chapter 8 of Public Law 109–148. 

The Committee allows funds made available in the fiscal year 

2006 appropriations act under this section for the Missouri Transportation Institute to cover costs incurred retroactive to October 1, 

2005. 

IMMEDIATE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Secretary of Transportation provides leadership and has the 

primary responsibility to provide overall planning, direction, and 

control of the Department. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $2,255,000 for fiscal year 2007 for 

the Immediate Office of the Secretary. The recommendation is the 

same as the budget request and $79,000 greater than the fiscal 

year 2006 enacted level. 

IMMEDIATE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SECRETARY

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Deputy Secretary has the primary responsibility of assisting 

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $717,000 for the Immediate Office 

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

and $26,000 greater than the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of the General Counsel provides legal services to the 

Office of the Secretary including the conduct of aviation regulatory 

proceedings and aviation consumer activities and coordinates and 

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

administrations. The General Counsel is the chief legal officer of 
10 

the Department of Transportation and the final authority within 

the Department on all legal questions. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $15,681,000 for expenses of the Office of the General Counsel for fiscal year 2007, equal to the budget 

request and $650,000 greater than the fiscal year 2006 enacted 

level. 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION FOR POLICY

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

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

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

For fiscal year 2007, the Committee recommends $11,934,000 for 

the Office of the Under Secretary for Policy, the same as the budget request and $400,000 more than the fiscal year 2006 enacted 

level. The Committee denies the transfer of two FTEs from the Office of Intelligence, Security and Emergency Response. 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR BUDGET AND PROGRAMS

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

presentation, and execution of the Department’s budget resource 

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

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

evaluate the program proposals for consistency with the Secretary’s 

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $10,002,000 for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs, the same as the budget 

request and $1,602,000 over the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 
11 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs advises the 

Secretary on all congressional and intergovernmental activities and 

on all departmental legislative initiatives and other relationships 

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

and ensures that consumer preferences, awareness, and needs are 

brought into the decision-making process. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total of $2,319,000 for the Office 

of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs, an amount 

equal to the budget request and $49,000 over the fiscal year 2006 

enacted level. 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

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

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $25,108,000 for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration, the same as the budget request and $3,297,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

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

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

reactions of the public and news media on transportation programs 

and issues. It arranges news conferences and provides speeches, 

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,932,000 for the Office of Public 

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

$41,000 more than the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 
12 

EXECUTIVE SECRETARIAT

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Executive Secretariat assists the Secretary and the Deputy 

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,478,000 for the Executive Secretariat. The recommendation is identical to the budget request and 

$50,000 more than the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The primary responsibility of the Board of Contract Appeals is to 

provide an independent forum for the trial and adjudication of all 

claims by, or against, a contractor relating to a contract of any element of the Department, as mandated by the Contract Disputes 

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $707,000 for the Board of Contract 

Appeals, the same as the budget request and $17,000 greater than 

the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

OFFICE OF SMALL AND DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS UTILIZATION

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization has 

primary responsibility for providing policy direction for small and 

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

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

amended. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,286,000, an amount equal to the 

budget request and $34,000 more than the fiscal year 2006 enacted 

level. 

OFFICE OF INTELLIGENCE, SECURITY AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Intelligence, Security and Emergency Response 

keeps the Secretary and his advisors informed on intelligence and 

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

responsibilities in the areas of emergency preparedness, response, 

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

Unites States. 
13 

The Office of Intelligence, Security and Emergency Response is 

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

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

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

the office provides direct emergency response and recovery support 

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

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $7,042,000 for the Office of Intelligence, Security and Emergency Response. The recommendation is 

equal to the request and $1,940,000 more than the fiscal year 2006 

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

office, and denies the request to transfer two FTEs to the Office of 

the Under Secretary of Transportation Policy. 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

principal adviser to the Secretary on matters involving information 

resources and information systems management. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $12,281,000, an amount equal to 

the budget request and $505,000 greater than the fiscal year 2006 

enacted level. 

OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $8,464,500 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 8,820,900 

House allowance .................................................................................... 8,821,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 8,820,900 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

formulating civil rights policies and procedures for the operating 

administrations, investigating claims that small businesses were 

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

civil rights responsibilities and making final determinations on 

civil rights complaints. In addition, the Civil Rights Office is responsible for enforcing laws and regulations which prohibit discrimination in federally operated and federally assisted transportation programs. 
14 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a funding level of $8,820,900 for the 

Office of Civil Rights for fiscal year 2007. The recommendation is 

identical to the budget request and is $356,400 more than the fiscal 

year 2006 enacted level. 

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $14,850,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 8,910,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 4,910,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 9,334,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of the Secretary performs those research activities and 

studies which can more effectively or appropriately be conducted at 

the departmental level. This research effort supports the planning, 

research and development activities needed to assist the Secretary 

in the formulation of national transportation policies. The program 

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

private firms. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $9,334,000 for transportation planning, research, and development, $5,516,000 less than the fiscal 

year 2006 enacted level and $424,000 more than the President’s 

budget request. The Committee directs funding to be allocated to 

the following projects that are listed below: 

TPR&D 

Project name Committee recommendation 

Missouri Department of Transportation and the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance Education 

Training Program ............................................................................................................................. $1,000,000 

St. Louis University Advanced Neurosurgical Innovation Center [SANIC], Missouri ........................... 1,000,000 

Virtual Accident and Injury Reconstruction Center, Mississippi State University, Mississippi .......... 2,500,000 

Maritime Fire and Safety Association, Washington ............................................................................. 485,000 

Agriculture Freight Supply Chain Analyses, WSDOT ............................................................................ 170,000 

SR–520 Innovative Water Quality Protection Project, Washington ..................................................... 679,000 

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

Staten Island North/West Shore Rail Plan Study, New York ............................................................... 1,000,000 

Tracking Methods for Intermodal Containerized Freight, Oklahoma ................................................... 1,500,000 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND

Limitation, 2006 ..................................................................................... ($118,014,000) 

Budget estimate, 2007 1 ......................................................................... ........................... 

House allowance .................................................................................... (120,000,000) 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. (123,418,000) 

1Proposed without limitation. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

other Federal entities. The services are centrally performed in the 

interest of economy and efficiency and are funded through nego-
15 

tiated agreements with Department operating administrations and 

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

the maximum extent possible. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation of $123,418,000 on activities financed through the Working Capital Fund. The budget request proposes to remove the obligation limitation on the Working 

Capital Fund for services to the operating administrations of the 

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

an annual limitation is necessary to keep assessments and services 

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

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

to the maximum extent possible. 

MINORITY BUSINESS RESOURCE CENTER PROGRAM

Appropriations Limitation on guar- anteed loans 

Appropriations, 2006 ......................................................................................................... $891,000 ($18,367,000 ) 

Budget estimate, 2007 ..................................................................................................... 891,000 (18,367,000 ) 

House allowance ............................................................................................................... .......................... (18,367,000 ) 

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

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Minority Business Resource Center of the Office of Small 

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

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

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

of this program. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $891,000 to 

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

The recommendation is the same as the budget estimate and is 

equal to the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. The Committee also recommends a limitation on guaranteed loans of $18,367,000, the 

same amount as the budget request and the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

MINORITY BUSINESS OUTREACH

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $2,970,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 2,970,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 2,970,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,970,000 
16 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation provides contractual support to assist small, 

women-owned, Native American, and other disadvantaged business 

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

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

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $2,970,000 for grants and contractual support provided under this program for fiscal year 2007. The 

recommendation is the same as the budget request and the fiscal 

year 2006 enacted level. 

NEW HEADQUARTERS BUILDING

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $49,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 59,400,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 59,400,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation finances the tenant-related costs for a new 

Department of Transportation headquarters building. The proposed 

concept would consolidate all of the department’s headquarters operating administration functions (except FAA), from various locations in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area into leased buildings within the central employment area of the District of Columbia. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $59,400,000 for tenant-related costs 

for new headquarters building. The recommendation is equal to the 

budget estimate and $9,900,000 more than fiscal year 2006 enacted 

level. 

Headquarters Security.—The Committee encourages the Secretary to explore purchasing the requisite software, hardware and 

installation services necessary to meet Homeland Security Presidential Directive-12 standards. The Secretary should explore smart 

card and biometric authentication for access to critical networks 

and applications as well as ingress/egress points in the new DOT 

headquarters building. In addition, the Secretary is encouraged to 

utilize small business concerns in meeting this requirement. 
17 

PAYMENTS TO AIR CARRIERS

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations Mandatory 1 Total 

Appropriations, 2006 1 ............................................................................... $59,400,000 $50,000,000 $109,400,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 .............................................................................. ........................ 50,000,000 50,000,000 

House allowance ........................................................................................ 67,000,000 50,000,000 117,000,000 

Committee recommendation ...................................................................... 67,000,000 50,000,000 117,000,000

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

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation provides additional funding for the Essential 

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

to air carriers serving small communities that meet certain criteria. 

The Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of 1996 

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

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

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

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

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

funds available to the agency. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

For fiscal year 2007, the administration proposes no appropriated 

funds for the EAS program, although the budget includes 

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

collected by the FAA. The Committee recommendation provides a 

total of $117,000,000 for the Essential Air Service program, which 

is comprised of an appropriation under this heading of $67,000,000 

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

available to the FAA. The Committee recommendation is 

$67,000,000 more than the budget estimate and $7,600,000 more 

than the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. Based on the latest projections from the Department of Transportation, the funding level 

that the Committee recommends is sufficient to continue air service 

during fiscal year 2007 for every community currently receiving 

service through the EAS program as of February 1, 2006. 

EAS Program Growth.—The Committee is concerned about the 

substantial growth of the costs of the EAS program and about its 

ability to continue to provide sufficient funding for subsidies so 

that no community currently in the EAS system loses current service levels. The Department will have to renew a number of contracts during fiscal year 2007, and costs of the new contracts are 

expected to increase due to higher fuel prices and other factors. 

While the Committee’s recommended funding level attempts to account for such factors, it is clear that the program will face additional pressure during a time of extreme fiscal constraint. Although 
18 

intended as a temporary program, many communities depend on 

this air service. Consequently, the Committee directs the Secretary 

to consider implementing section 402 of Vision 100—The Century 

of Aviation Reauthorization Act (Public Law 108–176) which permits an increase in the rates of compensation to air carriers due 

to the significant increase in the cost of fuel. This was unanticipated and outside the control of air carriers. 

The following table reflects the points currently receiving service 

and the annual rates as of February 1, 2006 in the continental 

United States and Hawaii. 

SUBSIDIZED EAS COMMUNITIES AS OF FEBRUARY 1, 2006 

[Excludes Communities in Alaska] 

States/Communities 

Est. Miles to 

Nearest Hub 

(S,M,or L) 1

Avg. Daily 

Enplnmnts at 

EAS Point (YE 

9/30/05) 

Ann. Sbsdy 

Rates at 

2/1/2006 

Subsidy per 

Passenger 

Total Psgrs 

(YE 9/30/05) 

ALABAMA: 

Muscle Shoals ............................................. 60 17.4 $1,364,697 $125.11 10,908 

ARIZONA: 

Kingman ...................................................... 121 6.5 $1,001,989 $245.41 4,083 

Page ............................................................ 282 14.6 $1,057,655 $115.68 9,143 

Prescott ....................................................... 102 20.3 $1,001,989 $78.91 12,698 

Show Low .................................................... 154 8.7 $779,325 $142.34 2 5,475 

ARKANSAS: 

El Dorado/Camden ...................................... 107 6.8 $923,456 $218.10 4,234 

Harrison ...................................................... 80 11.6 $1,385,183 $190.35 7,277 

Hot Springs ................................................. 51 10.3 $923,456 $143.73 6,425 

Jonesboro .................................................... 82 8.4 $923,456 $176.13 5,243 

CALIFORNIA: 

Crescent City .............................................. 223 38.2 $816,025 $34.16 23,885 

Merced ........................................................ 60 27.5 $645,751 $37.46 17,237 

Visalia ......................................................... 47 4.2 $450,000 $173.14 2,599 

COLORADO: 

Alamosa ...................................................... 164 16.9 $1,083,538 $102.29 10,593 

Cortez .......................................................... 255 25.8 $853,587 $52.77 16,175 

Pueblo ......................................................... 36 4.9 $780,997 $255.06 3,062 

GEORGIA: 

Athens ......................................................... 72 23.2 $392,108 $27.01 14,516 

HAWAII: 

Hana ........................................................... 35 ( 3 ) $774,718 ( 3 ) ( 3 ) 

Kalaupapa ................................................... .................... ( 3 ) $331,981 ( 3 ) ( 3 ) 

Kamuela ...................................................... 39 ( 3 ) $395,053 ( 3 ) ( 3 ) 

ILLINOIS: 

Decatur ....................................................... 126 34.5 $954,404 $44.20 21,594 

Marion/Herrin .............................................. 123 36.6 $1,251,069 $54.60 22,913 

Quincy ......................................................... 111 27.4 $1,097,406 $63.91 17,170 

IOWA: 

Burlington ................................................... 74 22.1 $1,077,847 $77.99 13,820 

Fort Dodge .................................................. 91 26.8 $1,080,386 $64.37 16,784 

Mason City .................................................. 131 43.6 $1,080,386 $39.59 27,289 

KANSAS: 

Dodge City .................................................. 150 12.5 $1,379,419 $176.22 7,828 

Garden City ................................................. 202 28.4 $1,733,997 $97.53 17,780 

Great Bend .................................................. 114 2.5 $621,945 $403.08 1,543 

Hays ............................................................ 175 24.9 $1,540,392 $98.83 15,586 

Liberal/Guymon, OK .................................... 138 13.9 $1,008,582 $116.14 8,684 

Manhattan .................................................. 122 32.3 $360,803 $17.82 20,243 

Salina .......................................................... 97 7.6 $360,803 $75.75 4,763 

KENTUCKY: 

Owensboro ................................................... 105 10.3 $1,127,453 $175.64 6,419 

MAINE: 

Augusta/Waterville ...................................... 67 14.8 $1,065,475 $114.83 9,279 

Bar Harbor .................................................. 144 33.4 $1,065,475 $50.91 20,928 
19 

SUBSIDIZED EAS COMMUNITIES AS OF FEBRUARY 1, 2006—Continued 

[Excludes Communities in Alaska] 

States/Communities 

Est. Miles to 

Nearest Hub 

(S,M,or L) 1

Avg. Daily 

Enplnmnts at 

EAS Point (YE 

9/30/05) 

Ann. Sbsdy 

Rates at 

2/1/2006 

Subsidy per 

Passenger 

Total Psgrs 

(YE 9/30/05) 

Presque Isle ................................................ 262 52.9 $1,116,423 $33.73 33,097 

Rockland ..................................................... 81 23.0 $1,065,475 $73.87 14,424 

MARYLAND: 

Hagerstown ................................................. 60 20.6 $649,929 $50.42 12,891 

MICHIGAN: 

Escanaba .................................................... 112 35.9 $290,952 $12.96 22,450 

Iron Mountain/Kingsford ............................. 105 29.0 $602,761 $33.19 18,163 

Ironwood/Ashland, WI ................................. 213 10.4 $409,242 $62.68 6,529 

Manistee/Ludington .................................... 110 7.9 $776,051 $156.40 4,962 

MINNESOTA: 

Chisholm/Hibbing ....................................... 199 33.7 $1,279,329 $60.72 21,069 

Thief River Falls ......................................... 305 15.2 $777,709 $81.73 9,516 

MISSISSIPPI: 

Laurel/Hattiesburg ...................................... 89 48.1 $1,100,253 $36.55 30,106 

MISSOURI: 

Cape Girardeau ........................................... 127 20.3 $1,147,453 $90.15 12,728 

Fort Leonard Wood ...................................... 85 25.3 $683,201 $43.05 15,869 

Joplin ........................................................... 70 30.9 $755,762 $39.01 19,374 

Kirksville ..................................................... 137 4.4 $840,200 $306.42 2,742 

MONTANA: 

Glasgow ...................................................... 285 6.9 $823,591 $190.25 4,329 

Glendive ...................................................... 222 3.6 $823,591 $368.17 2,237 

Havre ........................................................... 230 5.0 $823,591 $263.55 3,125 

Lewistown ................................................... 103 2.8 $823,591 $472.78 1,742 

Miles City .................................................... 145 3.9 $823,591 $341.17 2,414 

Sidney ......................................................... 272 11.5 $823,591 $114.71 7,180 

West Yellowstone ........................................ 332 13.8 $418,488 $48.32 8,660 

Wolf Point ................................................... 293 5.7 $823,591 $229.60 3,587 

NEBRASKA: 

Alliance ....................................................... 233 4.5 $655,898 $233.25 2,812 

Chadron ...................................................... 290 4.9 $655,898 $215.54 3,043 

Grand Island ............................................... 138 24.3 $1,198,396 $78.89 15,190 

Kearney ....................................................... 181 21.1 $1,166,849 $88.32 13,212 

McCook ........................................................ 256 6.3 $1,502,651 $379.55 3,959 

North Platte ................................................ 255 24.7 $870,504 $56.29 15,465 

Scottsbluff .................................................. 192 28.5 $494,887 $27.75 17,836 

NEVADA: 

Ely ............................................................... 234 6.9 $698,078 $161.33 4327 

NEW HAMPSHIRE: 

Lebanon ...................................................... 72 28.4 $998,752 $56.21 17,769 

NEW MEXICO: 

Alamogordo/Holoman AFB ........................... 89 ( 4 ) $592,170 ( 4 ) ( 4 ) 

Carlsbad ..................................................... 149 14.0 $599,671 $68.63 8,738 

Clovis .......................................................... 102 6.8 $859,057 $201.75 4,258 

Hobbs .......................................................... 90 4.9 $519,614 $168.21 3,089 

Silver City/Hurley/Deming ........................... 134 6.6 $859,057 $206.85 4,153 

NEW YORK: 

Jamestown .................................................. 68 26.6 $501,937 $30.10 16,676 

Massena ...................................................... 138 10.7 $585,945 $87.85 6,670 

Ogdensburg ................................................. 105 6.4 $585,945 $146.67 3,995 

Plattsburgh ................................................. 82 4.1 $753,964 $294.17 2,563 

Saranac Lake .............................................. 132 7.4 $753,964 $161.83 4,659 

Watertown ................................................... 54 16.7 $585,945 $56.11 10,443 

NORTH DAKOTA: 

Devils Lake ................................................. 402 7.2 $1,329,858 $296.18 4,490 

Dickinson .................................................... 319 16.4 $1,697,248 $165.75 10,240 

Jamestown .................................................. 333 9.9 $1,351,677 $217.63 6,211 

OKLAHOMA: 

Enid ............................................................. 84 3.5 $636,279 $289.88 2,195 

Ponca City ................................................... 80 2.6 $636,279 $387.03 1,644 
20 

SUBSIDIZED EAS COMMUNITIES AS OF FEBRUARY 1, 2006—Continued 

[Excludes Communities in Alaska] 

States/Communities 

Est. Miles to 

Nearest Hub 

(S,M,or L) 1

Avg. Daily 

Enplnmnts at 

EAS Point (YE 

9/30/05) 

Ann. Sbsdy 

Rates at 

2/1/2006 

Subsidy per 

Passenger 

Total Psgrs 

(YE 9/30/05) 

OREGON: 

Pendleton .................................................... 185 21.6 $649,974 $47.99 13,545 

PENNSYLVANIA: 

Altoona ........................................................ 112 20.9 $893,774 $68.16 13,112 

Bradford ...................................................... 77 19.3 $501,937 $41.48 12,102 

Du Bois ....................................................... 112 33.2 $643,818 $31.01 20,764 

Johnstown ................................................... 84 39.3 $464,777 $18.89 24,610 

Lancaster .................................................... 69 19.0 $1,611,707 $135.72 11,875 

Oil City/Franklin .......................................... 85 10.3 $683,636 $105.78 6,463 

PUERTO RICO: 

Mayaguez .................................................... 105 33.3 $688,551 $33.08 2 20,818 

Ponce .......................................................... 77 11.2 $622,056 $88.54 2 7,025 

SOUTH DAKOTA: 

Brookings .................................................... 206 2.5 $1,039,364 $677.11 1,535 

Huron .......................................................... 281 4.6 $1,039,364 $361.27 2,877 

Pierre ........................................................... 395 20.3 $449,912 $35.43 12,699 

Watertown ................................................... 207 31.1 $1,211,589 $62.30 19,448 

TENNESSEE: 

Jackson ....................................................... 86 7.2 $1,179,026 $261.54 4,508 

TEXAS: 

Victoria ........................................................ 93 34.3 $510,185 $23.76 21,470 

UTAH: 

Cedar City ................................................... 179 42.4 $1,068,607 $40.22 26,567 

Moab ........................................................... 256 3.1 $674,804 $344.99 1,956 

Vernal .......................................................... 150 4.6 $595,436 $208.56 2,855 

VERMONT: 

Rutland ....................................................... 69 6.7 $849,705 $202.89 4,188 

VIRGINIA: 

Staunton ..................................................... 113 18.3 $650,123 $56.73 11,460 

WASHINGTON: 

Ephrata/Moses Lake ................................... 102 11.8 $1,698,922 $230.30 7,377 

WEST VIRGINIA: 

Beckley ........................................................ 168 6.3 $977,858 $247.12 3,957 

Bluefield/Princeton ...................................... 133 6.3 $977,858 $247.25 3,955 

Clarksburg/Fairmont ................................... 96 27.6 $306,109 $17.72 17,270 

Greenbrier/W.SulphSpr/LWB ........................ 166 15.8 $540,579 $54.50 9,918 

Morgantown ................................................ 75 35.7 $306,109 $13.68 22,379 

Parkersburg ................................................. 110 52.0 $439,115 $13.50 32,528 

WYOMING: 

Laramie ....................................................... 145 27.1 $397,400 $23.44 16,956 

Riverton ....................................................... 305 37.6 $394,046 $16.75 23,519 

Rock Springs ............................................... 189 45.0 $390,488 $13.85 28,195 

Sheridan ...................................................... 132 42.0 $336,701 $12.79 26,318 

Worland ....................................................... 161 6.1 $797,844 $208.42 3,828 

1 Hub classifications are subject to change annually based on the changes in enplanement levels at the specific hub and at all airports Nationwide. 2 11 months annualized. 

3 Incomplete traffic data. 

4 Service hiatus. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF

TRANSPORTATION

Section 101. The Committee authorizes the Administrator of the 

Federal Aviation Administration to reimburse amounts made available pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 41742(a)(1) from fees credited under 49 

U.S.C. 45303. 

Section 102. The Committee authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to transfer to the account called ‘‘Minority Business Outreach’’ unexpended balances from the bonding assistance program 
21 

funded out of the account ‘‘Office of the Secretary, Salaries and Expenses.’’ 

Section 103. The Committee prohibits the Office of the Secretary 

of Transportation from obligating funds originally provided to a 

modal administration in order to approve assessments or reimbursable agreements, unless the Department follows the regular process for reprogramming funds, including congressional notification. 

Section 104. The Committee prohibits the Department of Transportation from amending regulations that define ‘‘actual control’’ of 

a domestic air carrier under the proposed ‘‘open skies’’ policy. 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal Aviation Administration is responsible for the safe 

movement of civil aviation and the evolution of a national system 

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

Department of Commerce pursuant to the Air Commerce Act of 

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

to navigation; arrange for research and development to improve 

such aids; issue airworthiness certificates for aircraft and major 

aircraft components; and investigate civil aviation accidents. In the 

Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938, these activities were transferred to 

a new, independent agency named the Civil Aeronautics Authority. 

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

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

Agency was renamed the Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] 

and became one of several modal administrations within DOT. The 

Civil Aeronautics Board was later phased out with enactment of 

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

Responsibility for the investigation of civil aviation accidents was 

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

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

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The total recommended program level for the FAA for fiscal year 2007 amounts to $8,366,000,000, which is $261,860,000 more than 

the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. The following table summarizes 

the Committee’s recommendations: 

Fiscal year— Committee recommendation 2006 enacted 2007 request 

Operations ................................................................................ $8,104,000,000 $8,366,000,000 $8,366,000,000 

General fund appropriation ............................................ .............................. 2,921,000,000 2,921,000,000

Trust fund appropriation ................................................ (5,485,590,000 ) (5,445,000,000 ) (5,445,000,000 ) 

Flight service stations transition costs .......................... (148,500,000 ) .............................. ..............................
22 

Fiscal year— Committee recommendation 2006 enacted 2007 request 

Facilities and equipment 1 ....................................................... 2,555,000,000 2,503,000,000 2,549,510,000 

Research, engineering, and development ............................... 136,620,000 130,000,000 135,500,000 

Grants-in-aid for airports ........................................................ 3,514,500,000 2,750,000,000 3,520,000,000 

Total ............................................................................ 14,310,000,000 13,749,000,000 14,571,010,000 

1 Does not include emergency appropriation of $40,600,000 in Public Law 108–324. 

OPERATIONS

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $8,104,141,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 8,366,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 8,360,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 8,366,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

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

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

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

the national air traffic system, including the establishment and 

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

regulation and certification activities including establishment and 

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

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

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

offices. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total of $8,366,000,000 for FAA 

operations, an increase of $261,860,000 above the level provided for 

fiscal year 2006 and the same as the budget estimate. The Committee recommendation derives $5,445,000,000 of the appropriation 

from the airport and airway trust fund. The level is equal to the 

budget estimate. The balance of the appropriation will be drawn 

from the general fund of the Treasury. 

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

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

control system. 

Second Career Training Program.—The Committee includes language which prohibits the use of funds for the second career training program. 

Sunday Premium Pay.—The Committee prohibits FAA from paying Sunday premium pay, except in those cases where the individual actually worked on a Sunday. 
23 

Manned Auxiliary Flight Service Stations.—The Committee continues a prohibition against the use of funds for operating a 

manned auxiliary flight service station in the contiguous United 

States. 

Aeronautical Charting and Cartography.—The Committee prohibits the use of funds to conduct aeronautical charting and cartography [AC&C] activities through the working capital fund [WCF]. 

Public Law 106–181 had authorized the transfer of these activities 

from the Department of Commerce to the FAA. 

Government-issued Credit Cards.—The Committee prohibits the 

use of a government-issued credit card to purchase a store gift card 

or gift certificate. 

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendation in comparison to the budget estimate and fiscal year 2006 enacted level: 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year— Committee recommendation 2006 enacted 2007 budget 

estimate 

Air Traffic Organization ....................................................................... $6,549,758 $6,704,223 $6,690,108

Aviation Safety ..................................................................................... 948,957 981,668 997,718 

Commercial Space Transportation ....................................................... 11,641 11,985 11,722 

Financial Services ................................................................................ 50,473 94,708 93,620 

Human Resource Management ............................................................ 69,244 87,850 87,850 

Region and Center Operations ............................................................ 149,237 272,821 272,821 

Staff Offices ......................................................................................... 140,580 175,392 175,655 

Information Services ............................................................................ 35,751 36,779 36,506 

Flight Service Stations Transition ....................................................... 148,500 .......................... ..........................

TOTAL ...................................................................................... 8,117,083 8,366,000 8,366,000 

AIR TRAFFIC ORGANIZATION

The Committee recommends $6,690,108,000 for the Air Traffic 

Organization to operate and maintain the national air traffic control system. The recommended level is $140,350,000 more than the 

fiscal year 2006 enacted level. The Committee is confident that the 

recommended funding level is sufficient to continue safe and efficient management of the National Airspace System [NAS]. 

Air Traffic Controller Contract.—Recently, the FAA implemented 

a new contract for its air traffic controller workforce. Under this 

contract, most current air traffic controllers would continue to receive their existing base salaries and benefits while newly hired 

controllers would be hired at lower wage rates. The FAA has maintained that this contract will result in significant cost savings, freeing up resources for other critical agency needs. However, the Committee is concerned that the imposition of these new contract terms 

could result in an even larger number of senior controllers choosing 

to retire than was originally contemplated by the FAA. Given the 

overarching need for the agency to retain a seasoned and experienced workforce to maintain safety, the Committee plans to monitor this situation carefully. As such, in addition to the prompt and 

regular submission of the controller workforce staffing plan, the 

Committee directs FAA to report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on the extent of controller retirements and 

any trends they are experiencing in comparison to the number of 
24 

retirements anticipated by the FAA for the current year and the 

number of retirements experienced in prior years. This report is 

due no later than April 15, 2007. 

FAA Workforce Plans.—The bill includes provisions that require 

the FAA to submit to Congress its annual air traffic controller 

workforce plan by March 1 of each year, and that would reduce the 

appropriation to the FAA’s Operations account by $100,000 for 

each day that the report is late. The Committee is greatly frustrated by the FAA’s failure to transmit an update to its workforce 

plan. The original plan was transmitted to Congress in December 

2004, and despite promises that the plan would be updated annually, the Committee is still waiting for the revised plan. On May 

4, 2006, the Administrator testified before the Committee that an 

updated report would be submitted in a short period of time. The 

report, however, is now seven months late. The Committee directs 

the FAA to submit its 2006 plan immediately. The Committee also 

notes that half of the FAA’s inspector workforce is expected to retire by the year 2010. The Committee believes that an effective 

safety staff is vital to protecting the public, and that supporting 

this staff is essential to ensuring the safety of an increasing complex aviation system. Consequently, the bill includes a provision 

that requires the FAA to submit to Congress a workforce plan that 

describes a strategy for maintaining a sufficient aviation safety 

staff that is similar in its content and identical in its format to the 

air traffic controller workforce plan. The Committee expects the 

aviation safety workforce plan will provide a background to the 

current staffing levels, describe the challenges to hiring sufficient 

safety staff, forecast expected attrition, set specific and realistic 

hiring targets over a ten-year period, and detail strategies for 

meeting staffing needs through better management practices in the 

same manner as was utilized in the initial air traffic controller 

workforce plan. The bill includes a provision that would reduce the 

appropriation to the FAA’s Operations account by $100,000 for 

each day that the report is late. 

Air Traffic Control Supervisor Staffing.—The Committee remains 

concerned that there are not enough Air Traffic Control Supervisors in place to assure flight safety. Additional supervisors are 

necessary to reduce operational errors that have led to dangerous 

runway incursions and serious in flight errors. To remedy this, 

Congress mandated in fiscal year 2005 Transportation Appropriations bill that the FAA have 1,846 supervisors in place by September 30, 2005. The FAA only had 1,801 in September and the 

number has since fallen to 1,777 on March 18, 2006 at the same 

time operational errors continue to rise. We are concerned that the 

FAA is moving in the wrong direction and is not promoting controllers to supervisory ranks. The Committee expects the FAA to fill 

supervisor vacancies and to meet the mandated floor of 1,846 Supervisors. The Committee directs FAA to submit a report by January 31, 2007, stating how many Air Traffic Control Supervisors are 

in place on September 30, 2006 and the FAA’s plan to hire additional supervisors to address the problem of increased operational 

errors. 

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

$1,600,000 to continue the implementation of the Alien Species Ac-
25 

tion Plan which was adopted by the FAA as part of its August 26, 

1998, record of decision approving certain improvements at 

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

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

AVIATION SAFETY

The Committee recommends $997,718,000 for aviation safety. 

The recommendation is $48,761,000 more than the enacted level. 

Aviation Safety Inspectors and Aircraft Certification Staff.—The 

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

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

in the Office of Aviation Flight Standards [AFS] and the Office of 

Aircraft Certification [AIR]. The bill specifies that $32,474,408—or 

two-thirds of the total funding for aviation safety—shall be used to 

increase the staff of the AFS office and that $16,237,204—or onethird of the total—shall be used to increase the staff of the AIR office. The bill also prohibits the FAA from reprogramming those 

funds between the two offices or transferring the funds to any 

other activity. 

For fiscal year 2006, the Committee provided $12,000,000 above 

the budget request with the expectation that the FAA would increase safety staff by 238 new safety personnel. This increase in 

funding included $8,000,000 for AFS inpectors, and $4,000,000 for 

AIR safety inspectors, engineers, pilots, and scientists. In May, the 

Committee was disappointed to learn that the FAA would be able 

to add only 171 new employees to its safety staff. The Committee 

recognizes that the across-the-board cut and mandatory pay raise 

enacted for fiscal year 2006 constrains the FAA’s ability to hire 

more aggressively; however, the Committee remains convinced that 

the staffing levels in the offices of flight standards and aircraft certification are not satisfactory. The Committee is especially concerned that the dearth of safety inspectors limits the FAA’s ability 

to protect the safety of our air transportation system. 

Finally, the Committee is frustrated by the FAA’s failure to provide timely information on its hiring practices. The Committee repeatedly requested for information from the FAA on the progress 

the agency was making in increasing its safety staff, but never received an adequate response until days before the Committee held 

a hearing on the FAA’s budget. Furthermore, the Committee notes 

that FAA has not yet followed directions in the Statement of Managers of the 2006 Act that instructs the FAA to provide semi-annual reports on its safety staff. In light of this communication gap, 

the bill now includes a requirement for the FAA to provide quarterly reports on the agency’s progress in increasing the staff of its 

safety offices. 

Medallion Program.—The Committee recommends $5,000,000 to 

continue the medallion five star shield program, a key safety initiative in the FAA’s current strategic plan for reducing general aviation accidents in Alaska. 
26 

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $2,514,600,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 2,503,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 3,110,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,549,510,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Facilities and Equipment [F&E] appropriation provides 

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

improvements to enhance the safety and capacity of the airspace 

system. The program aims to keep pace with the increasing demands of aeronautical activity and remain in accordance with the 

Federal Aviation Administration’s comprehensive 5-year capital investment plan [CIP]. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,549,510,000 

for the Facilities and Equipment of the Federal Aviation Administration. The Committee recommendation is $46,510,000 more than 

the budget estimate and $34,910,000 more than the fiscal year 

2006 enacted level. The bill provides that $2,101,610,000 is available for obligation until September 30, 2009, and $447,900,000 is 

available until September 30, 2007. 

The Committee recommendations focus on reinforcing greater accountability and mission goals, and strive for better or alternative 

ways of improving and modernizing the system. Furthermore, in 

reviewing the budget estimate for this account, the Committee has 

placed priority on funding programs necessary to upgrade current 

equipment for future capacity requirements or programs that will 

enable the FAA to proceed with initiatives to improve safety and 

initiatives to alleviate congestion, reduce aircraft spacing, and increase the efficiency of the NAS. 

The Committee reiterates the need for the FAA to take immediate steps to control personnel cost growth and to impose budget 

and schedule discipline on major acquisition programs in a time of 

fiscal constraints and declining capital budget funding. Our Nation’s air traffic control system has failed to keep up with the increasing and changing demands of civil aviation, and the FAA will 

not be able to meet future demands and needs without changing 

and improving the ways the agency modernizes the NAS. This 

challenge is unlikely to be met without changing the FAA culture. 

Ultimately, changing the FAA culture is a long-term proposition, 

but the failure to do so will harm the aviation industry, inconvenience the flying public, and serve as an obstacle to national economic growth. 

Budget Activities Format.—The Committee directs that the fiscal 

year 2008 budget request for the Facilities and Equipment account 

conform to the same organizational structure of budget activities. 
27 

The Committee’s recommended distribution of funds for each of 

the budget activities funded by the appropriation follows: 

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT 

2007 estimate Committee recommendation 

Activity 1, Engineering, Development, Testing and Evaluation: 

Advanced Technology Development and Prototyping .................................................... $45,100,000 $50,100,000 

Safe Flight 21 (SF–21) .................................................................................................. 19,700,000 30,700,000 

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

Next Generation VHF Air/Ground Communications System (NEXCOM) .......................... 25,000,000 25,000,000 

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

NAS Improvement of System Support Laboratory .......................................................... 1,000,000 1,000,000 

William J. Hughes Technical Center Facilities .............................................................. 12,000,000 12,000,000 

William J. Hughes Technical Center Infrastructure Sustainment ................................. 4,200,000 4,200,000 

System-Wide Information Management (SWIM) ............................................................ 24,000,000 24,000,000 

ADS-B NAS Wide Implementation .................................................................................. 80,000,000 80,000,000 

Total, Activity 1 ......................................................................................................... 249,600,000 265,600,000 

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

En Route Programs: 

En Route Automation Modernization (ERAM) ....................................................... 375,700,000 375,700,000 

En Route Systems Modification ............................................................................ 27,500,000 27,500,000 

Next Generation Weather Radar (NEXRAD)—Provide ........................................... 2,000,000 2,000,000 

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

ARTCC Building Improvements/Plant Improvements ............................................ 51,000,000 51,000,000 

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

Air/Ground Communications Infrastructure .......................................................... 16,500,000 16,500,000 

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

Air Traffic Control En route Radar Facilities Improvements ................................ 5,000,000 5,000,000 

En Route Communications and Control Facilities Improvements ........................ 1,883,769 1,883,769 

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

FAA Telecommunications Infrastructure (FTI) ....................................................... 28,000,000 28,000,000 

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

Air Traffic Operations Management System (ATOMS) .......................................... 6,000,000 6,000,000 

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

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

Volcano Monitoring ............................................................................................... ........................ 5,000,000 

Terminal Programs: 

Airport Surface Detection Equipment—Model X (ASDE–X) ................................. 63,600,000 63,600,000 

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

Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System (STARS) (TAMR Phase 

1) ...................................................................................................................... 49,200,000 49,200,000 

Terminal Automation Program .............................................................................. 13,800,000 13,800,000 

Terminal Air Traffic Control Facilities—Replace ................................................. 124,000,000 149,000,000 

ATCT/Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) Facilities—Improve .............. 44,233,563 44,233,563 

Terminal Voice Switch Replacement (TVSR)/Enhancement Terminal Voice 

Switch (ETVS) ................................................................................................... 11,300,000 11,300,000 

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

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

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

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

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

Terminal Radar (ASR)—Improve .......................................................................... 2,022,848 3,532,848 

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

Runway Status Lights (RWSL) .............................................................................. 13,700,000 13,700,000 

Terminal Automation Modernization/Replacement Program (TAMR Phase 2) ..... 30,450,000 30,450,000 

National Airspace System Voice Switch (NVS) ..................................................... 1,000,000 1,000,000 

Weather System Processor (WSP) ......................................................................... 1,000,000 1,000,000 

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

Flight Service Programs: 

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

FSAS Operational and Supportability Implementation System (OASIS) ............... 8,300,000 8,300,000 

Flight Service Station (FSS) Modernization .......................................................... 6,000,000 6,000,000 
28 

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT—Continued 

2007 estimate Committee recommendation 

Landing and Nav Aids: 

VHF Omnidirectional Radio Range (VOR) with Distance Measuring Equipment 

(DME) ................................................................................................................ 5,000,000 5,000,000 

Instrument Landing System (ILS)—Establish ...................................................... 4,000,000 8,000,000 

Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) for GPS ............................................... 122,400,000 97,400,000 

Runway Visual Range (RVR) ................................................................................ 5,000,000 5,000,000 

LORAN-C ................................................................................................................ ........................ 10,000,000 

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

Approach Lighting System Improvement Program (ALSIP) .................................. 12,000,000 22,000,000 

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

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

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

Navigation and Landing Aids—Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) ............. 5,000,000 5,000,000 

VASI Replacement—Replace with Precision Approach Indicator ........................ 3,000,000 3,000,000 

Other ATC Facilities Programs: 

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

FAA Buildings and Equipment .............................................................................. 12,000,000 12,000,000 

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

Aircraft Related Equipment Program ................................................................... 11,000,000 11,000,000 

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

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

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

Facilities Decommissioning—NDB ....................................................................... 12,600,000 12,600,000 

Electrical Power System—Sustain/Support .......................................................... 38,000,000 38,000,000 

Total, Activity 2 ................................................................................................ 1,438,100,000 1,468,610,000 

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

Support Programs: 

Hazardous Materials Management ....................................................................... 20,000,000 20,000,000 

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

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

Test Equipment—Maintenance Support for Replacement ................................... 1,500,000 1,500,000 

National Airspace System (NAS) Recovery Communications (RCOM) .................. 10,000,000 10,000,000 

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

Information Security .............................................................................................. 12,000,000 12,000,000 

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

Aviation Safety Knowledge Management Environment (ASKME) .......................... 4,600,000 4,600,000 

Training, Equipment and Facilities: 

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

National Airspace System (NAS) Training Facilities ............................................ 14,000,000 14,000,000 

Distance Learning ................................................................................................. 1,500,000 1,500,000 

Total, Activity 3 ................................................................................................ 135,200,000 135,200,000 

Activity 4, Facilities and Equipment Mission Support: 

System Support and Support Services: 

System Engineering and Development Support ................................................... 25,900,000 25,900,000 

Program Support Leases ....................................................................................... 45,000,000 45,000,000 

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

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

Transition Engineering Support ............................................................................ 24,700,000 24,700,000

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

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

Resource Tracking Program (RTP) ........................................................................ 1,700,000 1,700,000 

Center for Advanced Aviation System Development (CAASD) .............................. 70,000,000 70,000,000 

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

Total, Activity 4 ................................................................................................ 232,200,000 232,200,000 

Activity 5, Personnel Compensation, Benefits, and Travel: 

Personnel and Related Expenses ................................................................................... 447,900,000 447,900,000 
29 

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT—Continued 

2007 estimate Committee recommendation 

Total, Activity 5 ......................................................................................................... 447,900,000 447,900,000 

Total, All Activities .................................................................................................... 2,503,000,000 2,549,510,000 

Advanced Technology Development and Prototyping.—The Advanced Technology Development and Prototyping [ATDP] program 

develops and validates technologies that support a range of timely 

and critical initiatives within the Engineering, Development, Test 

and Evaluation activity. The Committee recommends $50,100,000 

to be distributed as follows: 

Committee recommendation 

Runway incursion reduction program ................................................................................................................ $8,000,000 

System capacity, planning, and improvement .................................................................................................. 5,500,000 

General aviation and vertical flight technology program ................................................................................. 2,000,000 

Operational concept validation .......................................................................................................................... 3,000,000 

Safer skies ......................................................................................................................................................... 3,600,000 

Wake turbulence ................................................................................................................................................. 1,000,000 

Airspace management laboratory ...................................................................................................................... 4,000,000 

NAS requirements ............................................................................................................................................... 800,000 

Wind profiling and weather research Juneau .................................................................................................... 1,100,000 

Runway obstruction warning system ................................................................................................................. 2,000,000 

Mobile object infrastructure technology ............................................................................................................ 3,000,000 

Airspace redesign ............................................................................................................................................... 2,800,000 

ATO strategy and evaluation ............................................................................................................................. 2,000,000 

Energy management and efficiency compliance ............................................................................................... 5,000,000 

Market based competitive sourcing ................................................................................................................... 3,800,000 

Dynamic capital planning .................................................................................................................................. 2,500,000 

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

continue development, enhancement, and evaluation of the Runway 

Obstruction Warning System at the test bed at Gulfport-Biloxi Airport. 

Mobile Object Infrastructure Technology.—The Committee recommends $3,000,000 to advance technology to pre-deployment status and demonstrate the mobile object infrastructure technology’s 

ability to provide remote maintenance and monitoring; data collection from disparate and unspecified sources; quality assurance in 

a secure and dynamic infrastructure; and, to establish one of FAA’s 

labs as an official system wide information management node. 

Safe Flight 21.—The Committee supports the Safe Flight 21 pro- gram and recommends $30,700,000, an increase of $11,000,000 

above the budget estimate. The Committee is disappointed that the 

administration has slashed the overall funding for Safe Flight 21; 

a program that is critical to the safety of general aviation in Alaska. The Committee urges the administration and FAA to be more 

sensitive to this and other important aviation programs. 

System-Wide Information Management [SWIM].—The bill includes $24,000,000 for the System Wide Information Management 

[SWIM] program, which will provide the foundation necessary for 

transforming the national airspace system into a network-centric 

operation. The Committee urges the FAA not to focus on narrowly 

defined connectivity projects and upgrades for existing FAA sys-
30 

tems, and instead directs the FAA to use the funding provided to 

continue the developments in the overall SWIM architecture, 

standards, core information services, and demonstrations that are 

underway in the Global Communications, Navigation, Surveillance 

System program. In addition, the Committee urges the FAA to 

align its work on SWIM with the efforts of the Joint Planning and 

Development Office to build the next generation air transportation 

system. The Committee directs the FAA to submit a report to the 

Committee not later than January 30, 2007, that details how the 

agency will spend the $24,000,000 provided for SWIM, including 

how much of the funding will be spent directly on SWIM systems 

architecture, standards and core information services. The Committee expects that all major information and automation programs 

in the national airspace system will use their existing program 

funds to support connectivity to the SWIM architecture. The Committee directs the FAA to highlight its plans and the funds allocated for achieving SWIM compliance and connectivity for each appropriate item in the Facilities and Equipment account in the 

agency’s budget justifications for fiscal year 2008. 

Volcano Monitoring.—The Committee recommendation provides $5,000,000 to continue the volcano monitoring program. 

Air Traffic Control Training Simulators.—The Committee recommends that the FAA continue to procure control tower simulators under an existing Air Force contract, which was a full and 

open competition, in order to continue upgrading their training capabilities in order to meet the needs identified in the Controller 

Workforce Plan [CWP] and the Capital Investment Plan [CIP]. The 

Committee understands that the FAA can request the Air Force to 

extend the existing contract by making a formal request to the Air 

Force to extend the time and pricing considerations. Currently, 

there are 121 tower control training simulators in place supporting 

ATC training in the United States with the military, the FAA and 

several universities that support the FAA’s Collegiate Training Initiative [CTI] program. 

Terminal Air Traffic Control Facilities Replacement.—The Committee recommendation includes $149,000,000 for new and replacement air traffic control tower [ATCT] and ATCT/TRACON consolidation projects, an increase of $25,000,000 from the budget request. 

Funding shall be available for the following projects in the corresponding amounts: 

Location Amount 

Kalamazoo, MI ...................................................................................................................................................... $1,800,000 

West Palm Beach, FL ........................................................................................................................................... 10,000,000 

Reno, NV ............................................................................................................................................................... 2,500,000 

Cleveland, OH ....................................................................................................................................................... 3,700,000 

Memphis, TN ........................................................................................................................................................ 22,400,000 

Jeffco, CO ............................................................................................................................................................. 4,200,000 

Palm Springs, CA ................................................................................................................................................. 2,000,000 

Houston, TX .......................................................................................................................................................... 2,000,000 

Gulfport, MS ......................................................................................................................................................... 10,000,000 

Las Vegas, NV ...................................................................................................................................................... 55,000,000 

Pensacola, FL ....................................................................................................................................................... 1,100,000 

Boise, ID ............................................................................................................................................................... 7,000,000 

Dayton, OH ........................................................................................................................................................... 2,200,000 

Barnstable, MA ..................................................................................................................................................... 250,000 
31 

Reprogramming of Appropriated Funds for Tower and TRACON 

Replacements.—The Committee notes that the FAA has initiated 

an effort to evaluate and prioritize the need to replace individual 

air traffic control towers and terminal radar approach control facilities. Part of this effort has included the preparation of a long-overdue accounting of prior-appropriated funds for this activity. Too 

often in the past, the FAA has delayed the construction of necessary projects for which funds had already been appropriated in 

order to reprogram resources to alternative projects without congressional notification or consultation. Most recently, the FAA has 

sought to alter this practice by seeking a formal reprogramming of 

funds toward the replacement of LaGuardia tower [LGA]. Much of 

this funding proposed to be reprogrammed for the LGA tower is to 

be derived from monies appropriated for some 20 other projects in 

2004 and 2005. 

At this point in time, the Committee has no choice but to approve this reprogramming. Much of the funding proposed for reprogramming was initially appropriated in 2004 and is now at risk 

of lapsing due to the agency’s failure to spend the funding on the 

projects for which they were intended. For example, almost none of 

the funds that the Committee appropriated for fiscal year 2004 for 

the replacement of towers at Las Vegas, Nevada, Missoula, Montana, Traverse City, Michigan, Dayton, Ohio, and Kalamazoo, 

Michigan have been spent. The FAA has stated that they are likely 

to pursue those projects some time in the future and, if necessary, 

seek additional funding to complete them either through additional 

reprogrammings or through new requests for appropriations. The 

Committee should not have to appropriate funding twice for the 

same project due to the agency’s bureaucratic dithering and its failure to rapidly initiate design and construction of the projects that 

have been funded. Moreover, the Committee is concerned that the 

FAA’s commitment to seek the necessary funding to complete these 

projects at some later time might prove to be a hollow promise, 

given the administration’s propensity to propose funding cuts for 

the aviation capital programs and the pressure the FAA will face 

to fund other modernization needs. 

As such, the Committee has appropriated $25,000,000 in this bill 

to immediately replace the funds that have been reprogrammed 

away from tower projects that have not yet been completed and 

will need more funds in the future. These funds have been provided 

in lieu of funding the Administrator’s request for the Wide Area 

Augmentation System [WAAS] which the Committee views as a 

lower priority. In making these funds available now, the Committee directs the Administrator to move out immediately with the 

completion of these projects. The Committee expects the Administrator to revisit her schedule for initiating design and construction 

for the projects cited above. The Committee has no intention of 

waiting until 2010 or later to see construction contracts awarded 

for tower replacement projects that received initial appropriations 

as long ago as 2001. In the future, baring any unusual circumstance, the Committee expects the FAA to restrict funding for 

any specific tower replacement to the facility for which it is appropriated. 
32 

Terminal Digital Radar (ASR–11).—The Committee recommends 

$44,050,000, the same amount as the budget request. The ASR–11 

program will replace 100 existing FAA radar systems at low-to-medium density terminal facilities. 

The Committee is aware of the desire for a terminal radar to 

serve the regions of Utah County, Utah and Las Vegas, Nevada. 

The Committee encourages the FAA to work with Utah County, 

Utah and Las Vegas, Nevada to improve radar coverage for both 

areas. 

Terminal Radar [ASR]—Improve.—The Committee has provided $3,532,848 for the improvement of terminal radar [ASR] infrastructure throughout the NAS. Within the amount provided, $600,000 

shall be for in-service engineering and $1,422,848 shall be for radar 

improvements in Tulsa, Oklahoma; Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas; 

Tampa, Florida; Azle, Texas, Denver, Colorado; and Roanoke, Virginia. The remaining $1,510,000 shall be for the relocation of the 

ASR–8 radar at Bismarck, North Dakota. 

Instrument Landing System [ILS] Establishment.—The Committee recommends $8,000,000 for establishment of instrument 

landing systems. The Committee directs funds to be distributed as 

follows: 

$1,300,000 to establish an ILS at Aiken Municipal Airport, South 

Carolina; 

$750,000 to establish and ILS at Alliance Municipal Airport in 

Alliance, Nebraska; 

$2,200,000 To upgrade ILS to Category III on Runway 31, Atlantic City, New Jersey; and $2,400,000 To acquire and install ILS at Council Bluffs Municipal Airport, Iowa. 

Approach Lighting System Improvement Program [ALSIP].—The 

Committee recommends $22,000,000 for the procurement and installation of frangible approach lighting equipment including high 

intensity approach lighting system with sequenced flashing lights 

[ALSF–2] and medium intensity approach lighting system 

[MALSR]. The amount provided is $8,000,000 more than the budget request. The Committee expects that $4,000,000 of the amount 

provided above the request shall be used to install previously procured MALSR systems presently stored in the FAA depot, utilizing 

the same four-phase approach presently being utilized for the installation of these systems: $1,000,000, the Committee expects the 

FAA to procure two Low Cost MALSR systems for the continued 

evaluation of this new technology system, which will reduce life 

cycle costs; and the recommendation includes $5,000,000 to continue the program of providing lighting systems at rural airfields 

throughout Alaska. 

Loran-C.—The Committee recommends $10,000,000 to continue 

the program to modernize the Loran-C navigation system. The 

Committee is aware that recapitalization of the loran 

radionavigational system in the contiguous United States has 

largely been completed, but notes that substantial work remains in 

Alaska. Ultimately there needs to be a resolution between the GPS 

system and Loran-C. The best system deserves concrete investment. The Committee strongly believe there should be a worldwide 

system subject to rational criteria. 
33 

Stand Alone Weather Sensors.—The Committee notes that the 

budget does not request funding for the Stand Alone Weather Sensors program. The Committee is concerned that significant taxpayer funds have been spent on this program only to have the FAA 

warehouse important weather monitoring stations for class C airports nationwide. The Committee directs the FAA Administrator to 

submit a report by March 15, 2007, to the Committee detailing the 

number of SAWS systems purchased and deployed, improvements 

in flight safety at deployed airports, safety impacts at class C airports yet to receive SAWS systems, accounting of current class C 

airports, and the FAA’s plan to proceed with the original intent of 

SAWS deployment at all class C airports. 

FAA Telecommunications Infrastructure.—The purpose of the 

FTI program is to replace seven existing FAA-owned and -leased 

telecommunications networks with a single new network that 

would cost less to operate. FTI is an important program because 

it is expected to reduce FAA’s growing operations costs and provide 

the backbone for several initiatives associated with the next generation air traffic management system. The Committee is concerned about delays to this program and diminishing benefits. 

Specifically, the Committee was greatly dismayed to learn from 

the DOT Inspector General that the FAA failed to realize roughly 

$33,000,000 in anticipated operating savings from the FTI program 

in fiscal year 2005 due to the agency’s inability to disconnect legacy 

circuits in a safe and timely manner. The Inspector General also 

reported the FAA was at further risk of sacrificing over 

$100,000,000 in planned operating savings in the current fiscal 

year because of program delays. The failure of the agency to capture these planned savings is unacceptable. Among other problems, 

these failures have undermined the Administrator’s ability to adequately hire and train critically needed safety personnel, including 

safety inspector positions which the Committee funded in 2006 

with resources provided in excess of the agency’s budget request. 

In April 2006, the Inspector General reported that FTI is a high 

risk effort and recommended that FAA take a number of actions. 

These include developing a realistic master schedule and effective 

transition plan by coordinating with all parties involved with the 

FTI transition, and validating cost estimates and benefits. 

FAA is taking overdue but positive steps by including its regions, 

the current service provider, and the FTI contractor to improve the 

overall transition to FTI. While FAA has made some progress in 

improving FTI service deliveries, a significant number of FTI services that were accepted by FAA have not been cutover, thus requiring considerable rework and causing an increased backlog. 

FAA also engaged MITRE to independently validate the FTI 

schedule. Based on MITRE’s report, it appears that FTI will not be 

completed as planned in December 2007, but is more likely to be 

completed later in 2008. This will result in additional unplanned 

costs and a further reduction in projected cost savings from this 

program. 

The Committee is aware that FAA will be reviewing the FTI cost 

and schedule baselines in August. After that review, the Committee expects the FAA to provide it with a clear understanding of 

the work required to complete FTI, a realistic estimate of when FTI 
34 

will be completed, how potential risks to ATC operations will be 

minimized, and when the Agency will begin to realize benefits from 

this multi-billion dollar investment. The Committee cautions FAA 

that future funding for this program is dependent on providing this 

information to this Committee in a timely manner. 

RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, AND DEVELOPMENT

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $136,620,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 130,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 134,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 135,500,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Research, Engineering and Development [RE&D] appropriation provides funding for long-term research, engineering and development programs to improve the air traffic control system by increasing its safety and capacity, as well as reducing the environmental impacts of air traffic, as authorized by the Airport and Airway Improvement Act and the Federal Aviation Act, as amended. 

The programs are designed to meet the expected air traffic demands of the future and to promote flight safety through improvements in facilities, equipment, techniques, and procedures in order 

to ensure that the system will safely and efficiently handle future 

volumes of aircraft traffic. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $135,500,000 for the FAA’s research, engineering, and development activities. The recommended 

level of funding is $5,500,000 more than budget request and 

$1,120,000 less than the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

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

2007 budget estimate, and the Committee recommendation follows: 

RESEARCH, ENGINEERING AND DEVELOPMENT 

Fiscal year— Committee recommendation 2006 enacted 2007 estimate 

Improve Aviation Safety: 

Fire Research and Safety ................................................................. $6,182,000 $6,638,000 $6,638,000 

Propulsion and Fuel System ............................................................. 5,741,000 5,048,000 6,048,000 

Advance Material/Structural Safety .................................................. 5,881,000 2,843,000 4,843,000 

Atmospheric Hazards/Digital System Safety .................................... 3,407,000 3,848,000 3,848,000 

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

Aircraft Catastrophic Failure Prevention Research .......................... 3,306,000 1,512,000 1,512,000 

Flightdeck/Maintanence/System Integration Human Factors ........... 8,099,000 7,999,000 7,999,000 

Aviation Safety Risk Analysis ........................................................... 4,883,000 5,292,000 5,292,000 

Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human Factors ................. 9,558,000 9,654,000 9,654,000 

Aeromedical Research ....................................................................... 8,800,000 6,962,000 8,462,000 

Weather Program—Safety ................................................................ 20,376,000 19,545,000 19,545,000 

Unmanned Aircraft System ............................................................... ........................ 1,200,000 1,200,000 

Improve Efficency: 

Joint Program and Development Office ............................................ 17,919,000 18,100,000 18,100,000 

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

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

Mission Support: 

System Planning and Resource Management .................................. 1,189,000 1,234,000 1,234,000 
35 

RESEARCH, ENGINEERING AND DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

Fiscal year— Committee recommendation 2006 enacted 2007 estimate 

William J. Hughes Technical Center Laboratory Facility .................. 3,359,000 3,430,000 3,430,000 

RE&D Total ................................................................................... 136,620,000 131,000,000 135,500,000 

IMPROVE AVIATION SAFETY

Propulsion and Fuel Systems.—The Committee recommends 

$5,048,000 for propulsion and fuel systems research to reduce commercial fatalities. The Committee provides $1,000,000 to complete 

the evaluation of the effects of molecular markers designed for the 

purpose of detecting adulteration or dilution of jet fuel for use in 

aviation engines. 

Advanced Materials/Structural Safety.—The Committee recommends $4,843,000 for advanced materials/structural safety research. The recommendation is an increase of $2,000,000 from the 

budget estimate and an decrease of $1,038,000 from the fiscal year 

2006 enacted level. The Committee recommends $500,000 to support and improve ongoing metallic and composite structures research at the National Institute for Aviation Research. 

Aeromedical Research.—The Committee recommends $8,462,000 

for aeromedical research, an increase of $1,500,000 above the budget estimate. The Committee recommends $1,000,000 to continue 

studies related to cabin air quality to be conducted by the center 

of excellence for cabin environment research. 

Flight Attendant Fatigue.—The Committee continues to be concerned about the issue of flight attendant fatigue, and whether current regulations provide adequate rest time for flight attendants. 

Pursuant to the Committee’s request in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005, the FAA submitted a report in July 2006 on 

the impact of the minimum rest requirements of FAR 121.467 and 

FAR 135.273. The study was limited in nature; however, the report 

stated that flight attendants are ‘‘experiencing fatigue and 

tiredness and as such, (fatigue) is a salient issue warranting further evaluation.’’ In order to gain a fuller understanding of the impact of fatigue on flight attendants, the Committee directs FAA to 

utilize $500,000 of its appropriation for CAMI to carry out its recommendations for further study of this problem. The Committee directs CAMI to submit a report to the Congress not later than December 31, 2008, and expects the report to include analysis in the 

six areas that CAMI identified in its report of July 2006: a survey 

of field operations, a focused study of incident reports, field research on the effects of fatigue, a validation of models for assessing 

flight attendant fatigue, international policies and practices, and 

the potential benefits of training. 
36 

GRANTS-IN-AID FOR AIRPORTS

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Limitation, 2006 ..................................................................................... $3,514,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 2,750,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 3,700,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,520,000,000 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of 

$3,520,000,000 for grants-in-aid to airports for fiscal year 2007, 

which is $770,000,000 more than the budget estimate and 

$5,500,000 more than the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. The Committee recommendation is sufficient to continue the important 

tasks of enhancing airport and airway safety, ensuring that airport 

standards continue to be met, maintaining existing airport capacity, and developing additional capacity. 

The Committee recommends several changes to the Grants-inAid for Airports programs by including language that allows funds 

appropriated to the Small Community Air Service Development 

Program [SCASDP] to be used for expenses associated with administering the program. This language further exempts SCASDP from 

the obligation cap for administration and transfers the amount appropriated to the account available to administer the program. This 

language would also exempt the Small Community Air Service Development Program’s obligation of funds for administrative purposes from the Trust Fund obligation cap for administrative expenses. 

In addition, these changes solve an inadvertent problem that was 

created in prior year appropriations. Because there is a prohibition 

on transfers, unless explicitly exempted, the funds for the SCASDP 

program cannot be transferred to the account where the program 

is currently administered. This language would allow the money to 

be transferred and align program funding with managed responsibility. In prior years, the SCASDP program has not been given the 

authority to use appropriated funds for administering the program. 

This language gives authority for funds appropriated to be used for 

administering the program. 

Airport Discretionary Grants.—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 
37 

airport or geographic region to receive other AIP discretionary 

grants or multi-year letters of intent. 

State Airport Name Project Description Amount 

AL Birmingham International ................................ Extension of runway 6/24 ............................... $3,500,000 

AL Franklin Field Airport ........................................ Environmental assessment, land acquisition, 

design and construction, relocation and 

extension of the existing runway and renovation of airport facility.

4,000,000 

DE Delaware Airpark (33N) .................................... Construct a new runway, taxiway and apron 

system.

3,300,000 

IL Waukegan Regional .......................................... Environmental Study and land acquisition 

for runway extension.

1,000,000 

KY Louisville International-Standiford Field .......... Runway widening and various improvements.3,200,000 

KY Barkley Regional ............................................... To construct a new terminal facility .............. 1,500,000 

LA Louis Armstrong New Orleans International .... Various Improvements .................................... 2,200,000 

MA Nantucket Memorial ......................................... Move air traffic control tower to accommodate terminal improvements.2,000,000 

MI Bishop International ......................................... Cargo Apron expansion ................................... 3,000,000 

MI Capital City ...................................................... Extend primary runway ................................... 4,000,000 

MO Mexico Memorial Airport ................................... New terminal and various improvements ...... 200,000 

MO Max B. Swisher Airport ..................................... Various improvements .................................... 8,750,000

MO Rosecrans Memorial Airport ............................. Rotary Snow Broom ........................................ 350,000 

MO Farmington Regional Airport ............................ Partial parallel taxiway construction ............. 800,000 

MS Golden Triangle Regional Airport ..................... Runway extension and environmental assessment.2,000,000 

MS Greenwood-Leflore Airport ................................ Control tower construction and various improvements.2,000,000 

MS Jackson International Airport ........................... Essential airfield improvements ..................... 4,000,000 

MS Trent Lott International Airport ........................ Runway extension ........................................... 2,000,000

MS Tunica Municipal Airport .................................. Runway and Parallel Taxiway Extension ........ 2,000,000 

MT Billings Logan International Airport ................. Taxiway A Pavement Rehabilitation and 

Drainage Upgrade.

2,200,000 

MT Bert Mooney Airport Airport .............................. Approach Lighting and environmental assessment.1,500,000 

MT Great Falls International Airport ...................... Expand and improve taxiway apron system 

and other improvements.

1,500,000 

NC Rowan County Airport ....................................... Existing runway protection zone land acquisition and airfield improvements.1,000,000 

NC Statesville Regional Airport .............................. Runway extension, runway strengthening, 

and other improvements.

1,000,000 

ND Devils Lake Municipal-Knoke Field .................. Reconstruct runway 13/31 ............................. 1,500,000 

ND Grand Forks International ................................ Construct a new runway ................................ 1,000,000 

NE Western Nebraska Regional/William B. Heilig 

Field.

Various improvements .................................... 1,000,000 

NM Alexander Municipal ......................................... Construct new cross wind runway ................. 1,500,000 

NM Albuquerque International Sunport .................. Aircraft parking ramp ..................................... 1,000,000 

NM Las Cruces International .................................. Runway Improvements .................................... 4,000,000 

NY Niagara Falls International .............................. New Terminal Apron ....................................... 1,000,000 

OR McNary Field ..................................................... Construct new runway .................................... 1,500,000 

OR Roberts Field-Redmond Municipal ................... Renovation of airport terminal ....................... 2,000,000 

PA Erie Intl ............................................................. Runway expansion .......................................... 3,000,000 

TN Nashville International ..................................... Runway 13/31 improvements ......................... 5,000,000 

TX San Marcos Municipal ...................................... Various Improvements .................................... 4,500,000 

WI La Crosse Municipal ......................................... Phase 3 construction of parallel taxiway to 

primary runway and reconstruction of 

Taxiways A and E and the south General 

Aviation apron.

5,000,000 

WI Sheboygan County Memorial ............................ Extend primary runway ................................... 2,000,000 

WI Southern Wisconsin Regional ........................... Construct parallel taxiway to Runway 36; 

construct southwest T-Hangar apron; reconstruct T-Hangar apron and acquire 

land in the primary runway approach.

1,000,000 

WV West Virginia statewide ................................... Various Improvements .................................... 8,000,000 
38 

Panama City-Bay County International Airport, Florida.—The 

Committee encourages the FAA to give priority consideration to the 

application for a letter of intent that the Panama City-Bay County 

International Airport Authority and Industrial District submitted 

for construction of a new airport. The FAA has noted that the runways at the current airport do not meet Federal safety and design 

standards. The FAA’s draft environmental impact statement further noted that the ‘‘No Action’’ alternative is ‘‘not reasonable, feasible, practicable or prudent.’’ The Committee has been informed 

that substantial safety and capacity benefits will accrue from the 

completion of this project. The Committee also understands this 

project has several unique characteristics, including having a private entity donate the new site and reducing conflict with military 

aircraft. In addition, the Committee understands that more than 

two-thirds of this project will be funded from non-Federal sources. 

The Committee supports the application as submitted and believes 

this is a unique opportunity to leverage Federal funds. 

Runway Incursion Prevention Systems and Devices.—The bill includes a provision that allows funds for grants-in-aid to airports to 

be used by airports to procure and install runway incursion prevention systems and devises. 

Airport Technology.—The budget estimate includes $18,870,000 

for airport technology research. The Committee recommendation is 

$1,000,000 more than the budget request, and funds recommended 

in addition to the estimate are for the airfield pavements research 

program. The program is designed to develop safer, more cost-effective, and durable asphalt and concrete airfield pavements. 

GRANTS-IN-AID FOR AIRPORTS

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

(RESCISSION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

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

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... ¥1,582,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... ¥25,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ¥765,490,000 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a rescission of contract authorization of $765,490,000 of contract authority from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. Section 48112 of title 49, United States Code, 

stipulates that additional contract authorization for the grants-inaid program is automatically made available in an amount equal 

to the difference between the appropriated level for the facilities 

and equipment program and the authorized amount for the same 

fiscal year. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

Section 110 limits the number of technical staff years at the Center for Advanced Aviation Systems Development to no more than 

395 in fiscal year 2007. 

Section 111 permits the Administrator to reimburse FAA appropriations for amounts made available for 49 U.S.C. 41742(a)(1) as 

fees are collected and credited under 49 U.S.C. 45303. 
39 

Section 112 allows funds received to reimburse FAA for providing 

technical assistance to foreign aviation authorities to be credited to 

the Operations account. 

Section 113 extends the terms and conditions of the aviation insurance program, commonly known as ‘‘war risk insurance,’’ and 

the limitation on air carrier liability for third party claims arising 

out of acts of terrorism to August 31, 2007 and includes an option 

for the Secretary to futher extend the program until December 31, 

2007. 

Section 114 extends the retirement age for pilots to age 65. 

Section 115 prohibits funds in this act to be used to adopt guidelines or regulations requiring airport sponsors to provide the Federal Aviation Administration ‘‘without cost’’ buildings, maintenance, or space for FAA services. The prohibition does not apply to 

negotiations between FAA and airport sponsors concerning ‘‘below 

market’’ rates for such services or to grant assurances that require 

airport sponsors to provide land without cost to the FAA for air 

traffic control facilities. 

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The principal mission of the Federal Highway Administration is, 

in partnership with State and local governments, to foster the development of a safe, efficient, and effective highway and intermodal 

system nationwide including access to and within national forests, 

national parks, indian lands and other public lands. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

Under the Committee recommendations, a total program level of $39,865,464,863 would be provided for the activities of the Federal 

Highway Administration in fiscal year 2007. 

LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $360,991,620 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 372,504,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 372,504,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 378,504,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This limitation on obligations provides for the salaries and expenses of the Federal Highway Administration for program management, direction, and coordination; engineering guidance to Federal and State agencies; and advisory and support services in field 

offices. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of $378,504,000 for administrative expenses of the agency. This limitation is $6,000,000 more than the budget request and $17,512,380 more than the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. The Committee recommends the additional funding be used to continue to 

improve oversight and stewardship of the Federal-aid highway 

funds to ensure that every Federal dollar is well spent and that 
40 

program operations and processes are efficient and streamlined. 

The funds should be applied to the Financial Integrity Review and 

Evaluation program, improvements to FHWA’s Fiscal Information 

Management System, as well as permanent change of station 

moves. 

LIMITATION ON TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH

Limitation, 2006 ..................................................................................... $425,502,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 429,800,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 429,800,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 429,800,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The limitation controls spending for the transportation research 

and technology programs of the FHWA. This limitation includes 

the intelligent transportation systems, surface transportation research, technology deployment, training and education, and university transportation 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 Committee recommends a limitation on obligations for transportation research of $429,800,000. This limitation is consistent 

with the Senate-passed authorization level and is $4,298,000 more 

than the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Limitation, 2006 ..................................................................................... $35,672,020,464 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 39,086,464,683 

House allowance .................................................................................... 39,086,464,683 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 39,086,464,683 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal-aid highways program provides financial support to 

States and localities for development, construction, and repair of 

highways and bridges through grants. The program is financed 

from the Highway Trust Fund and most of the funds are distributed through apportionments and allocations to States. Title 23 of 

the United States Code and other supporting legislation provide 

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends limiting fiscal year 2007 Federal-aid 

highways obligations to $39,086,464,683, which is $3,414,444,220 

more than the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 
41 

FERRY BOATS AND FERRY TERMINAL FACILITIES

Within the funds available for ferry boats and ferry terminal facilities, funds are to be available for the following projects and activities: 

Project name Committee recommendation 

Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority Intermodal Relocation Opportunity Study, OH ................................ $1,000,000 

Detroit/Wayne County Port Authority Public Dock, Detroit, MI.

Public Dock & Terminal Project, MI ..................................................................................................................... 3,000,000 

Dorena-Hickman Ferry Boat Service, Mississippi County, Missouri .................................................................... 1,000,000 

Haverstraw Ferry Terminal , NY ........................................................................................................................... 500,000 

Homer-Halibut Cove-Jakolof Bay-Seldovia Ferry, AK ........................................................................................... 3,500,000 

Kitsap Transit, Rich-Passage Wake Impact Study, WA ....................................................................................... 2,200,000 

Manns Harbor Shipyard, NC ................................................................................................................................ 2,000,000 

Mississippi River Ferry Boat Expansion, Davenport, Iowa .................................................................................. 1,000,000 

Mukilteo Multimodal Terminal Redevelopment, WA ............................................................................................. 675,000 

Oak Bluffs Terminal reconstruction, Martha’s Vineyard, MA .............................................................................. 1,500,000 

Oklahoma River Ferry Boat Transportation, Oklahoma ....................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Puget Sound Regional Council, Passenger-Only Ferry Study, WA ....................................................................... 125,000 

Swan’s Island Ferry Facilities Improvement Project, ME .................................................................................... 1,000,000 

TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNITY AND SYSTEM PRESERVATION

PROGRAM

Within the funds available for transportation and community 

and system preservation program, funds are to be distributed to 

the following projects and activities: 

Project name Committee recommendation 

87th Street Parkway Improvement, Lenexa, KS ................................................................................................... $1,500,000 

Access Road to Beckley Veterans Affairs Medical Center, WV ........................................................................... 1,400,000 

Antelope Valley Project Transportation Improvements, NE .................................................................................. 750,000 

Aurora Bike Trail, IL ............................................................................................................................................. 300,000 

Cal-Sag Greenway Bike Trail, IL .......................................................................................................................... 250,000 

City of Reading Streetscape Improvements, Pennsylvania ................................................................................. 1,000,000 

City of Warwick, RI; for a feasibility study on Route 37 extension, RI .............................................................. 250,000 

Clayton Pedestrian Grade Seperation, Johnston County, NC ............................................................................... 575,000 

Des Moines Creek Trail Access Project, Des Moines, WA .................................................................................... 500,000 

ast Aztec Arterial Route, NM ............................................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Euclid Lakefront Mixed Use Harbor Town Marina Project, OH ............................................................................ 750,000 

Flats East Bank Project, OH ................................................................................................................................ 1,050,000 

General Dacey Trail—Phase 2, IL ....................................................................................................................... 200,000 

Grand Illinois Trail, Village of Carbon Cliff, IL ................................................................................................... 200,000 

Great River Trail near Savanna, IL ...................................................................................................................... 200,000 

Harrisburg to Eldorado Bike Trail, IL ................................................................................................................... 250,000 

Highway 49 Roadway Lighting, Hattiesburg ....................................................................................................... 750,000 

Hofstra University Safe and Sustainable Campus Plan, NY ............................................................................... 1,000,000 

Intersection Rehabilitation and Improvements, US24 and Marlatt Avenue, Manhattan, KS ............................. 1,500,000 

Kaycee Main Street Project, Wyoming .................................................................................................................. 500,000 

Longleaf Trace Trail, MS ...................................................................................................................................... 250,000 

Morgantown access road—Airport to I–68, WV .................................................................................................. 2,300,000 

Natchez Historical Trail, MS ................................................................................................................................ 500,000 

Olympic Discovery Trail/Elwha River Pedestrian Bridge, Clallam County, WA ................................................... 500,000 

Pookela Road Improvements, HI .......................................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Separated Grade Crossing for Torrington, Wyoming ........................................................................................... 800,000 

Shiloh Road Corridor—West Billings, MT ........................................................................................................... 500,000 

SIU—Edwardsville Morris Bike Trail, IL .............................................................................................................. 200,000 

South Dakota School of Mines and Technology Connector Road, South Dakota ................................................ 1,000,000 

Springfield Park District’s Interurban Bicycle and Pedestrian Trail, IL .............................................................. 200,000 

State Route 72 Widening, Grading, Paving, and General Safety Improvements, OH ......................................... 500,000 

Statesmen Boulevard and Trail, Delta State University, MS .............................................................................. 500,000 

Town of North Kingstown, RI; for Post Road Corridor Plan ................................................................................ 500,000 
42 

Project name Committee recommendation 

Town of Tiverton, RI; Stone Bridge Improvements .............................................................................................. 500,000 

U.S. 113 (Worcester Highway), Maryland ............................................................................................................ 750,000 

University of Southern Maine, University Commons Bedford Street Safety Improvements, ME ......................... 1,000,000 

Urbana to Danville Trail, IL ................................................................................................................................. 200,000 

Utah County Mobility Studies, UT ........................................................................................................................ 500,000 

Uptown St. Joseph Revitalization Project, MO ..................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Vermont Downtown Streetscape & Sidewalk Improvements in Springfield, Derby Line, Bristol, Stamford, 

Franklin [VT] .................................................................................................................................................... 2,000,000 

Western Kentucky University—Community Bikeway in Bowling Green, Kentucky .............................................. 1,000,000

William H. Darr Agricultural Center Renovation of Facilities and Equipment, MO ............................................ 1,000,000 

FEDERAL LANDS

Within the funds for the Federal lands program, funds are to be 

available for the following projects and activities: 

Project name Committee recommendation 

116th Street NE Interchange Improvement Project, Tulalip Tribes, WA ............................................................. $1,000,000 

Alaska Trail Initiative, AK .................................................................................................................................... 2,000,000 

Arcadia Boat Ramp Project, Squaxin Island Tribe, WA ....................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Beartooth Highway Reconstruction, WY ............................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

BIA Route 12 Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, SD .................................................................................................... 2,000,000 

BIA Route 6 Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, South Dakota ..................................................................................... 2,000,000 

Big Timber-McLeod Street Renovation Project, MT ............................................................................................. 2,000,000 

Bozeman-Durston Avenue/Peach Street and North 7th Avenue Intersection, MT ............................................... 2,000,000 

City of Red Lodge West Fork Road & Ski Run Road, MT ................................................................................... 1,000,000 

City of Rocks Back Country Byway, Idaho ........................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

City of Rocks Back Country Byway, Idaho ........................................................................................................... 3,000,000 

Colorado State Highway 13 from Craig to Wyoming state line, Colorado .......................................................... 1,000,000 

Colorado State Highway 150—from US 160, north to Great Sand Dunes National Park, Colorado ................. 1,000,000 

Consumer Road to Horizon Mine, Carbon County, Utah ..................................................................................... 1,250,000 

Croix Street Reconstruction: Completion of Phase I , Negaunee, MI .................................................................. 350,000 

Grand Teton Pathways Project, Wyoming ............................................................................................................ 1,000,000 

Grenada Access Road, MS ................................................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Hawaii Statewide Federal Lands Improvements, HI ............................................................................................ 800,000 

Homochitto National Forest Roads, Lincoln County, MS ..................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Hoover Dam Bypass Bridge, AZ ........................................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Kalispell Westside/Stillwater Bypass Project, MT ................................................................................................ 4,200,000 

Pikes Peak Highway [CO] ..................................................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Pondera County Rural Roads, MT ........................................................................................................................ 2,460,000 

Reconstruct Nine Mile Canyon Road, Duchesne County, Utah ........................................................................... 500,000 

Road 27 Paving, NE ............................................................................................................................................. 1,000,000 

Sardis Lake Drive, MS .......................................................................................................................................... 500,000 

Shotgun Cove Road, AK ....................................................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Skokomish Tribe Access Road and US–101 Realignment Project, WA ............................................................... 1,000,000 

SR–160 Blue Diamond Highway—Las Vegas to Pahrump, NV .......................................................................... 5,000,000 

Three Affiliated Tribes, Wells Road, North Dakota .............................................................................................. 1,000,000 

US 491 in Montezuma County [CO] ..................................................................................................................... 500,000 

Valentine National Wildlife Refuge Roads in Cherry County, Nebraska ............................................................. 1,000,000 

Valles Caldera National Preserve, New Mexico ................................................................................................... 1,400,000 

Vermont Federal Lands Projects [VT] .................................................................................................................. 640,000 

INTERSTATE MAINTANENCE DISCRETIONARY

Within the funds for the interstate maintenance discretionary 

program, funds are to be available for the following projects and activities: 

Project name Committee recommendation 

East Belgrade Interchange, MT ........................................................................................................................... $1,000,000 
43 

Project name Committee recommendation 

I–10 Reconstruction/Las Cruces to New Mexico-Texas State Line, NM .............................................................. 1,500,000 

I–12 at LA 1088 New Interchange, Louisiana .................................................................................................... 750,000 

I–15 Auxiliary Lanes, Kaysville to 31st Street in Ogden, Utah .......................................................................... 1,000,000 

I–15 Bluff Interchange, St. George, Utah ........................................................................................................... 750,000 

I–225 at Colfax/US 40 & 17th Ave [CO] ............................................................................................................. 1,000,000 

I–25 and State Highway 16 Interchange at Fort Carson (Gate 20), CO ............................................................ 2,000,000 

I–376 Redesignation Improvement Plan, Pennsylvania ...................................................................................... 2,000,000 

I–5/I–205 Salmon Creek Interchange Project, Clark County, WA ....................................................................... 2,000,000 

I–70 Viaduct Realignment, Topeka, KS ............................................................................................................... 500,000 

I–73, Construction of I–73 from Myrtle Beach, SC to I–95, ending at the North Carolina state line, SC ...... 500,000 

I–75 at South Dixie Drive/Central Avenue Interchange, OH ............................................................................... 2,000,000 

I–81 Widening, PA ............................................................................................................................................... 625,000 

I–84, US–93 Interchange, Stage 2—Idaho ........................................................................................................ 500,000 

I–85 New Interchange in Troup County, GA ........................................................................................................ 1,000,000 

I–95 in Cumberland, Harnett, and Johnston Counties, NC ................................................................................ 750,000 

I–95/U.S. Hwy 301 Interchange, SC .................................................................................................................... 500,000 

Improvements to Rte 266 and Interchange with I–44, MO ................................................................................ 2,500,000 

Interstate 20/59 Industrial Park Interchange, MS .............................................................................................. 3,150,000 

Interstate 29 Utility Relocation, Sioux City, Iowa ................................................................................................ 500,000 

Interstate 69/Great River Bridge: Highway 65-MS Highway 1, AR ..................................................................... 2,000,000 

Interstate 80 Concrete Rehabilitation, Wyoming ................................................................................................. 750,000 

Interstate 84 Burnt River Freight Improvement, OR ........................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Interstate 94 from Highway 336 to Barnesville, MN .......................................................................................... 750,000 

Interstate 94/43/794, Marquette Interchange, WI ............................................................................................... 2,375,000 

Lighting at Exit 400 Off Interstate 55, Lincoln County, MS ............................................................................... 350,000 

Pacific Street Bridge over I–680, NE .................................................................................................................. 750,000 

Port Road Expansion and Improvements, Houston, Texas .................................................................................. 500,000 

Queen’s Medical center H–1 Access Ramp, HI ................................................................................................... 4,000,000 

Reconstruction of Two Interchanges on I–235, Wichita, KS ............................................................................... 500,000 

Rhode Island Department of Transportation; I–95 and I–195 Lighting Project, RI ........................................... 1,000,000 

Southern Nevada Beltway Interchanges, NV ....................................................................................................... 3,000,000 

SR–704/I–5 Cross Base Highway, Pierce County, WA ........................................................................................ 1,000,000 

Turnpike Improvements Project, DE ..................................................................................................................... 2,000,000 

US 278 Corridor Construction, South Carolina .................................................................................................... 500,000 

Widening of I–55 from Church Rd. to TN State Line, Mississippi ..................................................................... 5,000,000 

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS PROGRAMS

The roads and bridges that make up our Nation’s highway infrastructure are built, operated, and maintained through the joint efforts of Federal, State, and local governments. States have much 

flexibility to use Federal-aid highway funds to best meet their individual needs and priorities, with FHWA’s assistance and oversight. 

The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity 

Act: A Legacy for Users [SAFETEA–LU], the highway, highway 

safety, and transit authorization through fiscal year 2009, makes 

Federal-aid highways funds available in the following major categories: 

National Highway System [NHS].—The Intermodal Surface 

Transportation Efficiency Act [ISTEA] of 1991 authorized the NHS, 

which was subsequently established as a 161,000 mile road system 

by the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995. This 

system serves major population centers, intermodal transportation 

facilities, international border crossings, and major destinations. 

The NHS program provides funding for this system consisting of 

roads that are of primary Federal interest. The NHS consists of the 

current Interstate, other rural principal arterials, urban freeways 

and connecting urban principal arterials, and facilities on the Defense Department’s designated Strategic Highway Network, and 

roads connecting the NHS to intermodal facilities. The Federal 
44 

share for the NHS program is generally 80 percent, subject to the 

sliding scale adjustment, with an availability period of 4-years. 

Interstate Maintenance [IM].—The 46,876 mile Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways retains 

a separate identity within the NHS. The IM program finances 

projects to rehabilitate, restore, resurface and reconstruct the 

Interstate system. Reconstruction that increases capacity, other 

than HOV lanes, is not eligible for IM funds. The Federal share for 

the IM program is 90 percent, subject to the sliding scale adjustment, and funds are available for 4 years. 

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 4-year availability period. 

Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation.—The bridge program enables States to improve the condition of their bridges through replacement, rehabilitation, and systematic preventive maintenance. 

The funds are available for use on all bridges, including those on 

roads functionally classified as rural minor collectors and as local. 

Bridge program funds have a 4-year period of availability with a 

Federal share for all projects, except those on the Interstate System, of 80 percent, subject to the sliding scale adjustment. For 

those bridges on the Interstate System, the Federal share is 90 percent, subject to the sliding scale adjustment. There is a set-aside 

of $100,000,000 from the fiscal year 2006–2009 funding 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 one-half percent of the apportionment is guaranteed to each State. 

Highway Safety Improvement Program [HSIP].—The new highway infrastructure safety program (previously funded by a setaside 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. 

Federal Lands Highways.—This category funds improvements for 

forest highways; park roads and parkways; Indian reservation 

roads; and refuge roads. The Federal lands highway program provides for transportation planning, research, engineering, and construction of highways, roads, parkways, and transit facilities that 

provide access to or within public lands, national parks, and Indian 

reservations. 

The Committee directs that the funds allocated for this program 

in this bill and in permanent law are to be derived from the 

FHWA’s public lands discretionary program, and not from funds allocated to the National Park Service’s regions. 
45 

Equity Bonus.—The equity bonus (replaces TEA21’s minimum 

guarantee) provides additional funds to States to ensure that each 

State’s total funding from apportioned programs and for High Priority Projects meets certain equity considerations. Each State is 

guaranteed a minimum rate of return on its share of contributions 

to the highway account of the Highway Trust Fund, and a minimum increase relative to the average dollar amount of apportionments under TEA21. Certain States will maintain the share of 

total apportionments they each received during TEA21. An openended authorization is provided, ensuring that there will be sufficient funds to meet the objectives of the equity bonus. 

Emergency Relief [ER].— Section 125 of title 23, United States 

Code, authorizes $100,000,000 annually for the ER program. This 

program provides funds for the repair or reconstruction of Federalaid 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. 

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. 

National Scenic Byways.—This program provides funding for 

roads that are designated by the Secretary of Transportation as All 

American Roads [AAR] or National Scenic Byways [NSB]. These 

roads have outstanding scenic, historic, cultural, natural, recreational, and archaeological qualities. 

Transportation and Community and System Preservation 

[TCSP].—SAFETEA–LU continues the TCSP program to provide 

grants to States and local governments for planning, developing, 

and implementing strategies to integrate transportation and community and system preservation plans and practices. These grants 

may be used to improve the efficiency of the transportation system; 

reduce the impacts of transportation on the environment; reduce 

the need for costly future investments in public infrastructure; and 

provide efficient access to jobs, services, and centers of trade. 

Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation [TIFIA].— 

The TIFIA credit program provides funds to assist in the development of major infrastructure facilities through greater non-Federal 

and private sector participation, building on public willingness to 

dedicate future revenues or user fees in order to receive transportation benefits earlier than would be possible under traditional 

funding techniques. The TIFIA program provides secured loans, 

loan guarantees, and standby lines of credit that may be drawn 

upon to supplement project revenues, if needed, during the first 10 

years of project operations. 

Appalachian Development Highway System.—This program 

makes funds available to construct highways and access roads 

under section 201 of the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 

1965. Under SAFETEA–LU, funding is authorized for each of fiscal 
46 

years 2005 through 2009, is available until expended, and is distributed among the 13 eligible States based on the latest available 

cost-to-complete estimate prepared by the Appalachian Regional 

Commission. 

High Priority Projects.—Funds are provided for specific projects 

identified in SAFETEA–LU. Over 5,000 projects are identified, 

each with a specified amount of funding over the 5 years of 

SAFETEA–LU. 

Projects of National and Regional Significance.—This program 

provides funding for specific projects of national or regional importance. All the funds authorized for this program from the Highway 

Trust Fund are designated for projects listed in SAFETEA–LU. 

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $36,032,343,903 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 39,086,464,683 

House allowance .................................................................................... 39,086,464,683 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 39,086,464,683 

The Committee recommends a liquidating cash appropriation of 

$39,086,464,683. The recommended level is equal to the budget request and is necessary to pay outstanding obligations from various 

highway accounts pursuant to prior appropriations acts. 

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

(RESCISSION)

The bill rescinds $1,500,983,000 of the unobligated balances of 

funds apportioned to the States under chapter 1 of title 23, United 

States Code, excluding safety programs and funds set aside within 

the State for population areas. The Committee directs the FHWA 

to administer the rescission by allowing each State the maximum 

flexibility in making adjustments among the apportioned highway 

programs. 

APPALACHIAN DEVELOPMENT HIGHWAY SYSTEM

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $19,800,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... ........................... 

House allowance .................................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 20,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Funding for the Appalachian Development Highway System 

[ADHS] is authorized under section 1069(y) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (Public Law 102–240). The 

ADHS program provides funds for the construction of the Appalachian corridor highways in the 13 States that comprise the Appalachian region. These highways, in many instances, are intended to 

replace some of the most deficient and dangerous segments of rural 

roadway in America. 
47 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $20,000,000 for corridor H in West 

Virginia of the Appalachian Development Highway System 

[ADHS]. The recommended amount is $200,000 more than the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

DELTA REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... ........................... 

House Allowance .................................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. $20,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Funding for the Delta Regional Transportation Development Program is authorized under section 1308 of the Safe, Accountable, 

Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users 

(Public Law 109–59). The Delta Regional Transportation Development Program provides funds to support and encourage multi-state 

transportation planning and corridor development, provide for 

transportation project development, facilitate transportation decisionmaking and support transportation construction in the eight 

States comprising the Delta Region (Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, 

Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee). 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $20,000,000 for the Delta Regional 

Transportation Development Program. The Committee directs 

funding be allocated to the following projects that are listed below: 

Project name Committee recommendation 

Pemiscot County Port Authority Intermodal Infrastructure, Missouri .................................................................. $3,900,000 

Highway 6 from Batesville to Clarksdale, Mississippi ........................................................................................ 5,000,000 

Park Hills and Mineral Area College Outer Road, Missouri ................................................................................ 1,100,000 

Industrial Park By-Pass, MO ................................................................................................................................ 2,787,000 

Route Y Reconstruction Project, MO .................................................................................................................... 1,200,000 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

Section 120 distributes obligation authority among Federal-aid 

highway programs. 

Section 121 continues a provision that credits funds received by 

the Bureau of Transportation Statistics to the Federal-aid highways account. 

Section 122 includes language that makes certain projects and 

activities eligible to receive fiscal year 2007 grants. 

Section 123. The statement of managers accompanying the fiscal 

year 2005 appropriations act includes $2,500,000 from Bridge Discretionary Program funds for the Joachim Avenue Bridge replacement, Missouri (page 1394 of House Report 108–792). This provision would make the funds available for the New South 

Herculaneum Bridge, Herculaneum, Missouri. 

Section 124 recommends that funds made available under this 

section be designated for the following projects: 
48 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS 

Project name Committee recommendation 

I–225 at Colfax Avenue (US 40) and 17th Avenue in Aurora, Colorado ............................................................ $2,000,000 

I–70 Stapleton Interchange [CO] ......................................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

13th Street/Interstate 22 Ramp Repair and Safety, Pennsylvania ..................................................................... 1,000,000 

21st Century Parks Inc. in Louisville, KY ............................................................................................................ 5,400,000 

A–B Street Corridor Connector, Auburn, WA ........................................................................................................ 1,800,000 

Akutan Road construction, AK ............................................................................................................................. 1,000,000 

Allen County SR–309 Safety Improvements and Related Construction, OH ....................................................... 1,000,000 

American Parkway Project, PA ............................................................................................................................. 500,000 

American St./Girard Ave. Gateway, PA ................................................................................................................ 500,000 

Aroostook County North-South Highways, ME ...................................................................................................... 1,500,000 

Ashburton Avenue Reconstruction in Yonkers, NY .............................................................................................. 2,000,000 

Battleship New Jersey Access Road (Clinton Street) Repaving, New Jersey ...................................................... 750,000 

Beltline Road Corridor Study, OR ........................................................................................................................ 500,000 

Bland Street Improvements, MO .......................................................................................................................... 300,000 

Bluffton Parkway Extensions, SC ......................................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Bob Anthony Parkway, Barnett Reservoir, MS ..................................................................................................... 750,000 

Booneville Bypass, MS ......................................................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Bossier Parish Congestion Relief Program, Louisiana ........................................................................................ 2,000,000 

Bridge Over Brandywine Creek, Pennsylvania ..................................................................................................... 1,250,000 

Bristol Street Widening, Santa Ana, CA .............................................................................................................. 600,000 

Burlington Avenue Grade Separated Interchange at US 24, Logansport, Cass County, IN ............................... 2,000,000 

Caraway Bridge Overpass, Arkansas ................................................................................................................... 2,000,000 

Carson City Freeway-Phase 2, NV ....................................................................................................................... 3,000,000 

CEMAR Urban Trail Project, Iowa ........................................................................................................................ 500,000 

Center City Streetscape Improvement, Missouri .................................................................................................. 1,000,000 

Chambers County Bridge Replacement, Alabama ............................................................................................... 200,000 

Chittenden County, VT Downtown Revitalization Improvements in Essex Junction and Milton [VT] ................. 2,400,000 

City of Ashland Main Street Redevelopment Project, MO ................................................................................... 315,800 

City of Herculaneum-Joachim Avenue Bridge Replacement-the new ‘‘South Bridge’’, Missouri ....................... 2,557,800 

City of Pittsburgh Lower Hill Plaza, Pennsylvania .............................................................................................. 1,000,000 

City of Scranton East Elm Street Project, Pennsylvania ..................................................................................... 500,000 

Clifton Corridor Transit Management Association [CCTMA] ................................................................................ 1,000,000 

Coalfields Expressway, WV ................................................................................................................................... 5,000,000 

Cold Storage Spur Line, Iowa .............................................................................................................................. 1,500,000 

Coldwater River Bridge and Approaches, DeSoto County, MS ............................................................................ 1,250,000 

Colfax Narrows Project, NV .................................................................................................................................. 1,000,000 

College of Southern Idaho Student Safety Initiative, ID ..................................................................................... 800,000 

Connecticut Center for Science and Exploration and Capital City Economic Development Authority Construction of Integrated Parking Facilities, CT ......................................................................................................... 2,000,000 

Construction and Improvements to County Road One (RS–209) south of I–70 to K–32, Leavenworth County, 

Kansas ............................................................................................................................................................. 1,000,000 

Construction of I–45 over SH96, Galveston County, Texas ................................................................................. 1,500,000 

Construction of Improvements to 144th Street from ‘‘Q’’ Street to Madison Street, NE ................................... 1,000,000 

Coon Rapids Iowa Area Great Places Trail, IA .................................................................................................... 500,000 

County Highway 74/Laraway Road Corridor Improvements, Illinois .................................................................... 650,000 

Cumberland Avenue Improvements, Tennessee ................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Deer Valley Road Bridge Crossing, Surprise, AZ ................................................................................................. 1,880,000 

Delaware State Transportation & Public Safety Traffic Information Exchange Pilot Project, DE ...................... 1,000,000 

Denali Commission, AK ........................................................................................................................................ 4,000,000 

Downtown Redevelopment Plan, MO .................................................................................................................... 500,000 

Durant Main Street/SH 78 Improvements, Oklahoma ......................................................................................... 500,000 

East Street Extension Junction City, Kansas ....................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

East Washington Avenue Reconstruction, WI ...................................................................................................... 400,000 

El Paso Inner Loop Highway, TX .......................................................................................................................... 4,000,000 

Ellsworth Air Force Base Road Improvement, South Dakota .............................................................................. 4,750,000 

Engineering, design and construction of a Port Access Road connecting to I–26 in North Charleston, SC .... 1,000,000 

Extension of arterial roadway, Prineville, Oregon ................................................................................................ 1,000,000 

Extension of Highway 57, Jackson County, MS ................................................................................................... 750,000 

Falcon Raod Improvements—Phase II, Oklahoma .............................................................................................. 1,000,000 

Forest Park South Neighborhood Streetscape Improvements, Missouri .............................................................. 500,000 

Fredericksburg Road/Medical Drive, San Antonio, TX ......................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Friant Road Widening, Fresno County, CA ........................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Gateway Plan 2030: Inner Loop Highway, El Paso, Texas .................................................................................. 750,000 
49 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS—Continued 

Project name Committee recommendation 

Glencoe Railroad Congestion Mitigation Project in MN ...................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Grand Avenue Underpass, Illinois ........................................................................................................................ 2,000,000 

Grand Lagoon Bridge Replacement, Bay County, Florida ................................................................................... 1,500,000 

Grand Rapids Passenger Rail and Station Relocation, MI ................................................................................. 2,000,000 

Granite Falls Alternate Freight Route, Snohomish County, WA ........................................................................... 2,000,000 

Granite Street Reconstruction Project, NH ........................................................................................................... 1,500,000 

Grant City Downtown Revitalization, MO ............................................................................................................. 500,000 

Grant County Economic Development Corridor, Indiana ..................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Green Spring Interchange Area Management Plan, OR ...................................................................................... 300,000 

Greenville Trail, MO .............................................................................................................................................. 500,000 

Haines Road Improvements, AK ........................................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Hanford Reach National Monument Transportation Infrastructure Improvements, WA ...................................... 1,000,000 

Harrisburg Southern Gateway Project, Pennsylvania ........................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Heart of America Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge, MO ................................................................................................ 1,000,000 

High Speed Maglev Deployment Program, PA ..................................................................................................... 1,500,000 

Highway 11, Picayune, MS ................................................................................................................................... 1,250,000 

Highway 19, Neshoba County, MS ....................................................................................................................... 2,500,000 

Highway 412: Springdale Bypass, Arkansas ....................................................................................................... 4,000,000 

Highway 431 Expansion, Alabama ...................................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Highway 49/Highway 7 Connector Road, Greenwood, MS ................................................................................... 1,250,000 

Highway 65 North in Dallas County, Missouri .................................................................................................... 1,500,000 

Highway 71: Louisiana State Line—DeQueen, Arkansas .................................................................................... 2,000,000 

Highway 79 Four Lane, Blount County, Alabama ................................................................................................ 2,000,000 

Highway 965/Fairview Lane/Golfview Drive Intersection Alignment Project, North Liberty, Iowa ....................... 870,000 

Highway Improvement to Highway 54 Near Mexico, MO ..................................................................................... 539,400 

Hudiburg Drive Beautification and Improvement, Oklahoma .............................................................................. 780,000 

I–10 Widening in Western Maricopa County, Arizona ......................................................................................... 2,000,000 

I–25 & SH 16 Interchange [CO] .......................................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

I–29/52nd Avenue South Interchange Reconstruction in Fargo, North Dakota .................................................. 2,000,000 

I–35/Tecumseh Road Transportation Traffic Study, Norman, Oklahoma ............................................................ 800,000 

I–5/Highway 99W Connector, OR ......................................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

I–5/North Macadam Freeway Ramp & Street Capacity Improvements, OR ........................................................ 2,000,000 

I–580 Meadow Mall Interchange, NV .................................................................................................................. 1,000,000 

I–74/Northern Beltway, Eastern Expansion, Forsyth County, NC ........................................................................ 1,000,000 

I–84, Exit 29 (Franklin Road) Local Systems Improvement, ID .......................................................................... 1,000,000 

Idaho Byways Corridor Planning Implementation, ID .......................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Interchange Construction at US73 and 20th Street, Leavenworth, KS ............................................................... 1,000,000 

Interchange Improvements at I–44 & Kansas Expressway, Missouri ................................................................. 1,000,000 

Interchange Improvements at U.S. 60 and National Avenue, Greene County, MO ............................................. 1,500,000 

Intermodal Infrastructure Enhancement Project, Port of Pasco, WA .................................................................. 800,000 

Interstate 20 South Frontage Road, Warren County, MS .................................................................................... 1,500,000 

Interstate 235 Reconstruction in Des Moines, Iowa—utility work ..................................................................... 3,750,000 

Iowa Highway 32, Southwest Areterial, Dubuque, Iowa ...................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Jefferson Park Avenue Pedestrian Crossing, Virginia .......................................................................................... 3,500,000 

K–7 Corridor Study from 183rd St to 119th Street in Olathe, KS ...................................................................... 500,000 

Kalispell Bypass, MT ............................................................................................................................................ 4,000,000 

King Coal Highway, WV ........................................................................................................................................ 5,000,000 

KY 70 Rehabilitation Project in Barren County, KY ............................................................................................ 400,000 

Lake Harbour Road, Ridgeland, MS ..................................................................................................................... 1,250,000 

Las Vegas Beltway/Airport Connector Interchange, NV ....................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Lawton Downtown Revitalization Project, Oklahoma ........................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Lincoln Avenue Grade Separation Project, Port of Tacoma, WA ......................................................................... 1,500,000 

Lincoln South and West Beltway, NE .................................................................................................................. 1,000,000 

Little Bay Bridges/Spaulding Turnpike, New Hampshire ..................................................................................... 5,000,000 

Mahoning County US–224 and Related Connector Road Safety Improvements, OH .......................................... 1,500,000 

Manchester East/West Connector Bridge [NH] .................................................................................................... 500,000 

Marks Airport Improvements, MS ......................................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Marshall County Commission Double Bridges, Alabama .................................................................................... 2,000,000 

Marshall County Salt Dome, KY ........................................................................................................................... 400,000 

Martin Bluff Road, Mississippi ............................................................................................................................ 5,000,000 

McIngvale Road Interchange/State Hwy 304, Mississippi .................................................................................. 5,000,000 

MD 404 Upgrades, Maryland ............................................................................................................................... 4,000,000 

Merrimack River Footbridge, Manchester, NH ..................................................................................................... 250,000 
50 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS—Continued 

Project name Committee recommendation 

Mingo Wildlife Refuge Recreational Trail & Habitat Improvement, MO ............................................................. 800,000 

Minnesota Valley Regional Rail Authority Rehabilitation Improvements, Minnesota ......................................... 2,000,000 

Mississippi Highway 27, MS ................................................................................................................................ 500,000 

Mississippi Highway 44 Extension/Pearl River Bridge, MS ................................................................................. 2,000,000 

Missouri 58 Highway and Route D Improvements, Cass County, MO ................................................................ 1,000,000 

MO 740 Stadium Extension to I–70, Missouri .................................................................................................... 3,000,000 

Morgan County, WV—Extension of Western Maryland Trail through Paw Paw Bends ...................................... 1,000,000 

Natchez Roads, MS .............................................................................................................................................. 1,500,000 

Nehemiah Gateway ‘‘Ways to Work’’ Loan Program, DE ..................................................................................... 259,080 

New Orleans Regional Redevelopment Planning, LA ........................................................................................... 2,000,000 

North Royal Street Improvements, TN .................................................................................................................. 1,000,000 

North Second Street Corridor, Memphis, Tennessee ............................................................................................ 4,000,000 

Northside Drive, Clinton, MS ................................................................................................................................ 3,750,000 

Oelwein Community Revitalization Initiative, Oelwein, Iowa ............................................................................... 1,000,000 

Old Whitfield Road, Pearl, MS ............................................................................................................................. 2,000,000 

Outer Loop, Montgomery, Alabama ...................................................................................................................... 3,000,000 

Paducah Waterfront Development Project in Paducah, Kentucky ....................................................................... 4,600,000 

Patriot Parkway (Southern Bypass), Madison County, Alabama ......................................................................... 4,700,000 

Pecue Lane Interchange and Realignment, Louisiana ........................................................................................ 250,000 

Pedestrian Access and Safety Improvements, Oklahoma ................................................................................... 500,000 

Pinnacle Aeropark Access Project, Wayne County, MI ......................................................................................... 2,000,000 

Planning Study for Limited Access Highway at Fort Campbell, KY .................................................................... 400,000 

Port Huron NAFTA Corridor Congestion Mitigation Project, MI ............................................................................ 1,000,000 

Port of Anacortes Infrastructure Improvements, Anacortes, WA ......................................................................... 1,150,000 

Port of Anchorage Intermodal Marine Facility Development, AK ......................................................................... 1,000,000 

Port of Anchorage road improvements, AK .......................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Ports-to-Plains Corridor [CO] ............................................................................................................................... 500,000 

Ports-to-Plains Trade Corridor, TX ....................................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Post Street Centennial Trail and Utility Bridge, Spokane, WA ............................................................................ 2,000,000 

Pyramid Highway Corridor Early Action Items, NV .............................................................................................. 1,000,000 

Rails Corridor Alliance, MS .................................................................................................................................. 750,000 

Reconstruction of US–50 in Reno County, KS ..................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Reconstruction of US–50, Gray County, KS ......................................................................................................... 2,000,000 

Relief Route, City of Aztec, New Mexico .............................................................................................................. 1,000,000 

Resurfacing of Ocean, Post, and Shore Roads, RI ............................................................................................. 1,000,000 

Rhode Island Department of Transportation; Post Road Improvements [RI] ..................................................... 2,000,000 

Rhode Island Department of Transportation; Route 3 Improvements, RI ........................................................... 1,000,000 

Rhode Island Department of Transportation; Warwick Intermodal Station Sky Bridge and Moving Skywalk 

Project, RI ........................................................................................................................................................ 1,000,000 

Rickenbacker Global Logistics Transportation Improvements, OH ...................................................................... 1,000,000 

River Tech Boulevard Road Construction, Illinois ............................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Road Improvements and Upgrades to Boyd Boulevard, LaPorte, IN ................................................................... 750,000 

Route 17 Essex Street Bridge (Bergen County, NJ) ............................................................................................. 2,000,000 

Route 29 Boulevard Conversion Project in Trenton, NJ ....................................................................................... 2,000,000 

Route 30 Cooper River Drainage Improvements (Camden County, NJ) .............................................................. 3,000,000 

Sam Chastain Waterfront Trail, Renton, WA ....................................................................................................... 1,200,000 

SD 11 and SD 42 in Sioux Falls, South Dakota ................................................................................................. 5,000,000 

Second Bridge to Oak Island, Brunswick County NC .......................................................................................... 1,000,000 

SH 44/104th Ave Improvements [CO] .................................................................................................................. 800,000 

South Corridor (North Lake Road) of the North Valley Connector Study, Utah .................................................. 750,000 

South Lake Union Circulation System, Seattle, WA ............................................................................................. 1,150,000 

SR 40 from west of CR 61 to I–95, Camden Co., GA ........................................................................................ 1,000,000 

SR 85 Improvements, Crestview, Florida ............................................................................................................. 1,000,000 

SR1 Beach Area Improvements—Rehoboth Entrance Improvements, DE .......................................................... 2,000,000 

SR–1 Grade Separated Intersection, DE .............................................................................................................. 2,000,000 

SR–57 Safety Improvements, Lorain County, OH ................................................................................................ 1,000,000 

Stafford County Courthouse Improvement Project, Virginia ................................................................................ 711,000 

State Road 133 from Valdosta to Moultrie to Albany, Georgia .......................................................................... 1,000,000 

Staten Island North/West Shore Rail Plan Study, NY ......................................................................................... 1,400,000 

Ste. Genevieve Main Street/Riverfront Improvement Project, MO ....................................................................... 1,000,000 

Stillwater Avenue Reconstruction Project, Bangor, ME ....................................................................................... 100,000 

Street Repair, Greenville, MS ............................................................................................................................... 1,250,000 

Tantalus Drive Stabilization, HI ........................................................................................................................... 4,000,000 
51 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS—Continued 

Project name Committee recommendation 

Temple Park and Temple Square, MO ................................................................................................................. 1,000,000 

Tenth Street Connector, Greeneville, NC .............................................................................................................. 1,000,000 

TH 14 from Waseca to Owatonna, MN ................................................................................................................ 2,000,000 

TH 610 Corridor from TH 169 in Brooklyn Park to I–94 in Maple Grove, MN .................................................... 1,000,000 

The Chinatown Plaza and Vicinity Revitalization, Pennsylvania ......................................................................... 120,000 

Thomaston—Route 1 Highway Reconstruction Project, ME ................................................................................ 2,000,000 

Toby Tubby Parkway, MS ...................................................................................................................................... 500,000 

Town of Branford Relocation of State Route 794 and Alterations of Approaches of State Route 794 and 

State Route 146 to Route 1, Connecticut ....................................................................................................... 3,000,000 

Town of Mansfield Construction of Parking Garage in Storrs Town Center, Connecticut .................................. 2,000,000 

Town of West Haven Development of a Feasibility Study of the Extension of Fresh Meadow Road to Route 

34, Connecticut ............................................................................................................................................... 250,000 

Transportation Infrastructure Improvements and Expansion for Green River, Wyoming .................................... 400,000 

U.S. 69 and Chuckwa Drive Ramps, Oklahoma .................................................................................................. 475,118 

U.S. 82—Downtown Connector Road, Greenwood, MS ....................................................................................... 1,500,000 

University of Memphis Southern Railroad Pedestrian Underpass, Tennessee .................................................... 1,000,000 

US 12 Improvements from Burbank to Walla Walla, WA, Phase VII .................................................................. 1,000,000 

US 14 Pierre-Fort Pierre Bridge Rehabilitation, South Dakota ........................................................................... 1,000,000 

US 17 in Beaufort County, NC ............................................................................................................................. 2,000,000 

US 2, Dover Bridge, Bonner County—Idaho ....................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

US 30 and SR 230/Harrisburg Pike Improvements, PA ...................................................................................... 630,000 

US 35 Improvements, West Virginia .................................................................................................................... 5,000,000 

US 51 Widening, Hernando, MS ........................................................................................................................... 1,250,000 

US 51/SR 43 Connector Road, MS ...................................................................................................................... 3,250,000 

US 63 and Gans Road Interchange, Missouri ..................................................................................................... 4,500,000 

US 93 Hamilton to Missoula ................................................................................................................................ 1,000,000 

US Highway 11, St. Tammany, Louisiana ........................................................................................................... 4,000,000 

US Highway 21 from Roaring Gap to Sparta, NC ............................................................................................... 997,000 

US Route 1 and SR 452 Improvements, PA ........................................................................................................ 500,000 

US–2, Dover Bridge, Bonner County, Idaho ......................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

US–6 Passing Lanes, Emery County, Utah .......................................................................................................... 3,000,000 

Utah County I–15 Reconstruction Mitigation Strategic Plan: Redwood Road and Lehi 1000 South, Utah ...... 2,000,000 

Walden Point Road, AK ........................................................................................................................................ 2,250,000 

Warrensburg Hwy 13 Bypass, Missouri ............................................................................................................... 5,000,000 

Warsaw Bridge Replacement, Warsaw, MO ......................................................................................................... 200,000 

Washington Boulevard Transportation Project, Camanche, Iowa ........................................................................ 200,000 

Wasilla Road improvements, AK .......................................................................................................................... 750,000 

West High Development, MO ................................................................................................................................ 500,000 

West Veterans Boulevard Extension, Auburn, Alabama ...................................................................................... 1,500,000 

West Virginia Drive, City of Port St. Lucie, Florida ............................................................................................. 1,000,000 

West Virginia Route 2 Improvements, WV ........................................................................................................... 9,500,000 

Wheeler Peak Drive Road Upgrade, NV ............................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

WV Route 9 .......................................................................................................................................................... 5,000,000 

Zora and Main Street Interchange, MO ............................................................................................................... 1,200,000 

New Orleans Regional Redevelopment Planning, Louisiana.—The 

Committee instructs the grantee for the New Orleans Regional Redevelopment Planning to be coordinated with the New Orleans 

area foundation. 

Section 125 transfers funding from a New Haven, Missouri, 

project to route 100 and highway 19 improvements. 

Section 126 provides requirements for any waiver of Buy American requirements. 

FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration [FMCSA] was 

established within the Department of Transportation by the Motor 

Carrier Safety Improvement Act [MCSIA] (Public Law 106–159) in 
52 

December 1999. Prior to this legislation, motor carrier safety responsibilities were under the jurisdiction of the Federal Highway 

Administration. 

FMCSA’s primary mission is to improve the safety of commercial 

vehicle operations on our Nation’s highways. To accomplish this 

mission, FMCSA is focused on reducing the number and severity 

of large truck crashes. FMCSA is responsible for ensuring that 

Mexican commercial vehicles entering the United States operate in 

accordance with the North American Free Trade Agreement 

[NAFTA] and comply with all U.S. hazardous material and safety 

regulations. In addition, FMCSA oversees compliance with the Federal Motor Carrier Commercial Regulations through increased 

household goods carrier enforcement, education and outreach. 

Agency resources and activities contribute to safety in commercial vehicle operations through enforcement, including the use of 

stronger enforcement measures against safety violators; expedited 

safety regulation; technology innovation; improvements in information systems; training; and improvements to commercial driver’s license testing, recordkeeping, and sanctions. To accomplish these 

activities, FMCSA works closely with Federal, State, and local enforcement agencies, the motor carrier industry, highway safety organizations, and individual citizens. 

MCSIA and the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users [SAFETEA–LU] provides 

funding authorizations for FMCSA’s Motor Carrier Safety Operations and Programs and Motor Carrier Safety Grants. Under 

these authorizations, funding supports FMCSA’s expanded scope as 

authorized by the USA PATRIOT Act, which created new and enhanced security measures. Additionally, funding supports border 

enforcement and safety-related activities associated with implementation of the NAFTA requirement that Mexican long-haul shippers be allowed to operate within the United States subject to the 

same safety requirements placed on U.S. carriers. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total of $517,000,000 for FMCSA 

in fiscal year 2007, which is equal to the requested amount and 

$26,950,000 more than the fiscal year 2006 level. 

MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY OPERATIONS AND PROGRAMS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Limitation, 2006 ..................................................................................... $210,870,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 (limitation) ....................................................... 223,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 223,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 223,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides the necessary resources to support motor 

carrier safety program activities and maintain the agency’s administrative infrastructure. Funding supports nationwide motor carrier 
53 

safety and consumer enforcement efforts, including Federal safety 

enforcement activities at the U.S./Mexico border to ensure that 

Mexican carriers entering the United States are in compliance with 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. Resources are also provided to fund motor carrier regulatory development and implementation, information management, research and technology, safety 

education and outreach, and the 24-hour safety and consumer telephone hotline. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of $223,000,000 for FMCSA’s Operations and Programs. The recommendation is consistent with SAFETEA–LU authorization levels 

and is $12,130,000 more than fiscal year 2006 enacted level. The bill specifies that $10,296,000 for the research and technology program is available for obligation until September 30, 

2010. 

OPERATING EXPENSES

The Committee recommends $151,107,000 for operating expenses. 

State Enforcement of Farm Operations.—The Committee is concerned about the confusion and the unnecessary burdens imposed 

on farm operators and State enforcement officials associated with 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, parts 381–397. Clearly, farmers operating their 

own equipment to transport their own farm commodities to local 

markets are intended in many if not most cases to be exempt from 

the Federal regulatory requirements imposed on commercial operators. In regard to the regulations referenced, the Committee directs 

the FMCSA to review and provide a report to the Committee within 90 days after the date of enactment of this act outlining: the explicit legal requirements for farm operators and State enforcement 

officials; the flexibility, waivers and exemptions available to States 

in enforcing Federal requirements; the conditions related to farm 

operator compliance that compel the DOT to withhold Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program assistance to States; and, recommendations on how these Federal requirements may be simplified and made more uniform to avoid unnecessary and unintended confusion and regulatory burdens. 

Household Goods Enforcement.—The Committee recommends 

$1,500,000 for household goods enforcement. The Committee encourages FMCSA to assert its role to enforce Federal laws and regulations with respect to transportation of household goods and to 

do everything possible to increase the number of investigations 

against unscrupulous household goods movers. 

Working Capital Fund.—The Committee recommends $4,087,000 

for the working capital fund. The Committee recommendation is 

consisent with the budget request and more than a 6 percent increase above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

U.S.-Mexico Cross Border Trucking.—Section 350 of the fiscal 

year 2002 Transportation Appropriations Act (Public Law 107–87) 

mandated that certain safety requirements must be met for Mexican motor carriers to enter the United States. Prior to the enact-
54 

ment of that legislation, on June 27, 2002, the Committee held a 

joint hearing with the Committee on Commerce, Science and 

Transportation on cross-border truck and bus operations at the 

United States-Mexico border. At that hearing, the Department of 

Transportation’s Inspector General pointed out that, despite the 

fact that FMCSA had issued a rule requiring States to authorize 

their enforcement personnel to take action when they encounter a 

vehicle without valid operating authority, only two States had 

taken the necessary action by the time of that hearing. Today, 

more than 3 years later, some States have still not provided authorization for their enforcement personnel to take trucks without 

the proper operating authority out-of-service despite the fact that 

the FMCSA established a deadline for compliance with this requirement of September 30, 2003. 

The Committee is frustrated and dismayed to learn of the slow 

responsiveness by several States in complying with this Federal requirement. The Committee has tasked the Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration with carrying out congressional intent on all 

of the safety requirements established in section 350 of Public Law 

107–87 and the implementation of all Federal motor carrier safety 

regulations. This includes the provision in section 350 requiring 

that inspectors of Mexican trucks affix a Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance [CVSA] decal showing that the vehicle meets all necessary requirements. Given the Agency’s disappointing results in 

compelling compliance by the States to the above-cited requirements, the Committee directs the Administrator to redouble her efforts and take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that States 

come into full compliance with all the safety requirements and intent set forth in section 350. 

Federally Conducted Compliance Reviews.—The Committee is 

concerned that the number of federally conducted compliance reviews and enforcement actions have decreased significantly since 

the new entrant program commenced and directs FMCSA to ensure 

that it reverses this trend consistent with the objectives and goals 

of MCSIA. The Committee also directs FMCSA to work closely with 

the States to promote their continued participation in a vigorous 

compliance review program. In order to monitor its progress, 

FMCSA shall provide a report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on the number of completed compliance reviews and new extrant safety audits in conjunction with the Agency’s fiscal year 2008 budget request. 

PROGRAM EXPENSES

The Committee recommends $70,893,000 for FMCSA’s program 

expenses. 

Research and Technology.—The Committee recommends 

$10,296,000 for research and technology. The recommendation is 

consistent with the requested amount and $313,000 more than the 

fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

Outreach and Education.—The Committee recommends 

$4,000,000 for the outreach and education program, consistent with 

the budget request and the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. The 

Committee reminds FMCSA that data collection and analysis are 

two of the most important aspects of any program that focuses on 
55 

ways to inform and influence behavior. The Committee expects 

FMCSA to manage the Outreach and Education program with the 

same performance, data, and analysis-driven focus which the Agency is implementing for the enforcement programs. The Committee 

directs FMCSA to use funds provided above the budget estimate to 

continue the outreach program with the goal of enhancing the coordination and effective enforcement of Federal laws and regulations with respect to household goods transportation. The Committee directs FMCSA to develop a process as part of the household 

goods outreach program for State safety authorities and law enforcement agencies to refer investigations to the appropriate Federal authorities. 

Information Management Program.—The Committee recommends $43,175,000 for FMCSA’s information management program [IMP], which is consistent with the budget request and 

$1,504,000 more than the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY GRANTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Liquidation of contract authorization Limitation on 

obligations 

Appropriations, 2006 .................................................................................................. $279,180,000 $279,180,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ............................................................................................... 297,502,000 297,502,000 

House allowance ......................................................................................................... 294,000,000 294,000,000 

Committee recommendation ....................................................................................... 294,000,000 294,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides the necessary resources for the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program [MCSAP] State grants. Grants will 

be used to support State compliance reviews; 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 United States are 

fortified with comprehensive safety measures; improvement of 

State commercial driver’s license [CDL] oversight activities to prevent unqualified drivers from being issued CDL’s; and the Performance Registration Information Systems and Management [PRISM] 

program, which links State motor vehicle registration systems with 

carrier safety data in order to identify unsafe commercial motor 

carriers. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

The Committee recommends a liquidation of contract authorization of $294,000,000 for the payment of obligations incurred in carrying out motor carrier safety grant programs. The Committee rec-
56 

ommendation is consistent with the budget estimate and is consistent with the amount of contract authorization for this program 

under SAFETEA–LU. 

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of $294,000,000 for motor carrier safety grants. The recommended 

limitation is consistent with the budget estimate and is consistent 

with the amount of contract authorization for this program under 

SAFETEA–LU. The Committee recommendation is $14,820,000 

more than the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. In addition, the Committee recommends the allocation of $3,502,000 of revenue aligned 

budget authority [RABA] from the Federal-aid highway program to 

this account as authorized by SAFETEA–LU. The Committee recommends a separate limitation for each grant program funded 

under this account with the following funding allocations: 

Amount 

Motor carrier safety assistance program [MCSAP] ............................................................................................. $197,000,000 

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

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

MCSAP RABA ........................................................................................................................................................ 3,502,000 

Safety Data Improvement .................................................................................................................................... 3,000,000 

CDLIS .................................................................................................................................................................... 7,000,000 

Commercial driver’s license and driver improvement program .......................................................................... 25,000,000 

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

MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

(RESCISSION)

The bill rescinds $27,122,669 in unobligated balances from 

amounts made available under this heading in prior appropriations 

acts. 

NATIONAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY PROGRAM

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

(RESCISSION)

The bill rescinds $3,419,816 in unobligated balances from 

amounts made available under this heading in prior appropriations 

acts. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY

ADMINISTRATION

Section 130 subjects the funds in this act to section 350 of Public 

Law 107–87 in order to ensure the safety of all cross-border long 

haul operations conducted by Mexican-domiciled commercial carriers. 

Section 131. SAFETEA–LU includes a provision for the repeal of 

the Single State Registration System [SSRS] on January 1, 2007, 

and its replacement with a new Unified Carrier Registration System [UCR]. The Committee, however, believes that a repeal of 

SSRS is premature given that progress on instituting the UCR has 
57 

been insignificant. The current SSRS brings in approximately 

$100,000,000 in registration fees to the States that participate in 

the program, funds that are often used to cover the cost of transportation safety and enforcement programs. For this reason, the 

Committee includes language that would delay the repeal of SSRS 

by 12 months, and require the Government Accountability Office to 

report to the Congress on the progress being made in establishing 

the UCR. 

Section 132. This section makes a correction to Public Law 109– 

59 regarding the definition of a commercial motor vehicle and regulation of freight forwarders and brokers. 

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA] is 

responsible for motor vehicle safety, highway safety behavioral programs, and the motor vehicle information and automobile fuel economy programs. The Federal Government’s regulatory role in motor 

vehicle and highway safety began in September 1966 with the enactment of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 

1966 (codified as chapter 301 of title 49, United States Code) and 

the Highway Safety Act of 1966 (codified as chapter 4 of title 23, 

United States Code). The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety 

Act of 1966 instructs the Secretary to reduce traffic crashes and 

deaths and injuries resulting from traffic crashes; establish motor 

vehicle safety standards for motor vehicles and motor vehicle 

equipment in interstate commerce; carry out needed safety research and development; and expand the National Driver Register. 

The Highway Safety Act of 1966 instructs the Secretary to increase 

highway safety by providing for a coordinated national highway 

safety program through financial assistance to the States. 

In October 1966, these activities, originally under the jurisdiction 

of the Department of Commerce, were transferred to the Department of Transportation, to be carried out through the National 

Traffic Safety Bureau. In March 1970, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA] was established as a separate 

organizational entity in the Department. It succeeded the National 

Highway Safety Bureau, which previously had administered traffic 

and highway safety functions as an organizational unit of the Federal Highway Administration. 

NHTSA’s mission was expanded in October 1972 with the enactment of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (now 

codified as chapters 321, 323, 325, 327, 329, and 331 of title 49, 

United States Code). This act as originally enacted, instructs the 

Secretary to establish low-speed collision bumper standards, consumer information activities, and odometer regulations. Three 

major amendments to this act have been enacted: (1) a December 

1975 amendment directs the Secretary to set and administer mandatory automotive fuel economy standards; (2) an October 1984 

amendment directs the Secretary to require certain passenger 

motor vehicles and their major replacement parts to be marked 

with identifying numbers or symbols; and (3) an October 1992 
58 

amendment directs the Secretary to set and administer automobile 

content labeling requirements. 

NHTSA’s current programs are authorized in five major laws: (1) 

the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (chapter 301 of 

title 49, United States Code ); (2) the Highway Safety Act (chapter 

4 of title 23, U.S.C.); (3) the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost 

Savings Act [MVICSA] (part C of subtitle VI of title 49, United 

States Code); (4) the National Driver Register Act of 1982; and (5) 

the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity 

Act: A Legacy for Users [SAFETEA–LU]. 

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides for 

the establishment and enforcement of safety standards for vehicles 

and associated equipment and the conduct of supporting research, 

including the acquisition of required testing facilities and the operation of the National Driver Register, which was reauthorized by 

the National Driver Register Act of 1982. 

The Highway Safety Act provides for coordinated national highway safety programs (section 402 of title 23, United States Code) 

to be carried out by the States and for highway safety research, development, and demonstration programs (section 403 of title 23, 

United States Code). The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (Public Law 

100–690) authorized a new drunk driving prevention program (section 410 of title 23, United States Code) to make grants to States 

to implement and enforce drunk driving prevention programs. 

SAFETEA–LU, which was enacted on August 10, 2005, either reauthorized or added new authorizations for the full range of 

NHTSA programs for fiscal years 2005 through 2009. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation of $819,250,000 provides sufficient funding for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to maintain current programs and continue the mobilization 

and paid media initiatives that have proven so effective in increasing safety belt use and impaired driving awareness. 

The following table summarizes the Committee recommendations: 

Program 

Fiscal year— Committee 

recommendation 2006 enacted 1 2007 estimate 

Operations and research ..................................................................... $230,132,000 $227,250,000 $231,500,000 

National Driver Register ...................................................................... 3,960,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 

Highway traffic safety grants .............................................................. 572,394,000 583,750,000 583,750,000 

Total ........................................................................................ 806,486,670 815,000,000 819,250,000 

OPERATIONS AND RESEARCH

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $234,092,430 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 227,250,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 236,450,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 231,500,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

These programs support traffic safety programs and related research, demonstrations, technical assistance, and national leader-
59 

ship for highway safety programs conducted by State and local government, the private sector, universities, research units, and various safety associations and organizations. These highway safety 

programs emphasize alcohol and drug countermeasures, vehicle occupant protection, traffic law enforcement, emergency medical and 

trauma care systems, traffic records and licensing, State and community traffic safety evaluations, motorcycle riders, pedestrian and 

bicycle safety, pupil transportation, distracted and drowsy driving, 

young and older driver safety programs, and development of improved accident investigation procedures. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total of $231,500,000 in new budgetary resources, which is $4,250,000 above the budget request and 

$2,592,430 less than the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

The Committee recommends funds to be distributed to the following program activities in the following amounts: 

Program Committee 

recommendation 

Contract programs: 

Safety performance ................................................................................................................................. $14,905,000 

Safety assurance ..................................................................................................................................... 18,277,000 

Highway safety ........................................................................................................................................ 50,965,000 

Research and analysis ............................................................................................................................ 65,711,000 

General administration ........................................................................................................................... 673,000 

Salaries and benefits ....................................................................................................................................... 75,000,000 

Travel ................................................................................................................................................................ 1,364,000 

Operating expenses .......................................................................................................................................... 22,355,000 

Grant administration reimbursement .............................................................................................................. (17,750,000 ) 

Total .................................................................................................................................................... 231,500,000 

OPERATING EXPENSES

Budget Documentation.—The Committee reminds NHTSA that 

budget request materials submitted to the Congress should not 

only include explanatory documentation for any proposed budget 

increases; the budget materials should also describe any proposed 

decreases to programs from the prior year’s funding levels. 

The Committee recommends $5,403,000 for the working capital 

fund, equal to the budget request. 

Administrative Expenses.—Section 2001(11) of SAFETEA–LU 

provides for administrative and related operating expenses for 

NHTSA carrying out chapter 4 of title 23, United States Code, and 

for the highway safety title of Public Law 109–59. The Committee 

recommends $17,750,000, to NHTSA for administrative expenses 

associated with administering the highway safety grant programs 

and related operating expenses. 

SAFETY PERFORMANCE

Vehicle Safety Harmonization.—The Committee recommends 

$206,000 for international harmonization activities, an amount 

equal to the budget request. 

New Car Assessment Program.—The Committee recommends 

$10,500,000 for the New Car Assessment Program [NCAP]. 
60 

Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems.—The TREAD Act included a 

requirement that the Secretary of Transportation issue a rule mandating new motor vehicles have a warning system to alert operators when a tire is significantly under-inflated. In compliance with 

this directive, in April of 2005 NHTSA published a final rule that 

requires Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems [TPMS] to be installed 

in every new vehicle by model year 2006. NHTSA notes the potential of TPMS in preventing injury, saving lives and improving fuel 

economy. However, the Committee is concerned that these impacts 

may be undermined if consumers do not fully understand the technology. Therefore, the Committee provides NHTSA with $750,000 

and directs NHTSA to carry out a consumer education campaign 

that would assist drivers in understanding new TPMS technologies, 

their purpose, and the valuable safety information that they provide. 

HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAMS

The Committee recommends funds to be distributed to the following program activities in the following amount: 

Committee recommendation 

Impaired Driving .............................................................................................................................................. $11,300,000 

Drug Impaired Driving ..................................................................................................................................... 1,500,000 

Pedestrians/Bicycles ......................................................................................................................................... 1,665,000 

Older Drivers .................................................................................................................................................... 500,000 

Motorcycles ....................................................................................................................................................... 800,000 

National Occupant Protection .......................................................................................................................... 11,224,000 

Enforcement and Justice Services ................................................................................................................... 2,717,000 

Law Enforcement Training ............................................................................................................................... (500,000 ) 

Emergency Medical Services ............................................................................................................................ 4,320,000 

Records and Licensing ..................................................................................................................................... 2,660,000 

Highway Safety Research ................................................................................................................................. 11,430,000 

Emerging Traffic Safety Issues ........................................................................................................................ 593,000 

NOPUS .............................................................................................................................................................. 1,656,000 

Enhance 9–1–1 Act Implementation ............................................................................................................... 500,000 

International Activities ..................................................................................................................................... 100,000 

Total .................................................................................................................................................... 50,965,000 

Impaired Driving.—The Committee recommends $11,300,000 to 

support the impaired driving program. This amount is equal to the 

budget request. These additional funds will allow NHTSA to continue to: (1) promote high visibility law enforcement; (2) educate 

prosecutors, judges and law enforcement regarding impaired driving and promote specialized or enhanced court systems; (3) develop 

effective messages and countermeasures to reach high risk groups; 

and (4) encourage widespread adoption of medical screening and 

brief intervention for individuals with alcohol abuse problems. 

Judicial and Prosecutorial Awareness.—The Committee recommends $1,100,000 for judicial and prosecutorial awareness to expedite the detection, identification and tracking of hard core drunk 

drivers. The Committee is aware that one of the major factors in 

alcohol-related crashes is the number of habitual drunk drivers involved in alcohol-related traffic crashes. 

The Committee directs NHTSA to work with State and local law 

enforcement officials, judges, prosecutors and parole officers to as-
61 

sist them in developing strategies that specifically target the removal of habitual drunk drivers from the road. 

Motorcycles.—NHTSA’s budget documents state that motorcycle 

fatalities have increased for 7 straight years, for a total 89 percent 

increase since 1997. Helmet use continues to play a role in 40 percent of motorcycle accidents. The Committee recommends $800,000 

for motorcycle program activities, the same as the fiscal year 2006 

level. 

National Occupant Protection Program.—Recent years have seen 

encouraging increases in safety belt use across the country, reaching 82 percent for 2005. 

The Committee continues to urge NHTSA to be vigilant and resourceful in its efforts to not only increase the seat belt rate, but 

ensure that this vigilance is not overshadowing the overall goal of 

reducing fatalities in this and every aspect of highway safety. The 

Committee recommends $11,224,000 for NHTSA’s occupant protection efforts, which is the requested amount. 

To supplement NHTSA’s overall safety belt effort, the Committee 

recommends funding to continue the ‘‘Click It or Ticket’’ national 

public service message program. 

Emergency Medical Services.—The Committee continues to support the development of a national database to collect EMS data 

similar to those that exist for fire and police services. The Committee recommends an increase of $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2007, 

of which $1,000,000 is to continue the implementation of the National Emergency Medical Services Information System [NEMISIS] 

data collection initiative at the National Center for Statistics and 

Analysis. The Committee views the implementation of NEMISIS, to 

be extremely important in light of NHTSA’s role as Federal coordinator of all EMS systems. 

International Activities.—The Committee recommends $100,000 

for NHTSA’s international activities initiative. 

The Committee recommends $500,000 for necessary expenses of 

the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to support the 

E–911 Implementation Coordination Office, established pursuant to 

section 104 of Public Law 108–494. 

RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS

Biomechanical Research.—The Committee recommends 

$12,500,000 for biomechanics research. The Committee’s recommendation includes necessary resources for the continued research of the Crash Injury Research and Engineering Network program. 

Maternal and Fetal Injuries in Vehicle Crashes.—The Committee 

has become aware of possible increases in vehicle crashes involving 

pregnant women. These vehicle crashes put both the expectant 

mother and fetus at risk, yet little is known of the incident, risks 

and characteristics of pregnant women in crashes. The Committee 

directs NHTSA to explore the feasibility of adding a gravid 

anthropomorphic dummy to its vehicle testing procedures. A Federal standard on a gravid anthropomorphic dummy may help spur 

the research to improve the crashworthiness of vehicles for pregnant women. NHTSA shall report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 9 months of enactment of this act 
62 

on the number of crashes involving pregnant women and the injuries and fatalities associated with those crashes. Also, the report 

shall include an assessment of creating a crash test dummy that 

would measure the injuries to the women and the fetus. 

CIREN Research on Older Drivers.—The Committee is aware of 

the growing population of older Americans, which is expected to 

nearly double by 2030. In recognition of this growth and the different health issues facing older Americans, the Committee directs 

NHTSA as part of its CIREN program, to collect data that will 

measure the impact of crashes on older populations and that would 

assist in the possible development of a crash test dummy representing older occupants. NHTSA is directed to update the Committee on the CIREN program including its efforts related to older 

drivers. 

Plastic and Composite Vehicles.—The Committee recognizes the 

development of plastics and polymer-based composites in the automotive industry and the important role these technologies play in 

improving and enabling automobile performance. The Committee 

recommends $500,000 to continue development of Lightweight 

Plastic and Composite Intensive Vehicles [PCIV] research to examine possible safety benefits. The program will help facilitate a foundation of cooperation between DOT, the Department of Energy and 

industry stakeholders for the development of safety-centered approaches for future light-weight automotive design. 

Crash Avoidance and Human Vehicle Performance.—The Committee includes $6,750,000 for the crash avoidance and human vehicle performance program as requested in the budget estimate. 

Within the funds provided, the Committee directs that no less than 

$3,000,000 be utilized for the National Advance Driving Simulator. 

Fatality Analysis Reporting System.—The Committee recommends $7,063,000 for the Fatality Analysis Reporting System 

[FARS], equal to the proposed budget request and the fiscal year 

2006 enacted base funding. 

FAST FARS.—The Committee recommends $1,000,000 for the 

FAST FARS data collection program. An effective FAST FARS system will permit the agency to analyze the effectiveness of its programs more quickly, thereby improving decision making to better 

utilize limited safety funding resources. 

Vehicle Crash Causation Study.—The Committee continues to 

support the ongoing vehicle crash causation study and provides 

$7,000,000, the requested level, for this purpose. 

Hydrogen Fuel Cell and Alternative Fuel Vehicle Safety.—The 

Committee strongly supports NHTSA’s initiative to address possible safety concerns as hydrogen fuel cell and other alternative 

fuel cell vehicles are introduced into the Nation’s fleet. The fiscal 

year 2007 budget request, $925,000, is provided for this purpose. 
63 

NATIONAL DRIVER REGISTER

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Liquidation of contract 

authorization 

Limitation on 

obligations 

Appropriations, 2006 ...................................................................................................................... $4,000,000 $3,960,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................................................................... 4,000,000 4,000,000 

House allowance ............................................................................................................................. 4,000,000 4,000,000 

Committee recommendation ........................................................................................................... 4,000,000 4,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides funding to implement and operate the 

Problem Driver Pointer System [PDPS] and improve traffic safety 

by assisting State motor vehicle administrators in communicating 

effectively and efficiently with other States to identify drivers 

whose licenses have been suspended or revoked for serious traffic 

offenses such as driving under the influence of alcohol or other 

drugs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

The Committee recommends a liquidation of contract authorization of $4,000,000 for payment on obligations incurred in carryout 

provisions of the National Driver Register Act. The recommended 

liquidating cash appropriation is equal to the budget estimate and 

is equal to the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS

The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of $4,000,000 for the National Driver Register. The recommended limitation is the same as the budget request and is $40,000 more than 

the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Limitation of contract authorization Limitation on 

obligations 

Appropriations, 2006 .......................................................................................................... $578,176,000 $572,394,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................................................... 583,750,000 583,750,000 

House allowance ................................................................................................................. 587,750,000 587,750,000 

Committee recommendation ............................................................................................... 583,750,000 583,750,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

SAFETEA–LU reauthorizes three State grant programs: highway 

safety programs, occupant protection incentive grants, and alcoholimpaired driving countermeasures incentive grants; and authorizes 
64 

for the first time an additional five State programs: safety belt performance grants, State traffic safety information systems improvement grants, high visibility enforcement program, child safety and 

child booster seat safety incentive grants, and motorcyclist safety 

grants. 

The highway safety grant program under section 402 of title 23, 

United States Code SAFETEA–LU established a new safety belt 

performance incentive grant program under section 406 of title 23, 

United States Code; SAFETEA–LU also established a new program 

of incentive grants under section 408 of title 23, United States 

Code; SAFETEA–LU amended the alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures incentive grant program authorized by section 410 of 

title 23, United States Code; SAFETEA–LU establishes a new program to administer at least two high-visibility traffic safety law enforcement campaigns each year to achieve one or both of the following objectives: (1) reduce alcohol-impaired or drug-impaired operation of motor vehicles; and/or (2) increase the use of safety belts 

by occupants of motor vehicles. 

Motorcyclist Safety.—Section 2010 of SAFETEA–LU established 

a new program of incentive grants for motorcycle safety training 

and motorcyclist awareness programs. Section 2011 of SAFETEA– 

LU established a new incentive grant program these grants may be 

used only for child safety seat and child restraint programs. 

Grant Administrative Expenses.—Section 2001(a)(11) of 

SAFETEA–LU provides funding for salaries and operating expenses related to the administration of the grants programs and 

supports the national occupant protection user survey and highway 

safety research programs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

The Committee recommends an appropriation for liquidation of 

contract authorization of $583,750,000 for payment on obligations 

incurred in carryout provision of the highway traffic safety grant 

programs. The Committee recommendation is consistent with the 

amount of contract authorization for highway traffic safety grant 

programs under SAFETEA–LU. The recommended liquidating cash 

appropriation is equal to the budget estimate and $5,574,000 more 

than fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of 

$583,750,000 for the highway traffic safety grant programs funded 

under this heading. The recommended limitation is equal to the 

budget estimate and $11,356,000 more than fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

The Committee continues to recommend prohibiting the use of 

section 402 funds for construction, rehabilitation or remodeling 

costs, or for office furnishings and fixtures for State, local, or private buildings or structures. 

The Committee recommends a separate limitation on obligations 

for administrative expenses and for each grant program as follows: 
65 

Amount 

Administrative expenses ...................................................................................................................................... $17,750,000 

Highway safety programs (section 402) .............................................................................................................. 220,000,000 

Occupant protection programs (section 405) ...................................................................................................... 25,000,000 

Alcohol impaired driving countermeasures incentive grants (section 410) ....................................................... 125,000,000 

High visibility enforcement program (section 2009) ........................................................................................... 25,000,000 

Motorcyle safety (section 2010) ........................................................................................................................... 6,000,000 

State traffic safety information systems improvements (section 412) .............................................................. 34,500,000 

Child safety and child booster seat safety incentive grants ............................................................................. 6,000,000 

Safety belt performance grants (section 406) .................................................................................................... 124,500,000 

Total ........................................................................................................................................................ 445,500,000 

OPERATIONS AND RESEARCH

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORITY)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

(RESCISSION)

The bill rescinds $6,772,751 in unobligated balances from 

amounts made available under this heading in prior appropriations 

acts. 

NATIONAL DRIVER REGISTER

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORITY)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

(RESCISSION)

The bill rescinds $8,553 in unobligated balances from amounts 

made available under this heading in prior appropriations acts. 

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORITY)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

(RESCISSION)

The bill rescinds $5,646,863 in unobligated balances from 

amounts made available under this heading in prior appropriations 

acts. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY

ADMINISTRATION

Section 140 includes a provision to allows the Secretary to transfer funds in any fiscal year provided for administrative expenses 

for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s National 

Driver Register, under section 2001(a)(7) of Public Law 109–59, 

and for the agency’s administrative and related operating expenses, 

under section 2001(a)(11) of Public Law 109–59, to the ‘‘Operations 
66 

and Research’’ account and the ‘‘Operations and Research, Limitations on Obligations, Highway Trust Fund’’ account.’’ 

Section 141 requires the Secretary of Transportation to submit a 

report to Congress describing the feasibility and marginal production costs of making all new passenger automobiles and light 

trucks sold in the United States capable of using a flexible fuel 

mixture. 

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

The Federal Railroad Administration [FRA] became an operating 

administration within the Department of Transportation on April 

1, 1967. It incorporated the Bureau of Railroad Safety from the 

Interstate Commerce Commission, the Office of High Speed Ground 

Transportation from the Department of Commerce, and the Alaska 

Railroad from the Department of the Interior. The Federal Railroad 

Administration is responsible for planning, developing, and administering programs to achieve safe operating and mechanical practices in the railroad industry. Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) and other financial assistance programs to rehabilitate and improve the railroad industry’s physical 

infrastructure are also administered by the Federal Railroad Administration. 

SAFETY AND OPERATIONS

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $144,490,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 150,578,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 150,153,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 150,578,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Safety and Operations account provides support for FRA rail 

safety activities and all other administrative and operating activities related to staff and programs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $150,578,000 for Safety and Operations for fiscal year 2007, which is consistent with the budget request and $6,088,000 more than the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

Of this amount the bill specifies that, $13,870,890 remains available until expended. 

RAILROAD RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $54,524,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 34,650,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 34,650,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Railroad Research and Development provides for research in the 

development of safety and performance standards for railroads and 

the evaluation of their role in the Nation’s transportation infrastructure. 
67 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $34,650,000 for 

railroad research and development, which is the same as the budget request and $19,874,000 less than the fiscal year 2006 enacted 

level. 

Within the amount provided, the Committee recommends: 

$250,000 for the Constructed Facilities Center at West Virginia 

University to develop manufactured modules using innovative manufacturing techniques, advanced blast resistant materials and 

structural systems, and embedded modern sensors; 

$750,000 for Marshall University, in cooperation with the University of Nebraska, to develop a new track stability technology 

using the actual rail lines in the states as the calibration test beds; 

and 

$500,000 for the Las Vegas-Los Angeles High Speed Rail Study 

to conduct the conceptual engineering and capacity modeling for 

multi-frequency passenger rail service between Las Vegas and Los 

Angeles. 

GRANTS TO THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION

(AMTRAK)

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $1,293,633,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 1 ......................................................................... 900,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 900,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,400,000,000 

1Funds to be available for transfer to the Surface Transportation Board for directed service 

of commuter rail obligations. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) is a forprofit corporation that operates intercity passenger rail services in 

46 States and the District of Columbia, in addition to serving as 

a contractor in various capacities for several commuter rail agencies. Congress created Amtrak in the Rail Passenger Service Act of 

1970 (Public Law 91–518) in response to private carriers’ inability 

to profitably operate intercity passenger rail service due a steady 

decline in ridership that began in the 1920’s. Thereafter, Amtrak 

assumed the common carrier obligations of the private railroads in 

exchange for the right to priority access of their tracks for incremental cost. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

CAPITAL GRANTS FOR THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER

CORPORATION

The Committee recommends $750,000,000 for capital grants to 

Amtrak. Of this amount, no more than $295,000,000 is available 

for debt service payments. The Committee is concerned about the 

safety and efficiency of the Nation’s passenger rail system and has 

provided the funds needed to ensure Amtrak’s major capital needs 

are met. The Committee continues to believe that providing funds 

in the forms of grants for Amtrak’s capital needs ensures greater 

oversight and more optimal use of taxpayers’ resources. 
68 

Because the Committee is concerned about the uncertainty of 

what benchmarks must be reached to achieve a systemwide stateof-good repair, the Committee has included a new provision allowing the Federal Railroad Administration to retain up to one-quarter 

of 1 percent of Amtrak’s capital subsidy to provide meaningful 

oversight to Amtrak’s major capital investments. Amtrak has 

begun to undertake projects that are significant in size and cost, 

such as the replacement of the bridges across the Thames and 

Niantic Rivers in Connecticut and the ventilation towers for the 

Hudson and East River tunnels in New York and New Jersey. 

Moreover, as the failure of Amtrak’s electrification system between 

New York City and Washington, DC, on May 25 of this year demonstrated, the lack of action on Amtrak’s major capital assets has 

the potential for adversely affecting transportation over a wide region. 

While the FRA has assumed the responsibility of providing annual capital grants to Amtrak, the FRA has yet to possess the resources necessary to provide meaningful oversight of major capital 

investments. As an example, FRA does not have the resources to 

review independently the design and cost estimates for the new 

bridges, to assess whether the bridges have been built according to 

design, or to review and, if necessary, recommend corrective measures if the bridge fabrication and construction begins to exceed estimates and schedules. Indeed, FRA’s oversight is limited to reviewing reports on project progress from Amtrak’s engineering and mechanical departments except where FRA’s limited staff might have 

expertise in a specific area that coincides with a capital project. 

The Federal Transit Administration performs its oversight of major 

projects through Project Management Oversight consultants. The 

Committee believes that FRA should use a similar approach. While 

the amount provided for this purpose is modest in absolute terms, 

it should be adequate to initiate the oversight program and for 

FRA to review those large projects important for maintaining or 

improving safety and operational reliability where there may be 

significant risk in achieving the expected cost, schedule or scope of 

the project. It is expected that with this enhanced ability that FRA 

will report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 

on a regular basis on the state of Amtrak’s capital program. 

The Committee remains concerned about the significant costs associated with Amtrak’s food and beverage and first-class services. 

While Amtrak has shown commendable progress in its efforts to reform these services, the Committee believes that further oversight 

and accountability is needed. The Committee has included a provision that prohibits the Secretary of Transportation from approving 

any capital grant request that proposes spending funds on the retrofitting, refurbishing or maintenance of equipment or facilities 

used for food and beverage or sleeper class services unless the proposed plans comply with the stated goal of eliminating Federal subsidies for these services by 2011. While Amtrak’s services meet 

basic mobility needs, the Committee does not believe that Federal 

subsidies should be directed toward the enhancement of services 

and amenities that only add to Amtrak’s operational losses. 

As Amtrak itself has noted, Amtrak’s equipment and infrastructure require significant investment to achieve a state-of-good re-
69 

pair. Amtrak has, on repeated occasions, diverted funds needed for 

capital investments to cover operational losses. This has had the effect of leaving Amtrak’s system in a less than optimal state. While 

the Committee has pressed both Amtrak and the Department of 

Transportation to provide a detailed and prioritized list of needs to 

return Amtrak’s infrastructure to a state-of-good repair, both entities have either been unable or unwilling to do so. The administration’s capital grant request for Amtrak for fiscal year 2007 is 

$500,000,000, but it remains unclear what this number will achieve 

in restoring Amtrak’s system to the necessary state-of-good repair. 

If the Committee were better able to discern what projects could 

be funded with more resources, it would be better positioned to justify the provision of such resources. The Committee has, therefore, 

included provisions mandating that the administration’s budget 

submission for fiscal year 2008 include a detailed capital investment plan that prioritizes and provides cost estimates for capital 

projects necessary to achieve safe, efficient, and timely intercity 

passenger rail service. This plan should incorporate input from the 

States and railroads where Amtrak provides services or its infrastructure is used detailing what investments are necessary to ensure timely and safe transportation services. The Committee believes that such a plan will better enable Congress, Amtrak, and 

the administration to chart a future path for Amtrak and to more 

strategically provide for Amtrak’s many capital needs. 

EFFICIENCY INCENTIVE GRANTS TO THE NATIONAL RAILROAD

PASSENGER CORPORATION

Despite the lack of action on a comprehensive reauthorization of 

Amtrak, the Committee notes that there are signs that Amtrak is 

making some progress in addressing the significant imbalance between its operating expenses and revenues. The Committee is 

pleased with reports of savings and other efficiencies achieved 

through the reforms contained in the fiscal year 2006 Transportation appropriations act directing savings through operating efficiencies, including, but not limited to, modifications to food and 

beverage service and first-class service. Amtrak also has improved 

its accounting and its capital project management and reporting. It 

has renewed focus on improving on-time performance on the Northeast Corridor that is resulting in measurable improvements. Amtrak is implementing a consistent approach to seeking compensation from States for service largely within one State modeled after 

what States on the Pacific Coast have been doing for years and 

Amtrak has initiated a review of the future of its long distance 

service. All of these initiatives are positive signs. While most of 

these reforms can be found in directives from this Committee or 

conditions in Amtrak’s grant agreement with FRA, the Amtrak 

Board, and Amtrak’s current management deserve credit for serving as instruments and advocates of needed change. 

Despite the concerns stated previously, the Committee is pleased 

that Amtrak has implemented strategic initiatives in 15 areas including: a plan for restructurings its food and beverage service and 

dining and lounge car operations over several years; adopting a reliability-centered maintenance approach to increase fleet maintenance efficiencies; consolidating maintenance facilities and reduc-
70 

ing maintenance overtime; outsourcing and reducing staff at stations; improving fuel efficiency; renegotiating labor agreements to 

eliminate outsourcing and work rule restrictions; and reducing outside legal fees. While Amtrak is making positive steps toward reforms, the Committee remains concerned that other initiatives such 

as restructuring long-distance train services, improving financial 

management systems, and improving service reliability on the 

Northeast Corridor are only in the beginning of the planning stage, 

and that many of the initiatives have not yet translated into any 

meaningful way of improving Amtrak’s bottom line. 

The Committee remains interested in making sure that Amtrak 

is fully addressing reform opportunities and meeting benchmarked 

goals that are sustainable over the long term on food and beverage 

reforms, sleeper car and long distance service in particular. Amtrak 

continues to require a significant claim on the discretionary Federal financial resources available for transportation and places significant stress on this Committee in finding sufficient resources to 

keep Amtrak running. For this reason, the Committee will continue 

to insist on reform initiatives with timelines and set benchmarked 

goals so that the Committee will know with some degree of confidence that the Federal taxpayer’s funds, regardless of the 

amount, provides a high quality product in a cost-effective manner. 

The most glaring examples of the failure of Amtrak to serve as 

an effective steward of the taxpayer’s investments are in the areas 

of food and beverage service and first-class service. Both the Amtrak Inspector General and the Department of Transportation Inspector General have singled out these functions as primary examples of misplaced priorities in the use of the financial resources 

available to the Corporation. In fiscal year 2006, Amtrak’s losses 

on food and beverage service will equal over 10 percent of Amtrak’s 

total subsidy and over 20 percent of its operating subsidy. Amtrak 

loses even more on its first-class service. 

While the Committee believes there is a role for Federal subsidies on intercity passenger rail service, in particular for capital 

investment, it cannot accept the concept that the Federal taxpayers 

should pay for the cost of dinner and drinks on the train or of firstclass accommodations. Indeed, 49 U.S.C. 305(c)(4) authorizes Amtrak to ‘‘provide food and beverage service on its trains only if the 

revenues from the services each year at least equal the cost of providing the service.’’ This statutory requirement seems to have been 

ignored by Amtrak. The Committee recognizes that passengers on 

trains, particularly those trains that operate on extended schedules, need food. This does not mean that the food and beverage or 

the first-class accommodations should receive a Federal subsidy. 

The Committee notes that Amtrak has begun initiatives for improving the financial performance of food and beverage and firstclass services—initiatives that the Committee wants to nurture. Indeed, the history of Amtrak is replete with initiatives that have 

been forgotten or ignored because the attention of management, 

Amtrak’s Board of Directors, the Department of Transportation, 

and the Congress have been diverted to other issues. Thus, this 

year, the Committee wishes to build upon Amtrak’s early work by 

requiring that Amtrak develop realistic plans with meaningful 

milestones to eliminate the Federal subsidies of these services over 
71 

the next 5 years. Amtrak is directed to reduce the net Federal subsidy of food and beverage service and sleeper/first-class service in 

fiscal year 2007 by 20 percent over the level of subsidy, including 

that attributable to the operation and maintenance of equipment 

and facilities solely used for these services, in fiscal year 2005. The 

Committee requests that Amtrak’s Inspector General provide the 

Senate and House Appropriations Committees with regular reports 

on Amtrak’s performance. 

To better understand the cost effectiveness of Amtrak today, the 

Committee directs FRA, in consultation with Amtrak, Amtrak’s Inspector General, the Government Accountability Office, and such 

other entities that the Administrator deems appropriate, to develop 

a set of metrics for important functions performed by Amtrak, be 

they important from a safety or operational perspective or important because these functions consume a large amount of Amtrak’s 

financial resources. FRA and Amtrak will then identify how Amtrak and corporations and/or public agencies with functions similar 

to Amtrak, performed against these metrics in fiscal year 2006 or 

the most recent year in which data are available. Amtrak will include in its quarterly reports updates of its performance against 

these metrics. 

Another approach to determining the extent to which the quality 

and cost of providing intercity passenger rail service can be improved is to determine whether an entity other than Amtrak can 

provide such services more efficiently and effectively. While there 

has been an ongoing debate over whether others could do better 

than Amtrak, there has yet to be an effective test. This issue certainly resonates with the States that provide financial support for 

intercity passenger rail service. Amtrak’s de facto monopoly limits 

any incentive on Amtrak’s part to control costs or enhance the 

quality of its operation, and States must pay whatever Amtrak demands. The Committee believes that, in the absence of reauthorization legislation, an appropriate interim measure to determine the 

feasibility of a State assuming greater responsibility over intercity 

passenger rail would be a pilot program to determine whether a 

State can reduce its costs and, thus, reduce the Federal operating 

subsidy while maintaining or improving service quality. This will 

be achieved by enabling a State to assume responsibility for part 

or all of the functions that the State presently pays Amtrak to do. 

The Secretary of Transportation is directed to require Amtrak to 

conduct a pilot program under which a State would assume the financial responsibility for a train, route or corridor that the State 

either presently subsidizes or has committed to subsidize. The 

State would receive 75 percent of the current fully allocated operating loss, which effectively is the Federal subsidy of the service in 

the first year and 50 percent in the second and third years. Thus, 

this pilot would not only yield information on the potential longterm benefits of States assuming responsibility for trains they 

deem important, it offers some reduction in the Federal operating 

subsidy needs in the short term. This pilot would be implemented 

as a contract between a State and Amtrak. The State would use 

established State procedures to arrange for another entity or entities to provide those functions the State wishes to assume. Amtrak 

would make whatever other services, equipment, facilities, includ-
72 

ing crew where incorporated into a State’s plan, available to the 

State at a cost that covers Amtrak’s expenses. The Secretary would 

effectively oversee Amtrak’s implementation of this provision. Amtrak and the State should reach an agreement through amicable 

negotiations. The Secretary would also be charged with keeping the 

process moving and, where the State and Amtrak could not reach 

agreement, serve to resolved such issues as the appropriate terms 

and conditions for the use of Amtrak-controlled equipment. 

On-Time Performance of Amtrak Long Distance Trains.—-The 

Committee is greatly dismayed with Amtrak’s deteriorating ontime performance outside of the Northeast Corridor. Such delays, 

frequently longer than 3 or 4 hours, undermine Amtrak’s ability to 

attract repeat customers. Outside of the Northeast corridor, Amtrak trains are dispatched by the freight railroads over whose territory they operate. Under section 24308(c) of title 49 of the United 

States Code, Amtrak trains have ‘‘preference over freight transportation in using a rail line, junction, or crossing’’ unless the Secretary of Transportation provides a specific exemption to this law. 

For this reason, the Committee directs the DOT Inspector General 

to investigate the root causes of Amtrak delays and compliance 

with the above cited subsection of title 49. The report shall investigate all pertinent issues regarding practices in dispatching trains 

and delays in maintaining track used by Amtrak. 

The Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing 

[RRIF].—The RRIF program was established by Public Law 109– 

178 to provide direct loans and loan guarantees to State and local 

governments, government-sponsored entities, or railroads. Credit 

assistance under the program may be used for rehabilitating or developing rail equipment and facilities. SAFETEA–LU expanded the 

authority under the RRIF program; currently, the unpaid principal 

amounts of the obligations may not exceed $35,000,000,000 at any 

one time. Of this total, not less than $7,000,000,000 is reserved for 

projects benefiting freight railroads other than class I carriers. No 

Federal appropriation is required to implement the program because a non-Federal partner may contribute the subsidy amount 

required by the Credit Reform Act of 1990 in the form of a credit 

risk premium. The Committee continues bill language specifying 

that no new direct loans or loan guarantee commitments may be 

made using Federal funds for the payment of any credit premium 

amount during fiscal year 2007. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 150 allows DOT to purchase promotional items of nominal value for use in certain outreach activities. 

Section 151 prohibits funds for the National Railroad Passenger 

Corporation from being available if the Corporation contracts for 

services at or from any location outside of the United States which 

were, as of July 1, 2006, performed by a full-time or part-time Amtrak employee within the United States. 

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

The Federal Transit Administration was established as a component of the Department of Transportation by Reorganization Plan 
73 

No. 2 of 1968, effective July 1, 1968, which transferred most of the 

functions and programs under the Federal Transit Act of 1964, as 

amended (78 Stat. 302; 49 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The missions of the Federal Transit Administration are: to assist in the development of improved mass transportation facilities, equipment, techniques, and 

methods; to encourage the planning and establishment of urban 

and rural transportation services needed for economical and desirable development; to provide mobility for transit dependents in 

both metropolitan and rural areas; to maximize the productivity 

and efficiency of transportation systems; and to provide assistance 

to State and local governments and their instrumentalities in financing such services and systems. 

The programs funded by the FTA are contained in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy 

for Users [SAFETEA–LU], Public Law 109–59. The budget request 

follows a new account structure, established under SAFETEA–LU, 

which consists of four major accounts, three of which are general 

funded—Administrative Expenses, Research, and University Research Centers, and Capital Investment Grants. The fourth, Formula and Bus Grants, is funded solely from the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund. 

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendations compared to fiscal year 2006 and the administration’s request: 

Program 2006 enacted 2007 estimate 2007 House allow- ance 

Committee recommendation 

Administrative expenses ....................................... $79,200,000 $85,000,000 $85,000,000 $85,000,000 

Formula and bus grants ...................................... 6,910,132,000 7,262,775,000 7,262,775,000 7,262,775,000 

Research and University Research Centers ......... 75,200,000 61,000,000 61,000,000 61,000,000 

Capital investment grants ................................... 1,440,681,660 1,466,000,000 1,566,000,000 1,466,000,000 

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $79,200,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 85,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 85,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 85,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Administrative expenses funds personnel, contract resources, information technology, space management, travel, training, and 

other administrative expenses necessary to carry out its mission to 

promote public transportation systems. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total of $85,000,000 for the agency’s salaries and administrative expenses. The recommended level 

of funding is $5,800,000 more than the fiscal year 2006 enacted 

level. 

The specific levels of funding recommended by the Committee are 

as follows: 
74 

Committee recommendation 

Office of the Administrator ................................................................................................................................ $1,063,353 

Office of Administration ..................................................................................................................................... 7,653,698 

Office of Chief Counsel ...................................................................................................................................... 4,272,759 

Office of Communications and Congressional Affairs ...................................................................................... 1,394,111 

Office of Program Management (including the Office of Safety and Security) ............................................... 8,403,493 

Office of Budget and Policy ............................................................................................................................... 9,258,714 

Office of Research, Demonstration, and Innovation ......................................................................................... 4,876,078 

Office of Civil Rights ......................................................................................................................................... 3,272,077 

Office of Planning .............................................................................................................................................. 4,717,764 

Regional offices ................................................................................................................................................. 22,419,998 

Central Account .................................................................................................................................................. 17,667,955 

Total ...................................................................................................................................................... 85,000,000 

The Committee recommendation includes language authorizing 

the Administrator to transfer funding between offices. Any transfers totaling more than 5 percent of the initial appropriation from 

this account must be approved by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations through the same process used for reprogramming funds. 

Budget Justifications.—The FTA is directed to submit its fiscal 

year 2008 congressional justification for administrative expenses by 

office, with material detailing salaries and expenses, staffing increases, and programmatic initiatives of each office. 

Project Management Oversight Activities.—The Committee directs 

FTA to continue to submit to the House and Senate Committees on 

Appropriations the quarterly FMO and PMO reports for each 

project with a full funding grant agreement. 

To further support oversight activities, the bill continues a provision requiring FTA to reimburse the DOT Office of Inspector General [OIG] $2,000,000 for costs associated with audits and investigations of transit-related issues, including reviews of new fixed 

guideway systems. This reimbursement must come from funds 

available for the execution of contracts. Over the past several 

years, the OIG has provided critical oversight of a number transit 

projects and FTA activities, which the Committee has found invaluable. The Committee anticipates that the Inspector General will 

continue such activities in fiscal year 2007. 

Full Funding Grant Agreements [FFGAs].—TEA21, as amended, 

requires that FTA notify the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, as well as the House Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on Banking, 60 days 

before executing a full funding grant agreement. In its notification 

to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, the Committee directs FTA to submit the following information: (1) a copy 

of the proposed full funding grant agreement; (2) the total and annual Federal appropriations required for the project; (3) the yearly 

and total Federal appropriations that can be planned or anticipated 

for future FFGAs for each fiscal year through 2008; (4) a detailed 

analysis of annual commitments for current and anticipated 

FFGAs against the program authorization, by individual project; 

(5) an evaluation of whether the alternatives analysis made by the 

applicant fully assessed all the viable alternatives; (6) a financial 

analysis of the project’s cost and sponsor’s ability to finance the 

project, which shall be conducted by an independent examiner and 
75 

which shall include an assessment of the capital cost estimate and 

finance plan; (7) the source and security of all public and private 

sector financing; (8) the project’s operating plan, which enumerates 

the project’s future revenue and ridership forecasts; and (9) a listing of all planned contingencies and possible risks associated with 

the project. 

The Committee also directs FTA to inform the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations in writing 30 days before approving 

schedule, scope, or budget changes to any full funding grant agreement. Correspondence relating to all changes shall include any 

budget revisions or program changes that materially alter the 

project as originally stipulated in the FFGA, including any proposed change in rail car procurement. 

The Committee directs FTA to continue to provide a monthly 

new start project update to the House and Senate Committees on 

Appropriations, detailing the status of each project. This update 

should include FTA’s plans and specific milestone schedules for advancing projects, especially those within 2 years of a proposed full 

funding grant agreement. In addition, FTA should notify the Committees 10 days before any project in the new starts process is 

given approval by FTA to advance to preliminary engineering or 

final design. 

FORMULA AND BUS GRANTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORITY)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(INCLUDING RESCISSION)

Trust fund 

Appropriations, 2006 ........................................................................................................................................ $6,910,131,690 

Budget estimate, 2007 .................................................................................................................................... 7,262,775,000 

House allowance .............................................................................................................................................. 7,262,775,000 

Committee recommendation ............................................................................................................................ 7,262,775,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

As proposed in the budget, Formula and Bus Grants includes the 

following programs: urbanized area formula grants; clean fuels formula grants; formula grants for special needs of elderly individuals 

and individuals with disabilities; formula grants for non-urbanized 

areas; job access and reverse commute grants; new freedom grants; 

growing States and high density States grants; bus and bus facility 

grants; rail modernization grants; alternatives analysis; alternative 

transportation in parks and public lands; and the national transit 

database. In addition, set-asides from formula funds are directed to 

a grant program for intercity bus operators to finance Americans 

with Disabilities Act accessibility costs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $7,262,775,000 for transit formula 

and bus grants from a limitation on obligations from the mass 

transit account of the highway trust fund. The recommendation is 
76 

$352,643,310 more than the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. This account includes a rescission of $28,660,920. 

The Committee recommendation maintains the set-aside for 

project oversight in current law instead of providing an increase for 

program management of formula funds, as requested. The Committee distributes, the total level of funding among the formula categories as follows: 

Amount 

Urbanized Area Formula ................................................................................................................................. $3,947,144,400 

Over-the-road Bus Program ........................................................................................................................... 7,600,000 

Elderly & Persons with Disabilities ............................................................................................................... 117,000,000 

Nonurbanized Area Formula ........................................................................................................................... 467,030,600 

Bus and Bus Facility ..................................................................................................................................... 900,500,000 

Fixed Guideway Modernization ....................................................................................................................... 1,448,000,000 

Job Access and Reverse Commute ................................................................................................................ 144,000,000 

New Freedom .................................................................................................................................................. 81,000,000 

National Transit Database ............................................................................................................................. 3,500,000 

Planning Programs ......................................................................................................................................... 99,000,000 

Alternatives Analysis ...................................................................................................................................... 25,000,000 

Alternative Transportation in Parks and Public Lands ................................................................................. 23,000,000 

Section 3009 of SAFETEA–LU amends U.S.C. 5307, urbanized 

formula grants, by providing for a phase-out of operating eligibility 

for urbanized areas which crossed over 200,000 in population for 

the first time in the 2000 census, but continues to allow the Secretary to make operating grants to urbanized areas with a population of less than 200,000. Generally, urbanized formula grants 

may be used to fund capital projects and to finance the planning 

and improvement costs of equipment, facilities, and associated capital maintenance used in mass transportation. All urbanized areas 

greater than 200,000 in population are statutorily required to use 

1 percent of their annual formula grants on enhancements, which 

include landscaping, public art, bicycle storage, and connections to 

parks. 

Formula and Bus funds can be used for all transit purposes, including planning, bus and railcar purchases, facility repair and 

construction, maintenance and, where eligible, operating expenses. 

These funds help transit systems alleviate congestion, ensure basic 

mobility, promote economically vibrant communities, and meet the 

requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA] and the 

Clean Air Act [CAA]. 

The following table displays the State-by-State distribution of the 

formula program funds within each of the program categories: 
77 

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION ESTIMATED FISCAL YEAR 2007 APPORTIONMENTS FOR FORMULA GRANTS PROGRAMS (BY STATE) 

State Section 5307 and 5340 Urbanized Area Section 5311 and 5340 Non-urbanized Area Section 5310 Special Needs for Elderly and Individuals with Dis- abilities Job Access and Re- verse Commute New Freedom State Total 

Alabama ........................................................................................................................ $17,757,310 $11,531,981 $2,031,112 $2,520,454 $1,341,689 $35,182,547 Alaska ............................................................................................................................ 22,435,680 5,287,400 275,749 218,712 109,127 28,326,668 American Samoa ........................................................................................................... .............................. 198,128 63,190 86,638 18,116 366,072 Arizona ........................................................................................................................... 53,233,301 8,224,361 2,122,529 2,789,071 1,428,548 67,797,810 Arkansas ........................................................................................................................ 8,732,695 8,801,078 1,308,042 1,482,182 761,051 21,085,048 California ....................................................................................................................... 637,409,387 20,178,894 12,367,520 20,630,436 10,147,556 700,733,794 Colorado ......................................................................................................................... 53,882,757 7,265,712 1,478,187 1,760,887 1,110,096 65,497,638 Connecticut .................................................................................................................... 65,239,473 2,372,431 1,437,179 1,186,944 1,097,915 71,333,943 Delaware ........................................................................................................................ 10,144,567 1,101,096 423,082 278,186 216,349 12,163,280 District of Columbia ...................................................................................................... 72,816,544 .............................. 365,619 399,650 242,935 73,824,748 Florida ............................................................................................................................ 188,812,559 11,938,051 7,890,887 8,740,426 5,440,473 222,822,396 Georgia .......................................................................................................................... 73,598,292 14,854,892 2,962,922 3,927,582 2,458,689 97,802,378 Guam ............................................................................................................................. .............................. 535,533 167,134 86,754 53,757 843,178 Hawaii ............................................................................................................................ 25,300,938 1,718,384 584,095 481,097 303,970 28,388,484 Idaho .............................................................................................................................. 6,315,238 5,072,764 557,451 663,139 322,397 12,930,988 Illinois ............................................................................................................................ 232,616,115 12,367,244 4,571,851 5,314,858 3,607,918 258,477,986 Indiana .......................................................................................................................... 39,176,416 11,845,248 2,408,422 2,428,364 1,634,380 57,492,831 Iowa ............................................................................................................................... 14,900,302 8,813,714 1,243,967 1,090,305 693,372 26,741,660 Kansas ........................................................................................................................... 10,984,546 8,174,258 1,115,566 977,774 601,609 21,853,754 Kentucky ........................................................................................................................ 19,618,629 11,172,945 1,872,803 1,943,690 931,398 35,539,465 Louisiana ....................................................................................................................... 31,708,912 8,971,607 1,864,585 3,044,744 1,339,953 46,929,801 Maine ............................................................................................................................. 3,838,677 4,761,201 658,535 532,282 309,363 10,100,059 Maryland ........................................................................................................................ 101,139,169 4,367,070 1,982,154 1,869,988 1,566,055 110,924,436 Massachusetts ............................................................................................................... 166,641,644 3,038,777 2,630,547 2,450,968 1,948,572 176,710,508 Michigan ........................................................................................................................ 72,595,701 15,131,932 3,803,866 4,194,169 2,894,852 98,620,521 Minnesota ...................................................................................................................... 47,111,756 11,117,462 1,747,510 1,490,649 997,847 62,465,224 Mississippi ..................................................................................................................... 5,508,784 10,069,922 1,311,767 1,536,366 715,108 19,141,947 Missouri ......................................................................................................................... 40,647,314 12,058,993 2,300,287 2,354,038 1,385,899 58,746,531 Montana ......................................................................................................................... 2,820,380 6,552,507 464,254 480,936 225,706 10,543,783 N. Mariana Islands ........................................................................................................ 696,764 30,507 64,379 132,766 58,007 982,423 Nebraska ........................................................................................................................ 8,946,243 5,713,026 741,458 591,960 327,216 16,319,903 Nevada ........................................................................................................................... 25,879,336 4,292,814 905,448 903,751 553,501 32,534,850 New Hampshire ............................................................................................................. 5,448,721 3,070,213 560,176 371,486 363,503 9,814,099 New Jersey ..................................................................................................................... 280,684,486 2,846,191 3,344,865 2,992,052 2,549,253 292,416,847 
78 

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION ESTIMATED FISCAL YEAR 2007 APPORTIONMENTS FOR FORMULA GRANTS PROGRAMS (BY STATE)—Continued 

State Section 5307 and 5340 Urbanized Area Section 5311 and 5340 Non-urbanized Area Section 5310 Special Needs for Elderly and Individuals with Dis- abilities Job Access and Re- verse Commute New Freedom State Total 

New Mexico .................................................................................................................... 9,685,768 7,138,423 818,200 1,153,820 433,668 19,229,879 New York ........................................................................................................................ 625,104,763 15,289,317 7,925,192 10,287,412 5,801,102 664,407,786 North Carolina ............................................................................................................... 43,181,676 19,149,339 3,313,420 3,536,873 2,229,626 71,410,933 North Dakota ................................................................................................................. 3,424,958 3,456,075 367,819 307,145 154,087 7,710,084 Ohio ............................................................................................................................... 93,965,897 17,413,497 4,447,567 4,664,132 2,867,435 123,358,528 Oklahoma ....................................................................................................................... 14,403,558 9,827,707 1,541,451 1,713,818 817,436 28,303,970 Oregon ........................................................................................................................... 39,829,471 8,509,361 1,429,162 1,547,190 793,434 52,108,619 Pennsylvania .................................................................................................................. 160,661,233 17,629,639 5,249,324 5,294,308 3,543,480 192,377,984 Puerto Rico .................................................................................................................... 52,950,512 1,226,050 1,791,572 6,990,591 1,390,749 64,349,474 Rhode Island ................................................................................................................. 17,922,122 512,123 566,911 492,067 303,302 19,796,525 South Carolina ............................................................................................................... 16,117,501 9,625,026 1,770,069 1,973,447 1,130,635 30,616,678 South Dakota ................................................................................................................. 2,688,866 4,277,960 405,186 329,640 173,676 7,875,328 Tennessee ...................................................................................................................... 31,607,849 12,278,186 2,465,049 2,814,741 1,547,929 50,713,754 Texas .............................................................................................................................. 212,828,027 29,417,889 7,341,337 13,095,027 5,884,975 268,567,254 Utah ............................................................................................................................... 31,123,282 4,176,204 735,982 938,490 447,018 37,420,977 Vermont ......................................................................................................................... 1,423,405 2,299,609 346,510 196,980 124,633 4,391,137 Virgin Islands ................................................................................................................ 842,661 406,863 158,694 87,101 35,854 1,531,173 Virginia .......................................................................................................................... 59,491,923 10,839,984 2,599,542 2,691,215 1,871,053 77,493,718 Washington .................................................................................................................... 105,979,847 8,318,576 2,211,542 2,613,574 1,638,596 120,762,135 West Virginia ................................................................................................................. 5,701,734 5,870,001 987,018 1,116,308 556,512 14,231,573 Wisconsin ....................................................................................................................... 43,010,894 11,741,348 2,019,973 1,989,522 1,393,903 60,155,640 Wyoming ........................................................................................................................ 1,509,504 4,051,087 296,342 213,292 104,717 6,174,941 

Subtotal ............................................................................................................ 3,920,098,087 446,930,600 116,415,000 144,000,000 81,000,000 4,708,443,687 

Oversight ....................................................................................................................... 27,046,313 2,020,000 585,000 .............................. .............................. 29,651,313 

Total ................................................................................................................. 3,947,144,400 448,950,600 117,000,000 144,000,000 81,000,000 4,738,095,000 

Tribal Transit Program .................................................................................................. .............................. 10,000,000 .............................. .............................. .............................. 10,000,000 RTAP .............................................................................................................................. .............................. 8,080,000 .............................. .............................. .............................. 8,080,000 

Grand Total ...................................................................................................... 3,947,144,400 467,030,600 117,000,000 144,000,000 81,000,000 4,756,175,000 
79 

Limited Extensions of Discretionary Funds.—There have been occasions when the Committee has extended the availability of capital investment funds for longer than the original 3-year availability. The Committee, however, has extended funding for many of 

these projects for more than 1 fiscal year, in an effort to give transit agencies and FTA the opportunity to spend these funds. The 

Committee strongly urges FTA to obligate the grants before the 

commencement of the fiscal year 2007 calendar, as the Committee 

will not look favorably upon any further requests for an extension 

of funds past 1 fiscal year. Three, even four, fiscal years is more 

than an adequate amount of time for project sponsors to obligate 

the discretionary grants, except in the most unusual of circumstances. Transit agencies are urged not to seek discretionary 

funding when the work cannot be completed in a 3-year time 

frame. In addition, by October 30, 2006, FTA should submit a report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations detailing which of these projects have not obligated the funds, including 

an explanation of why this could not be achieved. 

The availability of these particular funds is extended for 1 additional year, absent further congressional direction. The Committee 

directs the FTA not to reallocate funds provided in fiscal year 2004 

for the following bus and bus facilities projects: 

Alaska—Sawmill Creek Intermodal Facility 

Georgia—Macon Multimodal Station 

Idaho—Transit Coalition for Buses and Bus Facilities 

Iowa—UNI Multimodal Project 

Indiana—Indianapolis Downtown Transit Facility 

Massachusetts—Springfield Union Station Intermodal facility redevelopment 

Mississippi—Intermodal Facility, JIA 

New York—Nassau County, Hub Enhancements 

Ohio—Central Ohio Transit Authority Facility 

Pennyslvania— Pittsburgh Water Taxi and 

South Dakota—Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Public Buses and 

Bus Facilities 

Washington—Grant Transit Authority, Bus Facility. 

The Committee directs FTA not to reallocate funds provided in 

fiscal year 2003 or previous acts for the following bus and bus facilities projects: 

Georgia—Macon Intermodal Center 

Indiana—Indianapolis Downtown Transit facility 

Massachusetts—Springfield Union Station Intermodal facility 

Massachusetts—Springfield Union Station Intermodal Redevelopment Project; and 

Washington—Aurora Avenue Bus Rapid Transit. 

Bus Rapid Transit Project Las Vegas Boulvard, Nevada.— 

Amounts made available in fiscal year 2003 for Bus Rapid Transit 

Project Las Vegas Boulvard., Nevada shall not be reallocated by 

FTA and shall be available to the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada for Buses and Bus Facilities, including 

Bus Rapid Transit projects, and shall remain available until expended. 
80 

Orange County Transportation Authority.—Funds made available 

in fiscal year 2002 for Costa Mesa CNG facility shall be available 

to Orange County Transportation Authority. 

Utah Intermodal Transportation Facilities.—Funds made available in the fiscal year 2006 for the Westminster College Intermodal 

Transportation Expansion for small buses in Utah shall be made 

available for Utah Intermodal Transportation Facilities. 

Pablo Bus Facility.—Funds made available in fiscal year 2006 for 

Pablo Bus Facility and Pablo Buses shall be made available for 

Pablo Bus Facility. 

Illinois Statewide Buses.—The Committee provides $6,000,000 to 

the Illinois Department of Transportation [IDOT] for section 5309 

Bus and Bus Facilities grants. The Committee expects IDOT to 

provide at least $3,000,000 for Downstate Illinois replacement 

buses in Bloomington, Champaign-Urbana, Danville, Decatur, Peoria, Pekin, Quincy, River Valley, Rockford, Rock Island, Springfield, 

Madison County, Rides MTD, South Central MTD, and Macomb. 

Further, the Committee expects IDOT to provide appropriate funds 

for bus facilities in Bloomington, Galesburg, River Valley Metro in 

Kankakee, Macomb, Peoria, and Rock Island, including $500,000 

for the Macomb maintenance facility and $500,000 for the 

Kankakee’s River Valley Metro operations facility. 

Springfield Union Station Intermodal Facility, Massachusetts.— The Committee continues to be supportive of the construction of a 

new, affordable, intermodal facility in the city of Springfield, Massachusetts. However, the Committee notes that more than 

$12,700,000 of funds already appropriated for this project from as 

far back as 2002 remain unobligated. Still other funds provided for 

the project in authorization acts also remain unobligated. The Committee directs the government and transportation leaders in the region to immediately focus on the task of developing a feasible 

project plan that limits the Federal contribution for the project to 

the sums already provided so that these appropriated funds can be 

expended promptly. The Committee further directs the Administrator to work with the appropriate city and regional leadership toward this goal. The Administrator is requested to report back to 

the Committee regarding progress on this project not later than 

July 1, 2007. 

West Virginia Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities.—Consistent 

with the provisions of section 3044 of SAFETEA–LU, the bill includes a total of $5,000,000 for bus and bus facilities within the 

State of West Virginia for fiscal year 2007. 

Hybrid Bus Cost Share.—The Committee has not included a provision to allow FTA to provide grants for 100 percent of the net 

capital cost of a factory-installed or retrofitted hybrid electric system in a bus as proposed in the budget. The Committee has 

stressed the importance of hybrid technology buses in the past and 

remains committed to seeing hybrid technology proliferate throughout the Nation’s transit systems. However, the Committee believes 

that waiving the required match would result in less hybrid buses 

being purchased by transit properties, not more. The Committee 

strongly believes that local share requirements are the best deal for 

taxpayers when it comes to stretching increasingly scarce Federal 

resources. 
81 

The Committee directs FTA to distribute funds made available to 

carry out the Bus and Bus Facilities program in this fiscal year as 

directed by SAFETEA–LU. Of the remaining funds provided for 

that program in this fiscal year as well as the $24,893,251 remaining in fiscal year 2006, the committee directs the funds as follows: 

Project name Committee recommendation 

Akron METRO RTA Radio Replacement, OH ......................................................................................................... $750,000 

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

Altoona Intermodal/Parking Facility Renovation Project, Pennsylvania .............................................................. 1,000,000 

AnchorRides Disabled Vehicle Maintenance Project, AK ..................................................................................... 100,000 

Atlanta—MARTA Bus Acquisition Program, GA .................................................................................................. 1,750,000 

Bay Area Transportation Authority Replacement Bus Purchase, Traverse City, MI ............................................ 550,000 

Ben Franklin Transit, Maintenance and Operations Facility, WA ........................................................................ 750,000 

Bi-County Transit Center in Langley Park, Maryland .......................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Boston College Green Line MBTA, MA ................................................................................................................. 1,000,000 

Bridgeport Intermodal Transportation Center (CT) .............................................................................................. 5,000,000 

Brockton Area Transit Authority Bus Replacement, MA ...................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Broward County Alternative Fuel Buses, Florida ................................................................................................. 1,000,000 

Bucks County Intermodal Facility ........................................................................................................................ 2,000,000 

Bus and Bus Facilities, City of Roswell, New Mexico ......................................................................................... 400,000 

Bus and Bus Facilities, Grant County, New Mexico ............................................................................................ 1,500,000 

Calaveras County—Calaveras Regional Intermodal Transportation Center, CA ................................................ 500,000

Camden County Intermodal Facility, New Jersey ................................................................................................. 1,000,000 

Capital Metro—Bus and Bus Facilities, TX ........................................................................................................ 4,800,000 

CCTA Buses, Facilities and Equipment [VT] ....................................................................................................... 4,000,000 

Cedar Avenue Bus Rapid Transit, Phase 1, Dakota County, Minnesota ............................................................ 3,700,000 

Central Corridor Transitway, MN .......................................................................................................................... 1,350,000 

Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority (LYNX) Bus Procurement, Florida ........................................ 3,250,000 

Church Street Transportation Center ................................................................................................................... 1,600,000 

City of Billings—City of Billings’ MET Transit Authority Improvements ............................................................ 500,000 

City of Mobile Waterfront Project, AL .................................................................................................................. 1,000,000 

City of St. Joseph, Missouri, Bus and Bus facilities .......................................................................................... 84,000 

City Utilities of Springfield Intermodel Transfer Facility, MO ............................................................................. 2,000,000 

City of San Luis Obisbo—Replacement Buses, CA ............................................................................................ 500,000 

City of Lynwood—Lynwood Intermodal Transit Facility, CA ................................................................................ 500,000 

City of Hercules—Hercules Intermodal Terminal, CA ......................................................................................... 500,000 

City of Pasadena—Bus Priority System, CA ....................................................................................................... 500,000 

City of Visalia—Visalia Buses and Bus Facilities, CA ....................................................................................... 500,000 

City of Oakland—Transit Improvements at BART Stations, CA ......................................................................... 500,000 

City of Fresno—FAX Buses, CA ........................................................................................................................... 500,000 

Clallam Transit Vehicle Replacement, WA .......................................................................................................... 500,000 

Clallam Transit, International Gateway Project, WA ........................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Coast Transit Authority, MS ................................................................................................................................. 5,000,000 

Colorado Transit Coalition—Colorado ................................................................................................................. 5,000,000 

Columbia County Public Transportation Vehicle Replacement, WA .................................................................... 120,000 

Community Transit, Bus Rapid Transit Vehicle Acquisition, WA ........................................................................ 1,000,000 

Diesel Paratransit Vans, Las Cruces, NM ........................................................................................................... 140,000 

Downtown Transit Center, Indianapolis, IN ......................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Dubuque Downtown Transportation Center Intermodal Transit Facility Study, Iowa .......................................... 100,000

Ed Roberts Campus, CA ...................................................................................................................................... 500,000 

Erie Metropolitan Transit Authority Operations Facility, Pennsylvania ............................................................... 1,750,000 

Everett Transit Vehicle Replacement, WA ............................................................................................................ 600,000 

FAST Traffic Management, Southern Nevada, NV ............................................................................................... 1,017,000 

Four County Elder Advocates Senior Transportation Initiative, Joplin, Missouri ................................................. 150,000 

Garfield County Public Transportation Vehicle Replacement, WA ....................................................................... 70,000 

Georgia Regional Transportation Authority Express Buses ................................................................................. 2,000,000 

Grant Transit Vehicle Replacement, WA .............................................................................................................. 480,000 

Grays Harbor Transit Vehicle Replacement, WA .................................................................................................. 1,000,000 

Great Falls Transit District—Bus and Bus Facilities ......................................................................................... 3,480,000 

Greater Ouachita Port Intermodal Facility, Louisiana ......................................................................................... 3,500,000 

Greater Richmond Transit Company Bus Facility, Virginia ................................................................................. 1,500,000 

Hampton Roads Transit—Southside Bus Facility Replacement, Virginia .......................................................... 1,500,000 

Hawaii Rural Bus Program .................................................................................................................................. 3,000,000 

Idaho Transit Coalition Capital Investment ........................................................................................................ 3,750,000 
82 

Project name Committee recommendation 

Indiana University Campus Bus Service Park and Ride, Bloomington, IN ......................................................... 1,500,000 

Intermodal Facilities, Utah .................................................................................................................................. 2,500,000 

Island Transit Vehicle Replacement, WA ............................................................................................................. 435,000 

JATRAN Fleet Replacement, MS ........................................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Jefferson State Hoover Intermodal Facility, AL .................................................................................................... 1,250,000 

Jefferson Transit Vehicle Replacement, WA ......................................................................................................... 480,000 

Kansas City Area Transportation Authority Bus Replacement, MO ..................................................................... 5,420,000 

Kansas Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities, Kansas ............................................................................................ 1,000,000 

King County Metro, Bus Radio Replacement Program, WA ................................................................................. 750,000 

LACMTA Bus Facility Upgrade, CA ....................................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Lakewood Township Multi Modal Facility Phase I, New Jersey ........................................................................... 1,500,000 

Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority—Satellite Maintenance and Operations Facility, CA ..................... 500,000 

Long Beach Transit—Clean Fuel Buses, CA ....................................................................................................... 500,000 

Louisiana Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities ....................................................................................................... 3,000,000 

Lubbock Citibus Low Floor Buses, Paratransit Vans, Facilities, and Equipment ............................................... 1,800,000 

Mason Transit Vehicle Replacement, WA ............................................................................................................ 300,000 

Memphis Airport Intermodal Facility, Tennessee ................................................................................................. 2,750,000 

Mesa, AZ Main Street Bus Rapid Transit ............................................................................................................ 2,500,000 

Metro Atlanta—MARTA Automated Smart Card Fare Collection System, GA ..................................................... 750,975

MetroLINK Facility, Illinois .................................................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Michigan’s 1st congressional District Bus and Facility Capital Needs, MI ....................................................... 2,000,000 

Montpelier, VT Transit Facilities [VT] .................................................................................................................. 1,000,000 

Nevada Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities .......................................................................................................... 3,000,000 

Newark Penn Station Intermodal Improvements, New Jersey .............................................................................. 2,000,000 

North Dakota Statewide Transit, North Dakota ................................................................................................... 2,000,000 

Norwalk Pulse Point Facility Safety Improvements (CT) ..................................................................................... 199,650 

Norwich Intermodal Transportation Center, CT ................................................................................................... 2,000,000 

Operations and Maintenance Facility, Memphis, Tennessee ............................................................................... 3,500,000 

Oxford Public Transit, MS .................................................................................................................................... 450,000 

Pacific Transit Vehicle Replacement, WA ............................................................................................................ 210,000 

Paducah Area Transit System in Paducah, Kentucky ......................................................................................... 2,000,000 

Pierce Transit, Peninsula Park and Ride, WA ..................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Potomac & Rappahannock Transportation Commission (PRTC) Bus and Bus Facilities ................................... 2,250,000 

Prospect & E. 21st Street intermodal Transportation Center, OH ...................................................................... 2,750,000 

Pullman Transit Vehicle Replacement, WA .......................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Replacement Buses and Bus and Facility Related Equipment—Nebraska ....................................................... 2,000,000 

Replacement of buses for the Transit Authority of Northern Kentucky .............................................................. 1,000,000 

Richmond Highway Public Transportation Initiative, Virginia ............................................................................. 3,000,000 

Rio Arriba County Vehicles, Shelters, Building and Compound for Fleet, New Mexico ...................................... 300,000 

Sacramento Regional Transit District Bus and Bus Facility/Sacramento Region Paratransit Vehicles, CA ...... 1,000,000 

San Antonio Bus Facility Improvements and Bus Fleet Modernization, TX ........................................................ 2,250,000 

San Joaquin County Bus Facility, CA .................................................................................................................. 1,000,000 

San Diego Association of Governments—Regional Bus Replacement Vehicles, CA .......................................... 500,000 

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority—Paratransit Vehicles, CA ............................................................ 500,000 

Santa Fe Transit Center, Replacement Buses and Park and Ride Lots, NM ..................................................... 1,500,000 

Section 5309 fiscal year 2007 Bus Discretionary Proposal, OH ......................................................................... 6,000,000 

Senior Transportation Connection of Cuyahoga County, OH ............................................................................... 750,000 

SEPTA R–5 Intermodal Center, Pennsylvania ...................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Shenango Valley Shuttle Service, Pennsylvania .................................................................................................. 600,000 

Silver Spring Metrorail Station, South Gate Entrance Opening, Maryland ......................................................... 500,000 

Skagway Intermodal facility, AK .......................................................................................................................... 900,000 

SMTS-Bus, Facilities and Capital Maintenance, MO ........................................................................................... 1,660,800 

Southeastern Connecticut Bus Rapid Transit System (CT) ................................................................................. 1,000,000 

Southern University Bus Enhancements .............................................................................................................. 250,000 

St. Bernard Port Intermodal Facility, Louisiana .................................................................................................. 1,000,000 

State of Arkansas—Bus and Bus Facilities for Urban, Rural, and Elderly and Disabled Agencies, Arkansas ................................................................................................................................................................... 4,000,000 

Statewide Bus & Bus Facilities Improvements, Utah ......................................................................................... 3,750,000 

Statewide bus and bus facilities, Illinois ........................................................................................................... 6,000,000 

Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities, Missouri ........................................................................................................ 2,000,000 

Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities, New Mexico .................................................................................................. 1,500,000 

Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities, Tennessee ..................................................................................................... 5,250,000 

Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities, WI ................................................................................................................. 5,000,000 

Statewide Bus Replacement, Iowa ...................................................................................................................... 5,000,000 

Statewide Electric Hybrid Bus Initiative by the Indiana Transit Association, IN ............................................... 4,192,273 
83 

Project name Committee recommendation 

Statewide O.A.T.S. bus and bus facilities, MO ................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Telegraph Avenue-International Boulevard-East 14th Street Bus Rapid Transit Corridor Improvements, CA ... 2,000,000 

Transit Maintenance and Operations Facility, City of Las Cruces, NM .............................................................. 1,500,000 

Treasure Valley, Idaho Transit Facilities ............................................................................................................. 480,000 

Tucson SunTran bus replacement, AZ ................................................................................................................. 2,000,000 

Twin Transit Vehicle Acquisition, WA .................................................................................................................. 175,000 

UNI Multimodal Project, Cedar Falls, Iowa .......................................................................................................... 2,425,000 

University of Delaware’s Automotive Based Fuel Cell Hybrid Bus Program ....................................................... 1,000,000 

University Place Intermodal Transit Facility, Pierce County, WA ........................................................................ 750,000 

Uptown Crossings Joint Development Transit Project, Cincinnati, OH ............................................................... 2,000,000 

Valley Transit Vehicle Replacment, WA ............................................................................................................... 230,000 

Wahiawa Transit Center ....................................................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Wyandotte County Unified Government Transit Bus replacement and facilities enhancements, Kansas ......... 1,000,000 

Yolo County—Yolobus facility expansion, CA ..................................................................................................... 500,000 

The Committee directs FTA to distribute funds made available to 

carry out the Alternatives Analysis Program in this fiscal year as 

directed by SAFETEA–LU. Of the remaining funds provided for 

that program in this fiscal year as well as the $6,100,000 remaining in fiscal year 2006, the Committee directs the funds as follows: 

Project name Committee recommendation 

Pawtucket/Central Falls Commuter Rail Project, RI ............................................................................................ $1,220,000 

Middletown to Newark Commuter Rail Connection Project, DE .......................................................................... 1,220,000 

Commuter Rail, Albuquerque to Santa Fe, New Mexico ...................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Commuter Rail—Eastern Jackson County, Missouri ........................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Jacksonville Transportation Authority, Rapid Transit System Development, Florida .......................................... 530,000 

Northwest New Jersey—Northeast Pennsylvania Passenger Rail Project ........................................................... 830,000 

SR–304/I–269 HOV Bus Rapid Transit, MS ........................................................................................................ 300,000 

RESEARCH AND UNIVERSITY RESEARCH CENTERS

General fund 

Appropriations, 2006 .............................................................................................................................................. $75,200,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 .......................................................................................................................................... 61,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................................................................................... 65,000,000 

Committee recommendation .................................................................................................................................. 61,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation provides financial assistance to support activities that are designed to develop solutions that improve public 

transportation. As the Federal agency responsible for transit, FTA 

assumes a leadership role in supporting research intended to identify different strategies to increase ridership, improve personal mobility, minimize automobile fuel consumption and air pollution, and 

enhance the quality of life in all communities. 

FTA may make grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, or 

other agreements for research, development, demonstration, and 

deployment projects, and evaluation of technology of national significance to public transportation. FTA provides transit agencies 

with research results to help make them better equipped to improve public transportation services and to help public transportation services meet national transportation needs at a minimum 

cost. FTA assists transit agencies to employ new service methods 
84 

and technologies that improve their operations and capital efficiencies or improve transit safety and emergency preparedness. 

The purpose of the university transportation centers [UTC] program is to foster a national resource and focal point for the support 

and conduct of research and training concerning the transportation 

of passengers and property. Funds provided under the FTA’s UTC 

program are transferred to and managed by the Research and Innovation Technology Administration and combined with a transfer 

of funds from the Federal Highway Administration. The transit 

university transportation research program funds are statutorily 

available to designated universities in SAFETEA–LU. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $61,000,000 to continue the university transportation research program. The Committee recommendation is $14,200,000 less than the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

The Committee recommends funds for the following: 

—East Tennessee Hydrogen Initiative, Tennessee, $2,400,000; 

—Staten Island North/West Shore Rail Plan Study, New York, $600,000; and 

—WVU Exhaust Emission Testing Initiative, West Virginia, $1,000,000. 

CAPITAL INVESTMENT GRANTS

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $1,440,682,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 1,466,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 1,566,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,466,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Section 5309 of 49 U.S.C. authorizes discretionary grants or 

loans to States and local public bodies and agencies thereof to be 

used in financing mass transportation investments. Investments 

may include construction of new fixed guideway systems and extensions to existing guideway systems; major bus fleet expansions and 

bus facility construction; and fixed guideway expenditures for existing systems. Under SAFETEA–LU, funding for major bus fleet expansion and bus facility construction and fixed guideway expenditures for existing systems has been incorporated under Formula 

and Bus Grants and is provided as contract authority supported by 

funds derived from the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust 

Fund. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee action recommends a level of $1,466,000,000. The 

recommended level is $25,318,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level and the same as the budget request. A total of 

$14,660,000 is set aside for oversight activities. 

The Committee recommends the following allocations of new 

starts funds in fiscal year 2007: 

Project name Committee recommendation 

Alaska and Hawaii ferry projects, Alaska ........................................................................................................... $15,000,000 
85 

Project name Committee recommendation 

Central Link Initial Segment, Washington ........................................................................................................... 80,000,000 

Central LRT Double-Track, Maryland ................................................................................................................... 482,822 

Central Phoenix/East Valley Light Rail, Arizona .................................................................................................. 90,000,000 

Charlotte (NC) Charlotte Rapid Transit Expansion Project, North Carolina ....................................................... 6,000,000 

Charlotte (NC) South Corridor Light Rail Project, North Carolina ...................................................................... 70,744,065 

Commuter Rail, Salt Lake County to Weber County, Utah .................................................................................. 80,000,000 

CORRIDORone Regional Commuter Rail .............................................................................................................. 2,500,000 

CTA Douglas Blue Line, Chicago, Illinois ............................................................................................................ 1,573,675 

CTA Ravenswood Brown Line, Chicago, Illinois ................................................................................................... 40,000,000 

Dallas Area Rapid Transit Northwest/Southeast Light Rail MOS, Texas ............................................................ 80,000,000 

Denali Commission, Alaska ................................................................................................................................. 5,000,000 

Dulles Corridor Rail Project, Virginia ................................................................................................................... 25,000,000 

Euclid Corridor Transportation Project, Ohio ....................................................................................................... 693,013 

Galveston Rail Trolley Extension to Boulevard, Texas ......................................................................................... 2,000,000 

Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project, Hawaii ................................................................................... 4,000,000 

Houston METRO—Advanced Transit Program/METRO Solutions Phase 2, Texas ............................................... 15,000,000 

Hudson-Bergen Light Rail MOS2, New Jersey ..................................................................................................... 100,000,000 

Interstate MAX LRT Extension, Oregon ................................................................................................................ 542,940 

Long Island Rail Road East Side Access, New York ........................................................................................... 300,000,000 

Los Angeles Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension, California .............................................................................. 100,000,000 

MARC Commuter Rail Improvements, Maryland .................................................................................................. 4,000,000 

Miami-Dade County Metrorail Orange Line Expansion, Florida ........................................................................... 2,000,000 

Mid-Jordan Light Rail Transit Line, Utah ............................................................................................................ 4,500,000 

Mission Valley East LRT Extension, California .................................................................................................... 806,654 

NJ Trans-Hudson Midtown Corridor, New Jersey .................................................................................................. 4,400,000 

Norfolk Light Rail Project Final Design and Construction, Virginia ................................................................... 1,500,000 

North Shore LRT Connector, Pennsylvania ........................................................................................................... 55,000,000 

Northeast Corridor Commuter Rail Project between Wilmington and Newark, Delaware ................................... 1,000,000 

Northstar Corridor Rail Project, Minnesota .......................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Oceanside-Escondido Rail Corridor, California .................................................................................................... 684,040 

Perris Valley Line Metrolink Extension, California ............................................................................................... 3,000,000 

Post Road Commuter Rail Facility, Connecticut ................................................................................................. 2,000,000 

San Francisco BART Extension to San Francisco International Airport, California ............................................ 2,424,694 

Schuylkill Valley MetroRail, Pennsylvania ............................................................................................................ 1,000,000 

South Corridor I–205/Portland Mall Light Rail, Oregon ...................................................................................... 80,000,000 

South County Commuter Rail Project—Wickford Junction Station, Rhode Island ............................................. 7,000,000 

Southeast Corridor Multi-Modal Project (T–REX) Colorado ................................................................................. 80,000,000 

Tren Urbano, Puerto Rico ..................................................................................................................................... 2,670,518 

Union-Pacific West Line Extension, Illinois ......................................................................................................... 1,255,978 

University Link LRT Extension, Seattle, Washington ........................................................................................... 15,000,000 

West Corridor LRT, Colorado ................................................................................................................................ 35,000,000 

Wilsonville to Beaverton Commuter Rail Project, Oregon ................................................................................... 27,600,000 

New Jersey Trans-Hudson Midtown Corridor Project.—The Committee has fully funded the project allocations articulated in section 

3037 of SAFETEA–LU including the funding authorized for the 

New Jersey Trans-Hudson Midtown Corridor project. Over and 

above these amounts, the Committee has provided discretionary 

funding from the Capital Investment Grants program for this 

project. The combination of these two appropriations will yield a 

total of $8,400,000 for this project for fiscal year 2007. 

Seattle Light Rail Initial Segment and Extensions.—Consistent 

with the existing full funding grant agreement, the bill includes 

$80,000,000 for the initial segment of the Seattle Link light rail 

system. The bill also includes $15,000,000 for the University Link 

extension that will shortly be entering the final design phase. It 

has always been the goal of regional transportation planners and 

the locally elected leadership that the initial segment of this light 

rail system should directly connect Seattle city center with SeaTac 

International Airport. However, due to rapid changes in security 

and infrastructure planning at the airport after the September 11 
86 

terrorist attacks, the Full Funding Grant Agreement [FFGA] for 

the initial segment could not include a direct connection into the 

airport. In order to rectify this situation and help provide for a 

seamless transit link directly to the airport, the bill includes a general provision (section 145) intended to allow any Federal funds 

that may not be necessary due to budget ‘‘under runs’’ in the performance of the initial segment project to be used to assist in the 

construction of the airport link. This provision will, in effect, allow 

Sound Transit to benefit from its careful management of the initial 

segment project, allowing the agency to capture the Federal portion 

of any cost savings and use those savings to close a critically important gap in transit service in the region. 

Limited Extensions of Discretionary Funds.—There have been occasions when the Committee has extended the availability of capital investment funds. These extensions are granted on a case by 

case basis and, in nearly all instances, are due to circumstances 

that were unforeseen by the project’s sponsor. The availability of 

these particular funds is intended for one additional year, absent 

further congressional direction. The Committee directs the FTA not 

to reallocate funds provided in fiscal year 2004 for the following 

new starts projects: 

Connecticut—Stamford, Connecticut, Urban Transitway and 

Intermodal Transportation Center Improvements. 

Delaware—Wilmington, Delaware, Train Station Improvements 

District of Columbia/Virginia—Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit 

Project 

Pennsylvania—Schuylkill Valley Metro; and 

Wisconsin—Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee Rail Extension Project. 

The Committee directs FTA not to reallocate funds provided in 

fiscal year 2003 or previous acts for the following new starts 

projects: 

Connecticut—Bridgeport Connecticut, Intermodal Transportation 

Center Project 

District of Columbia/Virginia—Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit 

Project 

Delaware—Wilmington, Delaware, Train Station Improvements 

Delaware—Wilmington, Delaware, Downtown Transit Corridor 

Project; and 

Wisconsin—Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee Rail Extension Project. 

Appropriations for Full Funding Grant Agreements.—The Committee reiterates direction initially agreed to in the fiscal year 2002 

conference report that FTA should not sign any FFGAs that have 

a maximum Federal share of higher than 60 percent. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

Section 160 exempts limitations previously made available on obligations for programs of the FTA under 49 U.S.C. 5338. 

Section 161 allows funds under this act, Federal Transit Administration, Capital investment grants not obligated by September 30, 

2008 to be made available for other projects under 40 U.S.C. 5309. 

Section 162 allows funds appropriated before October 1, 2005, 

that remain available for expenditure to be transferred. 
87 

Section 163 allows unobligated funds for new projects under Federal Transit Authority to be used during this fiscal year to satisfy 

expenses incurred for such projects. 

Section 164 allows funds appropriated in prior years to the City 

of Albuquerque, New Mexico, to be available for bus and bus facilities. 

Section 165 amends the Central Link Initial Segment Project, as 

previously stated in the report. 

Section 166 extends the availability of funds provided for the Las 

Vegas Resort Corridor Fixed Guideway Project and makes those 

funds available to the Regional Transportation Commission of 

Southern Nevada for any bus or bus facilities project eligible under 

section 5307 or 5309 of title 49, United States Code. 

Section 167 modifies the eligibility of funds provided in fiscal 

year 2006 for the Miami Streetcar project. 

Section 168 allows funds for the Alaska Hawaii Ferry set-aside 

grant program to be used for the Hawaii Port Infrastructure Expansion Program. 

Section 169 allows funds under Capital Investments Grants to be 

used for activities under 49 U.S.C. 5339. 

SAINT LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation [SLSDC] 

is a wholly owned Government corporation established by the Saint 

Lawrence Seaway Act of May 13, 1954 (33 U.S.C. 981). The SLSDC 

is a vital transportation corridor for the international movement of 

bulk commodities such as steel, iron, grain, and coal, serving the 

North American region that makes up one-quarter of the United 

States population and nearly one-half of the Canadian population. 

The SLSDC is responsible for the operation, maintenance, and development of the United States portion of the Saint Lawrence Seaway between Montreal and Lake Erie. 

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

(HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $16,121,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 8,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 17,425,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 17,425,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund [HMTF] was established by 

the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99– 

662). Since 1987, the HMTF has supported the operations and 

maintenance of commercial harbor projects maintained by the Federal Government. Appropriations from the Harbor Maintenance 

Trust Fund and revenues from non-Federal sources finance the operation and maintenance of the Seaway for which the SLSDC is responsible. 
88 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation includes $17,425,000 to fund 

the operations and maintenance of the SLSDC. This amount is 

$9,425,000 above the President’s request and is $1,304,000 above 

the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. The Committee rejects the request to establish commercial tolls. The recommended level is sufficient to fund all base requirements, including concrete replacement 

at the two United States Seaway locks. 

MARITIME ADMINISTRATION

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Maritime Administration [MARAD] is responsible for programs authorized by the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, as amended 

(46 App. U.S.C. 1101 et seq.). MARAD is also responsible for programs that strengthen the U.S. maritime industry in support of the 

Nation’s security and economic needs. MARAD prioritizes DOD’s 

use of ports and intermodal facilities during DOD mobilizations to 

guarantee the smooth flow of military cargo through commercial 

ports. MARAD manages the Maritime Security Program, the Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement Program and the Ready Reserve Force, which assure DOD access to commercial and strategic 

sealift and associated intermodal capacity. MARAD also continues 

to address the disposal of obsolete ships in the National Defense 

Reserve Fleet which are deemed a potential environmental risk. 

Further, MARAD administers education and training programs 

through the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy and six State maritime schools that assist in providing skilled merchant marine officers who are capable of serving defense and commercial transportation needs. The Committee continues to fund MARAD in its support of the United States as a maritime Nation. 

MARITIME SECURITY PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $154,440,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 154,440,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 154,440,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 154,440,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Maritime Security Program provides resources to maintain 

a U.S. flag merchant fleet crewed by U.S. citizens to serve both the 

commercial and national security needs of the United States. The 

program provides direct payments to U.S. flag ship operators engaged in U.S. foreign trade. Participating operators are required to 

keep the vessels in active commercial service and are required to 

provide intermodal sealift support to the Department of Defense in 

times of war or national emergency. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $154,440,000 for the Maritime Security Program, consistent with the budget request. 
89 

OPERATIONS AND TRAINING

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $128,527,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 115,830,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 116,442,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 115,830,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Operations and Training appropriation primarily funds the 

salaries and expenses for MARAD headquarters and regional staff 

in the administration and direction for all MARAD programs. The 

account includes funding for the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, 

six State maritime schools, port and intermodal development, cargo 

preference, international trade relations, deep-water port licensing, 

and administrative support costs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $115,830,000 for Operations and 

Training for fiscal year 2007. The recommendation is consistent 

with the President’s budget request and $12,697,000 below the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. The Committee has included 

$14,850,000 for the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy to continue 

with the major design and construction projects as identified in the 

10-year capital improvement plan. 

Funds appropriated for Operations and Training are sufficient to 

maintain the operating costs incurred by headquarters and regional staffs in administering and directing the Maritime Administration programs. The Committee recommendation includes the 

necessary resources to cover the costs of officer training at the U.S. 

Merchant Marine Academy; provide Federal financial support to 

the six State maritime academies; support coordination efforts for 

U.S. maritime industry activities under emergency conditions; and 

to promote port and intermodal development activities. 

Funds provided for this account are to be distributed as follows: 

$61,747,000 for the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, $9,900,000 for 

the State Maritime schools, and $44,185,000 for MARAD operations, for a total of $115,830,000. 

SHIP DISPOSAL

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $20,790,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 25,740,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 25,740,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 25,740,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Ship Disposal account provides resources to dispose of obsolete merchant-type vessels of 150,000 gross tons or more in the National Defense Reserve Fleet [NDRF] which the Maritime Administration is required by law to dispose of by the end of 2006. Currently there is a backlog of more than 115 ships awaiting disposal. 

Many of these vessels are some 50 years old or more and pose a 

significant environmental threat due to the presence of hazardous 

substances such as asbestos and solid and liquid polychlorinated 

biphenyls [PCBs]. 
90 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $25,740,000 for 

ship disposal. This amount is the same as the budget request and 

$4,950,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

The Committee is pleased that the Maritime Administration expects to have completed the removal of all high priority ships and 

many moderate priority ships from its fleet sites by the end of fiscal year 2006. The Committee directs the Maritime Administration 

to notify the House and Senate Committee on Appropriations of 

any changes to this projection and the reasons for such changes. 

The Committee is concerned about the unexpected rising costs associated with the decommissioning of the nuclear ship Savannah 

and the uncertainty of costs needed to fund this project in future 

years. The Committee expects the Maritime Administration to update these cost projections in its fiscal year 2008 budget submission. 

MARITIME GUARANTEED LOAN PROGRAM

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $4,085,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 3,317,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 3,317,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,317,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Maritime Guaranteed Loan Program, commonly referred to 

as, ‘‘Title XI,’’ provides for a Federal Government guarantee of private-sector debt for ship construction and shipyard modernization. 

This program fosters and sustains a U.S. shipbuilding and repair 

industry which helps ensure that the United States remains a maritime Nation. 

As required by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (Public 

Law 101–508), 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 the 

administrative expenses of this program. The subsidy amounts are 

estimated on a present value basis and administrative expenses are 

estimated on a cash basis. 

Funds for administrative expenses for the Title XI program are 

appropriated to this account, and then transferred by reimbursement to Operations and Training to be obligated and outlayed. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,317,000 for 

the Title XI, Maritime Guaranteed Loan Program. This amount is 

consistent with the administration’s 2007 budget request. 
91 

NATIONAL DEFENSE TANK VESSEL CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM

(RESCISSION)

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... ¥$74,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... ¥74,400,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ¥74,400,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The fiscal year 2004 Defense Authorization Act (Public Law 108– 

136) authorized the National Defense Tank Vessel Construction 

Program to provide financial assistance for the construction of five 

privately owned product tank vessels to be available for national 

defense purposes in time of war or national emergency. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends rescinding funding for the National 

Defense Tank Vessel Construction Program but does not repeal sections 3541–46 of the Maritime Security Act of 2003. 

ASSISTANCE TO SMALL SHIPYARDS

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... ........................... 

House allowance .................................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. $15,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

As authorized by section 3506 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, the Assistance to Small Shipyards 

program provides assistance in the form of grants, loans and loan 

guarantees to small shipyards for capital improvements. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation includes $15,000,000 for capital 

and related infrastructure improvements at qualified shipyards to 

enhance U.S. shipyards’ ability to jointly compete for commercial 

and international ship construction. The Committee believes that 

this program will improve the overall international competitiveness 

of the domestic shipbuilding industry. 

MARITIME GUARANTEED LOAN (TITLE XI) PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... ........................... 

House allowance .................................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. $30,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Program, established pursuant to title XI of the Merchant 

Marine Act, 1936, as amended, provides for a full faith and credit 

guarantee by the U.S. Government of debt obligations issued by (1) 

U.S. or foreign shipowners for the purpose of financing or refinancing either U.S. flag vessels or eligible export vessels constructed, reconstructed or reconditioned in U.S. shipyards and (2) 

U.S. shipyards for the purpose of financing advanced shipbuilding 
92 

technology and modern shipbuilding technology (Technology) of a 

privately owned general shipyard facility located in the United 

States. The Program is administered by the Secretary of Transportation acting by and through the Maritime Administrator. Under 

the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, appropriations to cover the 

estimated costs of a project must be obtained prior to the issuance 

of any approvals for title XI financing. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee has provided $30,000,000 for the Maritime Guaranteed Loan Title XI program. Of the amount provided, 

$20,000,000 is available for obligation upon enactment of this act. 

To ensure appropriate oversight and financial controls, the Committee has mandated that of the funds provided, $10,000,000 cannot be expended until the Department of Transportation’s Inspector 

General has certified to the House and Senate Committee on Appropriations that the Maritime Administration is in compliance 

with the recommendations contained in the Inspector General’s 

audit reports on the title XI progam. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—MARITIME ADMINISTRATION

Section 170 authorizes the Maritime Administration to furnish 

utilities and services and make repairs to any lease, contract, or occupancy involving government property under the control of 

MARAD. Rental payments received pursuant to this provision shall 

be credited to the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts. 

Section 171 prohibits obligations incurred during the current 

year from construction funds in excess of the appropriations and 

limitations contained in this act or in any prior appropriation act. 

PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

The Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration 

[PHMSA] was established in the Department of Transportation on 

November 30, 2004, pursuant to the Norman Y. Mineta Research 

and Special Programs Improvement Act (Public Law 108–246). The 

PHMSA is responsible for the Department’s pipeline safety program as well as oversight of hazardous materials transportation 

safety operations. The administration also is dedicated to safety, 

including the elimination of transportation-related deaths and injuries associated with hazardous materials and pipeline transportation, and by promoting transportation solutions that enhance 

communities and protect the environment. 

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $16,708,230 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 17,721,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 17,721,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 17,721,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account funds program support costs for the PHMSA, including policy development, civil rights, management, administration and agency-wide expenses. 
93 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $17,721,000 for this account, of 

which $639,000 is transferred from the Pipeline Safety Fund. This 

funding is the same as the budget request and $1,012,770 more 

than the fiscal year 2006 level. The Committee expects PHMSA to 

use these funds as reflected in its budget justification. 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFTEY

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $25,876,620 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 27,225,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 27,225,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 27,225,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The PHMSA oversees the safety of more than 800,000 daily shipments of hazardous materials in the United States. PHMSA uses 

risk management principles and security threat assessments to 

fully assess and reduce the risks inherent in hazardous materials 

transportation. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $27,225,000 for hazardous materials 

safety, of which $2,111,000 shall remain available until September 

30, 2009. These funds are the same as the budget request and 

$1,348,380 more than the fiscal year 2006 funding level. 

PIPELINE SAFETY

(PIPELINE SAFETY FUND)

(OIL SPILL LIABILITY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $72,279,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 75,735,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 75,735,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 75,735,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Pipeline Safety [OPS] is designed to promote the 

safe, reliable, and reliable sound transportation of natural gas and 

hazardous liquids by pipelines. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation provides $75,735,000, of which 

$18,810,000 will be derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund 

and of which $56,925,000 shall be derived from the Pipeline Safety 

Fund. 

The Committee remains concerned with the significant increase 

included in the budget estimate for funds from the oilspill liability 

trust fund. The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 requires that these trust 

funds be used exclusively for oilspill prevention and response activities, and the Committee strongly encourages the OPS to allocate 

oversight activities between the hazardous liquid and gas pipelines 

and to factor the oilspill liability trust fund into the allocation formula that determines the hazardous liquid pipeline user fee assess-
94 

ment to accurately reflect the amount and type of oversight activities being conducted by the office consistent with the trust fund. 

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS GRANTS

(EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUND)

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $14,355,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 28,526,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 28,526,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 28,526,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Hazardness Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 

1990 [HMTUSA] requires PHMSA to (1) develop and implement a 

reimbursable emergency preparedness grant program; (2) monitor 

public sector emergency response training and planning and provide technical assistance to States, political subdivisions and Indian tribes; and (3) develop and update periodically a mandatory 

training curriculum for emergency responders. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $28,526,000 for this activity, of which $198,000 shall be for activities related to emergency response training curriculum development and updates, as authorized by section 117(A)(i)(3)(B) of HMTUSA. The Committee includes an obligation limitation of $28,328,000 for the emergency 

preparedness grant program. 

RESEARCH AND INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY ADMINISTRATION

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $5,716,260 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 8,217,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 6,367,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 8,217,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Research and Innovative Technology Administration [RITA] 

was established in the Department of Transportation, effective November 24, 2004, pursuant to the Norman Y. Mineta Research and 

Special Programs Improvement Act (Public Law 108–246). The mission of RITA is to focus the Department’s multi-modal and intermodal research efforts, while coordinating the multifaceted research agenda of the Department. 

RITA includes the University Transportation Centers, the Volpe 

National Transportation Center and the Bureau of Transportation 

Statistics [BTS], which is funded by an allocation from the Federal 

Highway Administration’s Federal-aid highway account. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $8,217,000 to continue research and 

development activities in fiscal year 2007, of which $3,000,000 

shall remain available until September 30, 2009. This funding level 

is sufficient to fund 33 full-time equivalent [FTE] staff, an increase 

of 5 FTEs over the fiscal year 2006 level. 
95 

Transportation Futures Program.—The Committee recommends 

the budget request of $2,228,000 for the transportation futures and 

applied technology program. 

Research programs.—Within the fiscal year 2007 recommended 

funding level, the Committee provides $1,120,000 for RITA’s research, development and technology [RD&T] programs as follows: 

Hazardous materials research and development [R&D] .................... $80,000 

Hydrogen fuels safety [R&D] ................................................................ 500,000 

RD&T coordination ................................................................................ 540,000 

The Committee recommends that the $1,120,000 provided for 

these RD&T programs is available until September 30, 2009. 

The bill also includes language that allows funds received from 

States, counties, municipalities, other public authorities, and private sources for expenses incurred for training to be credited to 

this appropriation. 

BUREAU OF TRANSPORTATION STATISTICS

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

Limitation on obligations, 2006 ............................................................ ($26,730,000) 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... (27,000,000) 

House allowance .................................................................................... (27,000,000) 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. (27,000,000) 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Bureau of Transportation Statistics [BTS] is funded by an 

allocation from the limitation on obligations for Federal-aid highways. The bureau compiles, analyzes, and makes accessible information on the Nation’s transportation systems; collects information 

on intermodal transportation and other areas as needed; and enhances the quality and effectiveness of the statistical programs of 

the Department of Transportation through research, the development of guidelines, and the promotion of improvements in data acquisition and use. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

Under the appropriation of the Federal Highway Administration, 

the bill provides $27,000,000 for BTS. In addition, BTS will receive 

a portion of the revenue aligned budget authority [RABA] increase 

to the Federal-aid highway program in fiscal year 2007. 

The Committee limits BTS staff to 122 FTEs in fiscal year 2007 

in order to curtail the significant growth in staffing that occurred 

previously within this agency. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $61,874,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 64,143,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 64,143,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 64,143,000 
96 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Inspector General Act of 1978 established the Office of Inspector General [OIG] as an independent and objective organization, with a mission to: (1) conduct and supervise audits and investigations relating to the programs and operations of the Department; (2) provide leadership and recommend policies designed to 

promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in the administration of programs and operations; (3) prevent and detect fraud, 

waste, and abuse; and (4) keep the Secretary and Congress currently informed regarding problems and deficiencies. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation provides $64,143,000 for activities of the Office of Inspector General, which is $2,269,000 more 

than the fiscal year 2006 enacted level and the same as the budget 

request. 

In addition, the OIG will receive $7,324,000 from other agencies 

in this bill for audit and investigation activities within that agency, 

as noted below: 

Amount 

Federal Highway Administration .......................................................................................................................... $3,524,000 

Federal Transit Administration ............................................................................................................................ 2,000,000 

Federal Aviation Administration ........................................................................................................................... 1,050,000 

National Transportation Safety Board ................................................................................................................. 500,000 

Office of the Secretary of Transportation ............................................................................................................ 125,000 

Research and Innovative Technology Administration .......................................................................................... 125,000 

Funding is sufficient to finance 420 full-time equivalent [FTE] 

staff in fiscal year 2007, for a decrease of 10 FTEs from the fiscal 

year 2006 level. 

Audit Reports.—The Committee requests the Inspector General 

to continue to forward copies of all audit reports to the Committee 

immediately after they are issued, and to continue to make the 

Committee aware immediately of any review that recommends cancellation or modifications to any major acquisition project or grant, 

or which recommends significant budgetary savings. The OIG is 

also directed to withhold from public distribution for a period of 15 

days any final audit or investigative report which was requested by 

the House or Senate Committees on Appropriations. 

The Committee has included a provision in title VII (sec. 718) 

that requires all departments and agencies in this act to report 

quarterly to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 

on all sole source contracts, including the contractor, the amount 

of the contract, the purpose of the contract and the rationale for a 

sole-source procurement as opposed to a market-based procurement. The departments and agencies also are required to publish 

this information quarterly in the Federal Register. The Committee 

directs the IG to assess any conflicts of interest with regard to 

these contracts and DOT. 

Unfair Business Practices.—The bill maintains language which 

authorizes the OIG to investigate allegations of fraud and unfair or 

deceptive practices and unfair methods of competition by air carriers and ticket agents. 
97 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation Crediting offsetting collections 

Appropriations, 2006 .......................................................................................................... $26,198,000 $1,250,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................................................... 22,925,000 1,250,000 

House allowance ................................................................................................................. 25,618,000 1,250,000 

Committee recommendation ............................................................................................... 26,500,000 1,250,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Surface Transportation Board [STB] was created on January 

1, 1996, by the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act 

of 1995 [ICCTA] (Public Law 104–88). The Board is a three-member, bipartisan, decisionally independent adjudicatory body organizationally housed within DOT and is responsible for the regulation 

of the rail and pipeline industries and certain non-licensing regulation of motor carriers and water carriers. 

STB’s rail oversight activities encompass rate reasonableness, car 

service and interchange, mergers, line acquisitions, line constructions, and abandonments. STB’s jurisdiction also includes certain 

oversight of the intercity bus industry and pipeline carriers, rate 

regulation involving noncontiguous domestic water transportation, 

household goods carriers, and collectively determined motor carrier 

rates. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total appropriation of $26,500,000, 

an increase of $3,575,000 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. 

The Committee’s recommendation funds the following increases 

above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level: 

Amount 

Annualize fiscal year 2006 pay raise .................................................................................................................. ∂$113,000 

Fiscal year 2007 pay raise .................................................................................................................................. ∂340,000 

GSA rent and security increases ......................................................................................................................... ∂1,849,000 

Inflation ................................................................................................................................................................ ∂51,000 

Annualize salary increase for fiscal year 2006 hires and employee benefits increases ................................... ∂882,000 

Working capital fund and telephone/utilities increases ..................................................................................... ∂21,000 

Fiscal year 2007 relocation expenses (one-time) ................................................................................................ ∂375,000 

Post move costs ................................................................................................................................................... ∂274,000 

Environmental travel increases ........................................................................................................................... ∂15,000 

The increases are offset by a reduction of $4,500,000 for the onetime relocation expenses funded in fiscal year 2006. 

User Fees.—Current statutory authority, under 31 U.S.C. 9701, 

grants theBboard the authority to collect user fees. Language is included in the bill allowing fees to be credited to the appropriation 

on a dollar-for-dollar basis as the fees are received and credited. 

The Committee continues this language to simplify the tracking of 

the collections and provide the Board with more flexibility in 

spending its appropriated funds. 
98 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Section 180 allows funds for maintenance and operation of aircraft; motor vehicles; liability insurance; uniforms; or allowances, 

as authorized by law. 

Section 181 limits appropriations for services authorized by 5 

U.S.C. 3109 not to exceed the rate for an Executive Level IV. 

Section 182 prohibits funds in this act for salaries and expenses 

of more than 113 political and presidential appointees in the Department of Transportation. 

Section 183 prohibits funds for the implementation of section 404 

of title 23, United States Code. 

Section 184 prohibits recipients of funds made available in this 

act to release personal information, including a social security 

number, medical or disability information, and photographs from a 

driver’s license or motor vehicle record without express consent of 

the person to whom such information pertains; and prohibits the 

Secretary of Transportation from withholding funds provided in 

this act for any grantee if a State is in noncompliance with this 

provision. 

Section 185 allows funds received by the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, and the Federal Railroad Administration from States, counties, municipalities, other 

public authorities, and private sources for expenses incurred for 

training may be credited to each agency’s respective accounts. 

Section 186 authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to allow 

issuers of any preferred stock to redeem or repurchase preferred 

stock sold to the Department of Transportation. 

Section 187 prohibits funds in this act to make a grant unless 

the Secretary of Transportation notifies the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriation at least 3 full business days before 

any discretionary grant award, letter of intent, or full funding 

grant agreement totaling $2,000,000 or more is announced by the 

Department or its modal administration. 

Section 188 allows rebates, refunds, incentive payments, minor 

fees and other funds received by the Department of Transportation 

from travel management center, charge card programs, subleasing 

of building space and miscellaneous sources are to be credit to appropriations of the Department of Transportation. 

Section 189 allows that amounts from improper payments to a 

third party contractor that are lawfully recovered by the Department of Transportation shall be available to cover expenses incurred in recovery of such payments. 

Section 190 authorizes the transfer of unexpended sums from 

‘‘Minority Business Outreach’’ to ‘‘Office of the Secretary, Salaries 

and expenses’’. 

Section 191 does not allow OST to use any funds made available 

under this act to approve assessments or reimbursement agreements for funds appropriated to modal administrations in this act, 

except those already underway prior to the date of enactment of 

this act. 

Section 192 prohibits the use of funds for a new EAS pilot program. 
99 

Section 193 establishes certain requirements for civil suits 

against moving companies. 

Section 194 establishes certain requirements for the submission 

of budget justifications to the Congress. 

Section 195 establishes requirements for reprogramming actions 

by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. 

Section 196 authorizes and directs the Secretary of Transportation, notwithstanding any provision of law, to make project 

grants for the cost of acquisition of land, or reimbursement of the 

cost of land if purchased prior to enactment of this provision and 

prior to a grant agreement, for non-exclusive use aeronautical purposes on an airport layout plan that has been approved by the Secretary on January 23, 2004, pursuant to section 49 U.S.C. 

47107(a)(16), for any small hub airport as defined in 49 U.S.C. 

47102, and had scheduled or chartered direct international flights 

totaling at least 200 millions pounds gross aircraft landed weight 

for calendar year 2002. 

Section 197 permits the FAA Administrator to reimburse FAA 

appropriations for amounts made available for 49 U.S.C. 

41742(a)(1) as fees are collected and credited under U.S.C. 45303. 

Section 198 prohibits assessments to be levied against any program, budget activity, subactivity or project funded by this act for 

the Working Capital Fund except under certain circumstances. 

Section 199. This section directs the STB to conduct a hearing on 

‘‘bottle neck’’ decisions. This provision further directs the STB to 

issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding small rate cases 

not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this act. 
(100) 

TITLE II 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

DEPARTMENTAL OFFICES

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $194,626,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 223,874,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 223,786,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 223,874,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Departmental Offices consists of the Office of the Secretary 

and Deputy Secretary, the Office of International Affairs, the Office 

of Domestic Finance, the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, the Office of Tax Policy, the Office of Economic Policy, the 

Office of the General Counsel, the Office of Legislative Affairs, the 

Office of Public Affairs, Office of the Treasurer, and the Office of 

Management. The Secretary of the Treasury has the primary role 

in formulating and managing the domestic and international tax 

and financial policies of the Federal Government. The Secretary’s 

responsibilities funded by the Salaries and Expenses appropriation 

include: recommending and implementing United States domestic 

and international economic and tax policy; fiscal policy; governing 

the fiscal operations of the Government; executing the Nation’s financial sanction policies; disrupting and dismantling terrorist financial infrastructure; protecting the United States and international financial system from terrorist financing, money laundering, and other financial crimes; managing the public debt; managing international development policy; representing the United 

States on international monetary, trade and investment issues; 

overseeing Department of the Treasury overseas operations; and directing the administrative operations of the Department of the 

Treasury. The majority of the Salaries and Expenses appropriation 

provides resources for policy formulation and implementation in 

the areas of domestic and international finance, terrorist financing 

and financial crimes, tax, economic, trade, financial operations and 

general fiscal policy. This appropriation also provides resources to 

support to the Secretary and policy components, and coordination 

of departmental administrative policies in financial and personnel 

management, procurement operations, and information systems 

and telecommunications. 
101 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $223,874,000 for the Salaries and 

Expenses appropriation of the Departmental Offices account of the 

Department of the Treasury for fiscal year 2007. This amount is 

equal to the budget request and $29,248,000 above the fiscal year 

2006 enacted level. Within the funds provided under this account, 

the Committee has provided $3,000,000 for information technology 

modernization; $100,000 for official reception and representation 

expenses; $258,000 for unforeseen emergencies; and $5,114,000 for 

the Treasury-wide financial statement audits and other Treasury 

office and bureau audits. Bill language also is included establishing 

a staffing floor of 139 FTEs and a funding level of $24,263,000 for 

the Office of Foreign Assets Control [OFAC]. 

The Committee has established specific salaries and expenses 

spending limitations for each program activity within the Departmental Offices account. The Committee has included authority for 

the Department to request funding transfers between each of its 

program activities. The Department is required to submit any such 

transfer requests to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations and receive approval prior to the execution of any such 

transfer. 

The following table compares the fiscal year 2006 enacted level 

to the fiscal year 2007 budget estimate and the Committee’s recommendation for each office: 

Fiscal year 2006 

enacted 

2007 budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Executive direction ..................................................................................... $8,556,000 $17,501,000 $8,760,000 

General counsel ......................................................................................... 7,773,000 ........................ 8,741,000 

Economic policies and programs .............................................................. 31,691,000 41,947,000 41,947,000 

Financial policies and programs ............................................................... 26,308,000 25,336,000 25,336,000 

Terrorism and financial intelligence ......................................................... 39,540,000 45,401,000 45,701,000 

Treasury-wide management and programs ............................................... 16,675,000 20,372,000 20,072,000 

Administration ............................................................................................ 63,094,000 73,317,000 73,317,000 

Executive Direction.—The Committee has decided not to follow 

the budget request proposal to consolidate funding for the Office of 

General Counsel under the executive direction activity. 

The Committee remains concerned with the significant management challenges faced by the Department and believes that greater 

emphasis must be placed on effective management leadership. The 

Treasury Inspector General [IG] continues to cite concerns with the 

corporate management structure of the Treasury and believes that 

the lack of effective management leadership has contributed to serious deficiencies at some of the bureaus. In addition to concerns 

with corporate management, the IG continues to cite the Department’s management of capital investments as a major management 

challenge. The IG specifically recommends that the Treasury needs 

to ensure consistency, cohesiveness, and economy among all bureaus by establishing clear lines of accountability, providing enterprise solutions for core business activities, and providing effective 

oversight of information technology investments and security. 

Given these concerns, the Committee directs the Department to 

provide an action plan, as part of its operating plan, on how it will 
102 

address these issues. The action plan should specify the management officials who will be responsible for carrying out the plan. 

General Counsel.—As requested in the budget, the Committee has included an additional $542,000 to support three FTEs to support the growing workload of the Office of Terrorism and Financial 

Intelligence [TFI] and an additional $492,000 for three FTEs to 

provide legal support for OFAC. 

Economic Policies and Programs.—The Committee recommends 

an increase of $9,352,000 for the overseas attache ́ program, as requested by the administration. The Committee strongly supports 

the expansion of this program. 

Financial Policies and Programs.—The Committee recommends 

$513,000 for the new Office of Dynamic Analysis as proposed by 

the budget request. 

The Committee urges the Department to create an external, 

independent panel of experts to guide the new Office of Dynamic 

Analysis. Members of the panel should be appointed by the Secretary and should embody diverse points of view on pertinent economic issues. 

Terrorism and Financial Intelligence.—The Committee has included an additional $5,861,000 as requested for TFI to support the 

hiring of additional intelligence analysts, training, travel, professional development, and additional secure workspace. Further, 

these additional funds will support OFAC’s efforts in enforcing economic sanctions against terrorist networks. The Committee recognizes the diverse and broad operational responsibilities of OFAC 

and accordingly, the Committee has included bill language establishing a staffing floor of 139 full-time equivalent positions for this 

office. The Committee also strongly urges the Department and administration to budget additional resources to ensure OFAC has 

the capacity to carry out its responsibilities. 

Due to the significant dependence on information technology to 

carry out its activities and responsibilities, the Committee also has 

included an additional $300,000 for TFI to create a permanent position of Chief Technology and Information Officer [CTIO]. This position will be responsible for managing and overseeing all TFI information technology programs and needs, including projects under 

OFAC and FinCEN. The Committee directs that the CTIO will report directly to the Under Secretary for TFI. Until this position is 

filled, the Treasury’s Chief Information Officer will continue to 

meet the IT needs of TFI. 

TFI has become an increasingly important player in the intelligence community and as a result, greater demands have been 

placed on the office. To ensure TFI has the necessary support to 

carryout its growing responsibilities and duties, the Committee has 

provided full funding for additional staffing resources, information 

technology systems, and other necessary resources. The Committee 

strongly urges the Department to provide the necessary support to 

TFI so it can meet its demands. 

Treasury-wide Management Policies and Programs.—The Committee has provided $20,072,000 for this activity, including 

$1,538,000 for performance management training. The Committee 

supports the additional funds to provide training to managers at 

the Department given the management challenges identified by the 
103 

Treasury Inspector General. The budget justifications, however, do 

not provide adequate detail on the requested training funds. Accordingly, the Committee directs the Department to provide specific 

details on these training funds in the operating plan. 

Congressional Justifications.—The Committee finds the Department’s congressional justifications to be lacking in some basic 

areas. For example, the justifications do not provide adequate explanation of legislative bill language changes and fail to identify 

the specific activity account for which new initiatives are proposed. 

Accordingly, the Committee directs that the Department to address 

these issues in its fiscal year 2008 justifications. 

Information Security.—The Treasury Office of Inspector General 

[OIG] continues to cite the Department’s information security as a 

management and performance challenge. Specifically, the Department faces serious challenges in bringing its systems into compliance with information technology security policies, procedures, 

standards, and guidelines. Moreover, the OIG cites the need to establish and maintain a system inventory as a core issue. This issue 

is particularly critical given the Internal Revenue Service’s [IRS] 

recent loss of a laptop containing fingerprints of IRS employees. 

The Committee strongly urges the Department to address the 

OIG’s findings and directs the Department to provide a status report to the Committee by March 1, 2007. 

DEPARTMENT-WIDE SYSTEMS AND CAPITAL INVESTMENTS PROGRAMS

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $24,168,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 34,032,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 34,032,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 34,032,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The 1997 Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act 

established this account, which is authorized to be used by or on 

behalf of Treasury bureaus, at the Secretary’s discretion, to modernize business processes and increase efficiency through technology investments, as well as other activities that involve more 

than one Treasury bureau or Treasury’s interface with other Government agencies. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $34,032,000 for 

Department-wide systems and capital investment program 

[DSCIP]. This amount is equal to the budget request and 

$9,864,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

The following table compares the Committee recommendation 

with the budget request and the fiscal year 2006 enacted levels. 

Project Fiscal year 2006 enacted 

2007 budget es- timate Committee recommendation 

Treasury Foreign Intelligence Network ....................................................... $5,940,000 $21,200,000 $21,200,000 

OFAC Enterprise Content Management ..................................................... ........................ 627,000 627,000 

Treasury Secure Data Network ................................................................... 2,772,000 4,003,000 4,003,000 

Critical Infrastructure Protection ............................................................... 5,742,000 2,093,000 2,093,000 

Back-up Disaster Recovery Capacity ......................................................... 1,729,000 1,656,000 1,656,000 
104 

Project Fiscal year 2006 enacted 

2007 budget es- timate Committee recommendation 

Cyber Security ............................................................................................ 2,281,000 2,244,000 2,244,000 

E-Government initiatives ........................................................................... 2,734,000 2,209,000 2,209,000 

Integrated Wireless Network ...................................................................... 1,485,000 ........................ ........................

Enterprise Architecture .............................................................................. 396,000 ........................ ........................

Defense Messaging System ....................................................................... 495,000 ........................ ........................

Documents Management ........................................................................... 594,000 ........................ ........................

Total DSCIP ................................................................................... 24,168,000 34,032,000 34,032,000 

TFIN.—The Committee strongly supports the upgrade to the 

Treasury Foreign Intelligence Network [TFIN] and considers this 

project to be one of the Department’s top priorities due to its growing role in supporting the intelligence community and combating 

terrorist financing. The Committee recognizes that the additional 

funds provided will complete the redesign, modernization, and the 

installation of full back up and recovery capability for TFIN. Given 

the critical importance of this system to TFI and the intelligence 

community, including the Director of National Intelligence [DNI], 

the Committee strongly urges TFI to coordinate closely and seek 

assistance from the DNI’s Office of Chief Information Officer and 

other intelligence agencies. 

ECM.—The Committee also strongly supports the OFAC Enterprise Content Management [ECM] system. The Committee believes 

that ECM is a high priority for OFAC to improve its ability to 

carry out its operations in managing records and responding to its 

customers. While the Committee appreciates the recent attention 

this project has received from the Department and the administration, it believes that more resources should be devoted to this 

project. Unfortunately, it appears that this project and other information technology projects are being penalized in the administration’s budget process due to the Department’s inability to develop 

an enterprise architecture. 

Working Capital Fund.—The Treasury working capital fund 

[WCF] was established in 1970 to provide centrally common administrative services across the Department, achieve economies of 

scale, and eliminate duplication of effort and redundancies. However, the Treasury’s WCF lacks adequate transparency as identified by the Treasury Inspector General. The Committee, therefore, 

directs the Department to include in its operating plan and its fiscal year 2008 congressional justifications the following information: 

the estimated budget of the WCF in total and by program; the projected WCF budgets in total and by program for the next 2 budget 

years; the estimated contributions to the WCF by bureau/office, by 

program and how these contributions are determined; and a description and amount of any long-term contracts, leases, or commitments (those exceeding 1 year) of the WCF. The Committee also directs the Department to include a new ‘‘Working Capital Fund’’ appropriations account in its fiscal year 2008 budget submission. 

Lastly, the Committee directs the Department to notify the House 

and Senate Committees on Appropriations of any new working capital fund program exceeding $5,000,000. 
105 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $16,830,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 17,352,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 17,352,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 18,352,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

As a result of the 1988 amendments to the Inspector General 

[IG] Act, the Secretary of the Treasury established the Office of Inspector General [OIG] in 1989. 

The OIG conducts and supervises audits, evaluations, and investigations designed to: (1) promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness and prevent fraud, waste, and abuse in departmental programs and operations; and (2) keep the Secretary and Congress 

fully and currently informed of problems and deficiencies in the administration of departmental programs and operations. The audit 

function provides program audit, contract audit and financial statement audit services. Contract audits provide professional advice to 

agency contracting officials on accounting and financial matters relative to negotiation, award, administration, repricing, and settlement of contracts. Program audits review and audit all facets of 

agency operations. Financial statement audits assess whether financial statements fairly present the agency’s financial condition 

and results of operations, the adequacy of accounting controls, and 

compliance with laws and regulations. These audits contribute significantly to improved financial management by helping Treasury 

managers identify improvements needed in their accounting and 

internal control systems. The evaluations function reviews program 

performance and issues critical to the mission of the Department, 

including assessing the Department’s implementation of the Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]. The investigative 

function provides for the detection and investigation of improper 

and illegal activities involving programs, personnel, and operations. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $18,352,000 for 

salaries and expenses of the Office of Inspector General. This 

amount is $1,000,000 above the budget request and $1,522,000 

above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. The Committee has provided additional funds above the budget request to support additional audit work on the Department’s working capital fund and 

other management issues. 

TREASURY INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR TAX ADMINISTRATION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $131,953,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 136,469,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 136,469,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 136,469,000 
106 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration [TIGTA] 

was established by the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 

(Public Law 105–206). Funding was first appropriated for this account in the fiscal year 2000 Treasury and General Government 

Appropriations Act (Public Law 106–58). 

TIGTA conducts audits, investigations, and evaluations to assess 

the operations and programs of the Internal Revenue Service [IRS] 

and related entities, the IRS Oversight Board and the Office of 

Chief Counsel to (1) promote the economic, efficient and effective 

administration of the Nation’s tax laws and to detect and deter 

fraud and abuse in IRS programs and operations; and (2) recommend actions to resolve fraud and other serious problems, 

abuses, and deficiencies in these programs and operations, and 

keep the Secretary and Congress fully and currently informed of 

these issues and the progress made in resolving them. TIGTA reviews existing and proposed legislation and regulations relating to 

the programs and operations of the IRS and related entities and 

makes recommendations concerning the impact of such legislation 

and regulations on the economy and efficiency in the administration of programs and operations of the IRS and related entities. 

The audit function provides program audit, limited contract audit 

and financial audit services. Program audits review and audit all 

facets of IRS and related entities in an effort to improve IRS systems and operations, while ensuring fair and equitable treatment 

of taxpayers. Contract audits focus on invoices/vouchers submitted 

to the IRS to determine whether charges are valid. The investigative function provides for the detection and investigation of improper and illegal activities involving IRS programs and operations 

and protects the IRS and related entities against external attempts 

to corrupt or threaten their employees. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $136,469,000 for 

the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration. This 

amount is an increase of $4,516,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level and the same as the budget request. 

The Committee commends TIGTA for the audit work in reviewing the IRS’s response to Hurricane Katrina in the gulf coast area. 

The Committee also commends TIGTA for reviewing the IRS’s business systems modernization program and other information technology projects. 

AIR TRANSPORTATION STABILIZATION PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $2,723,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... ........................... 

House allowance .................................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ........................... 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act, 

Public Law 107–42, established the Air Transportation Stabiliza-
107 

tion Board. The Board may issue up to $10,000,000,000 in loan 

guarantees. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee does not provide any appropriation funding, as 

requested, for the Air Transportation Stabilization Program for fiscal year 2007. Bill language, as requested, is included that allows 

the ATSB to charge fees to a borrower. The Board expects to negotiate repayment or remarketing of its remaining loans by the end 

of fiscal year 2006 and will terminate its activities in 2007. 

FINANCIAL CRIMES ENFORCEMENT NETWORK

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $72,894,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 89,794,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 84,066,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 77,321,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network [FinCEN], a bureau 

within the Treasury Department’s Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, is the largest overt collector of financial intelligence in the United States. FinCEN’s mission is to safeguard the 

financial system from the abuses of financial crime, including terrorist financing, money laundering and other illicit finance. 

FinCEN accomplishes its mission by administering the Bank Secrecy Act, a collection of statutes that form the Nation’s anti-money 

laundering/counter-terrorist financing regulatory regime. As the 

delegated administrator of the Bank Secrecy Act, FinCEN is responsible for the development and implementation of regulations, 

rules and guidance issued under the Bank Secrecy Act. FinCEN 

also oversees the work of eight Federal agencies that have been 

delegated responsibility to examine various sectors of the financial 

industry for compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act’s requirements. 

FinCEN is responsible for collecting, maintaining, and disseminating the information reported by financial institutions under the 

Bank Secrecy Act through a Government-wide access service. In coordination with Treasury’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis, 

FinCEN analyzes this financial information and other information 

and intelligence to develop both strategic and tactical analytical 

products that support law enforcement, intelligence and regulatory 

agencies. FinCEN is the United States’ Financial Intelligence Unit 

[FIU] and a founding member of the Egmont Group of Financial 

Intelligence Units. As the United States FIU, FinCEN routinely 

shares information and cooperates with other FIUs around the 

world to address the global problems of terrorist financing, money 

laundering, and other illicit finance. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $77,321,000 for the Financial 

Crimes Enforcement Network [FinCEN]. This amount is $4,427,000 

above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level and $12,473,000 below the 

budget request. 
108 

The Committee does not recommend $12,473,000 in additional 

funds for the ‘‘BSA Direct’’ system due to the major failures of the 

system as identified by the Government Accountability Office 

[GAO] and the FinCEN Director. The Committee strongly believes 

that based on the GAO’s assessment, FinCEN will not be in position in fiscal year 2007 to ensure it can spend effectively and efficiently the additional funds requested for BSA Direct. Further, the 

Committee understands that the IRS has developed a new system 

that meets the needs of FinCEN and its BSA users. 

In the GAO’s July 14, 2006 report on FinCEN’s management of 

BSA Direct (GAO–06–947R), the GAO found that FinCEN did not 

always apply effective investment management processes to oversee the BSA Direct Retrieval and Sharing project. As a result, the 

GAO recommended that the Director of FinCEN direct the Chief 

Information Officer [CIO] to develop a plan with specific actions for 

improving the agency’s capabilities for overseeing the BSA Direct 

project. Further, the GAO noted that the problems with BSA Direct 

indicate systemic problems with FinCEN’s management and oversight of IT projects. Accordingly, the Committee directs FinCEN to 

develop a plan that addresses the GAO’s concerns in its July 14, 

2006 report and to ensure FinCEN has an executive level review 

process for IT projects. The Committee directs the Director of 

FinCEN to submit a report to the House and Senate Committees 

on Appropriations on these matters by no later than 90 days after 

the date of enactment of this act. 

The Committee understands that FinCEN will require funds to 

terminate the existing contract for BSA Direct, including costs for 

the audit agency that will negotiate the termination costs. Further, 

the Director of FinCEN will determine additional financial requirements to achieve the BSA Direct Retrieval and Sharing Component’s long-term vision. The Committee supports these efforts and 

looks forward in working with the Director in meeting FinCEN’s 

future needs. 

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SERVICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $233,881,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 233,654,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 233,654,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 233,654,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

In 1940, the United States Department of the Treasury established the Fiscal Service, which consisted of the Bureau of Accounts, the Bureau of the Public Debt, and the Office of the Treasurer. A 1974 reorganization of the Fiscal Service created the Bureau of Government Financial Operations, which was formed from 

a merger of the Bureau of Accounts and most functions of the Office of the Treasurer. In 1984, the Bureau of Government Financial 

Operations was renamed the Financial Management Service 

[FMS]. 

FMS implements payment policy and procedures for the Federal 

program agencies, issues and distributes payments, promotes the 
109 

use of electronics in the payment process, and assists agencies in 

converting payments from paper checks to electronic funds transfer 

[EFT]. FMS also provides debt collection operational services to client agencies and implements collections policy, regulations, standards and procedures for the Federal Government and assists agencies in converting collections from paper to electronic media. 

FMS also provides financial accounting, reporting, and financing 

services to the Federal Government and the Government’s agents 

who participate in the payments and collections process by generating a series of daily, monthly, quarterly and annual Governmentwide reports. FMS also works directly with agencies to help reconcile reporting differences. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $233,654,000 for salaries and expenses for FMS. This amount is the same as the budget request 

and $227,000 below the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

ALCOHOL AND TOBACCO TAX AND TRADE BUREAU

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $90,215,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 63,964,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 92,604,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 92,604,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Homeland Security Act created the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax 

and Trade Bureau [TTB] within the Department of the Treasury 

and charged TTB with collecting revenue and protecting the public. 

TTB enforces the Federal laws and regulations relating to alcohol 

and tobacco. Its responsibilities include maintaining a sound revenue management and regulatory system that continues to reduce 

the taxpayer burden, improve service, collect the revenue due, prevent tax evasion and other criminal conduct, and protecting the 

public and preventing consumer deception in regulated commodities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $92,604,000 for TTB for fiscal year 

2007. This amount is an increase of $28,640,000 over the budget 

request and an increase of $2,389,000 over the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. The increase over the budget request is due to the assumption of $28,640,000 in revenues from new user fees. The new 

user fee legislative proposal, however, has not been authorized and 

is not supported by the Committee. 

BUREAU OF ENGRAVING AND PRINTING

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Bureau of Engraving and Printing [BEP] has been the sole 

manufacturer of U.S. paper currency for almost 150 years. The origin of the BEP is traced to an Act of Congress passed on February 

25, 1862, 12 Stat. 345, authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury 
110 

to issue a new currency—United States notes. While this law was 

the cornerstone authority for the operations of the engraving and 

printing division of the Treasury for many years, it was not until 

an Act of June 20, 1874, 18 Stat. 100, that the Congress first referred to this division as the ‘‘Bureau of Engraving and Printing.’’ 

The Bureau’s status as a distinct bureau within the Department of 

the Treasury was solidified by section 1 of the Act of June 4, 1897, 

30 Stat. 18, which placed all of the business of the BEP under the 

immediate control of a director, subject to the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury. The 1897 law is now codified in 31 U.S.C. 

303. 

The BEP designs, manufactures, and supplies Federal Reserve 

notes, and other security documents issued by the Federal Government. The BEP executes certain printings for various territories 

administered by the United States, particularly postage and revenue stamps. 

The operations of the BEP are currently financed by means of a 

revolving fund established in accordance with the provisions of 

Public Law 656, August 4, 1950 (31 U.S.C. 181), which requires the 

BEP to be reimbursed by customer agencies for all costs of manufacturing products and services performed. The BEP is also authorized to assess amounts to acquire capital equipment and provide 

for working capital needs. 

No direct appropriation is required to cover the activities of the 

BEP. 

BUREAU OF THE PUBLIC DEBT

ADMINISTERING THE PUBLIC DEBT

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $175,154,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 177,789,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 177,789,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 177,789,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Public Debt Service was formed in 1919 with the appointment of the first Commissioner of the Public Debt. The Public Debt 

Service took general charge debt operations including debt accounting and securities issue and retirement, which had been conducted 

by several independent divisions within the Treasury. Acting under 

the authorization of the Reorganization Act of 1939, the President 

created the Bureau of the Public Debt, which was established as 

part of the Fiscal Service in the Department of the Treasury effective June 30, 1940, (31 U.S.C. 306). In 1993, the Savings Bonds Division, a separate organization, was made part of the Bureau. 

This appropriation provides funds for the conduct of all public 

debt operations and the promotion of the sale of U.S. savings-type 

securities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends the budget request level of 

$177,789,000 for the Bureau of the Public Debt for fiscal year 2007. 

This amount is an increase of $2,635,000 above the fiscal year 2006 

enacted level. 
111 

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS FUND

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS FUND PROGRAM

ACCOUNT

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $54,450,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 7,821,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 40,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 55,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Community Development Financial Institutions Fund makes 

investments in the form of grants, loans, equity investments, deposits, and technical assistance grants to new and existing community development financial institutions [CDFIs], through the CDFI 

program. CDFIs include community development banks, credit 

unions, venture capital funds, revolving loan funds, and microloan 

funds, among others. Recipient institutions engage in lending and 

investment for affordable housing, small business and community 

development within underserved communities. The CDFI Fund administers the Bank Enterprise Award [BEA] Program, which provides a financial incentive to insured depository institutions to undertake community development finance activities. The CDFI Fund 

also administers the New Markets Tax Credit Program, a program 

that provides an incentive to investors in the form of a tax credit, 

which is expected to stimulate private community and economic development activities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $55,000,000 for the CDFI Fund, 

which is $550,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level and 

$47,179,000 above the budget request. The Committee recommends 

that the entire program, not just the New Markets Tax Credit program, remain at the Department of the Treasury as opposed to the 

administration’s proposal of moving the program to the Department of Commerce under the Strengthening America’s Communities Initiative. 

The Committee is again concerned about the proposed reductions 

to CDFI and the respective programs within CDFI, such as the 

Bank Enterprise Award [BEA]. These programs play an important 

role in providing financial services to underserved communities in 

both urban and rural communities across the country. The Committee expects the BEA program to be funded at no less than 

$10,000,000 for fiscal year 2007. 

The Committee also recommends a set-aside of $3,000,000 for 

grants, loans, and technical assistance and training programs to 

benefit Native America, Alaskan Natives, and Native Hawaiian 

communities in the coordination of development strategies, increased access to equity investments, and loans for development activities. 
112 

UNITED STATES MINT

UNITED STATES MINT PUBLIC ENTERPRISE FUND

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The United States Mint manufactures coins, sells numismatic 

and investment products, and provides for security and asset protection. Public Law 104–52 established the U.S. Mint Public Enterprise Fund (the Fund). The Fund encompasses the previous Salaries and Expenses, Coinage Profit Fund, Coinage Metal Fund, and 

the Numismatic Public Enterprise Fund. The Mint submits annual 

audited business-type financial statements to the Secretary of the 

Treasury and to Congress in support of the operations of the revolving fund. 

The operations of the Mint are divided into two major activities: 

Manufacturing and Sales (including circulating coinage and numismatic and investment products); and Protection. The Mint is credited with receipts from its circulating coinage operations, equal to 

the full cost of producing and distributing coins that are put into 

circulation, including depreciation of the Mint’s plant and equipment on the basis of current replacement value. Those receipts pay 

for the costs of the Mint’s operations, which include the costs of 

production and distribution. The difference between the face value 

of the coins and these costs are profits, which is deposited as seigniorage to the general fund. In fiscal year 2005, the Mint transferred $775,000,000 to the general fund. Any seigniorage used to finance the Mint’s capital acquisitions is recorded as budget authority in the year that funds are obligated for this purpose and as receipts over the life of the asset. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a spending level of $30,200,000 for 

circulating coinage and protective service capital investments for 

the Mint. This amount is an increase of $3,432,000 above the fiscal 

year 2006 enacted level and is equal to the budget request. 

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Internal Revenue Service [IRS] history dates back to 1862. 

In 1953, following a reorganization of its function, its name became 

the Internal Revenue Service. The IRS administers the Nation’s 

tax laws and collects the revenue that funds most of the Federal 

Government’s operations and public services. The IRS’s mission is 

to provide taxpayers with quality service by helping them understand and meet their tax responsibilities and by applying the tax 

law with integrity and fairness to all. The IRS focuses its enforcement programs toward increasing voluntary tax compliance by deterring taxpayers inclined to evade their tax obligations while vigorously pursuing those who violate the law. It deals directly with 

more Americans than any other institution, public or private. In 

2005, the IRS collected over $2,000,000,000,000 in revenue and 

processed more than 208 million tax returns. During the 2005 filing season, more than half of all individual taxpayers (nearly 68 
113 

million) filed electronically. Also, in 2005, the IRS provided assistance more than 95 million times through toll-free telephone lines, 

correspondence or visits to its more than 400 offices nationwide. An 

important focus for the IRS in recent years has been to undertake 

a major modernization of its systems, including expanding its 

Internet services, and business operations to serve better taxpayers 

and enforce the law. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $10,655,972,000 for the Internal 

Revenue Service for fiscal year 2007. This is an increase of 

$82,266,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level and 

$64,135,000 above the budget request. 

New Appropriations Account Structure.—The Committee has created a new appropriations account structure for fiscal year 2007. 

Under this structure, the IRS’s activities are more properly aligned 

to budget activities by creating new ‘‘Taxpayer Services’’, ‘‘Enforcement’’, and ‘‘Operations Support’’ accounts in place of the old ‘‘Processing, Assistance, and Management’’, ‘‘Tax Law Enforcement’’, and 

‘‘Information Systems’’ accounts. The ‘‘Business Systems Modernization’’ and ‘‘Health Insurance Tax Credit Administration’’ accounts are maintained. Further, the Committee has broken out the 

‘‘IRS Oversight Board’’ as a new separate account. 

The Committee developed the new account structure in consultation with the Department of the Treasury, the IRS, and the House 

Committee on Appropriations. The Committee has provided the 

IRS with some administrative flexibility in transitioning to the new 

account structure by allowing the IRS to transfer funds among the 

taxpayer services, enforcement, and operations support accounts. 

This new administrative flexibility provided as an administrative 

provision. 

Tax Gap.—The IRS updated its results of a 3-year study on the 

difference between what taxpayers are supposed to pay and what 

they actually do pay, the so-called ‘‘tax gap.’’ The IRS found that 

for tax year 2001, about 84 percent of owed taxes were paid voluntarily and timely. However, a significant number of taxpayers do 

not comply with the Tax Code resulting in an estimated gross tax 

gap of $345,000,000,000. The IRS estimates that after enforcement 

and other late payments are factored into the gross tax gap, the 

net tax gap is about $290,000,000,000. The most current estimate 

of the tax gap remains largely unchanged from the IRS’s initial update conducted last year and has remained relatively stable for the 

past three decades based on previous IRS studies. The accuracy of 

the tax gap, however, is uncertain given the use of outdated information and questionable methodology. Some experts, including the 

GAO and TIGTA, believe that the tax gap may actually be higher 

than estimated by the IRS. The Committee strongly believes that 

the IRS must and can reduce the tax gap if the IRS is given additional resources and is able to improve its operational capabilities 

(most notably through the Business Systems Modernization program). 

To reduce the tax gap, the IRS’s budget request has set a goal 

of increasing the voluntary compliance rate from a current estimate 

of about 83.7 percent to 85 percent by 2009. However, the budget 
114 

request does not include a strategic plan to achieve this goal. To 

reduce the tax gap, experts recommend a number of approaches, 

such as: improving information reporting, improving taxpayer services, increasing research on noncompliance, improving the partnership between the IRS and the tax administration community, and 

leveraging technology to improve IRS’s systems. The Committee 

supports all of these approaches and believes that the administration must develop a detailed business plan on how it will reduce 

the tax gap. Accordingly, the Committee has included an administrative provision that requires the IRS to develop a detailed, strategic plan that demonstrates how it will achieve and how it will 

measure the voluntary compliance goal of 85 percent by 2009. 

Operating Plan and Notification.—In addition to the normal operating plan requirements detailed in the introduction in this report, the Committee directs the IRS to include details on any 

planned reorganization, job reductions or increases to offices or activities within the agency, and modifications to any service or enforcement activity. Some past examples that would qualify under 

this directive include: the Modernization and Information Technology Systems [MITS] reorganization and the proposed closure of 

taxpayer assistance centers. The Committee also directs the IRS to 

obtain the approval of the IRS Oversight Board prior to submitting 

its operating plan to the Committee. Further, the IRS should 

promptly notify the Committee and the IRS Oversight Board if 

there are any substantial changes of these plans. 

The Committee continues to remain concerned about any efforts 

to reduce significantly taxpayer services. Therefore, the Committee 

directs that should the IRS propose further reductions in taxpayer 

service, such reductions must be consistent with the budget justification, operating plan, and Taxpayer Assistance Blueprint. 

Privacy Regulations.—The Committee notes that the authorizing 

committee has approved legislation (S. 832) that addresses the 

troubling aspects of the use and disclosure of taxpayer information 

by return preparers for non-tax purposes and offshore disclosures. 

The Committee directs the IRS to be strictly attentive to this legislation in promulgating the final regulation relating to section 7216 

of the Internal Revenue Code. 

IRS Staffing Plans.—The Committee continues to support adequate staffing levels for effective tax administration and supports 

the staffing plans for the Internal Revenue Service facilities in the 

communities of Martinsburg and Beckley, West Virginia. Therefore, 

the Committee urges the IRS, within the constraints of the fiscal 

year 2007 funding levels, to make no staffing reductions at the 

Martinsburg National Computing Center and the programmed 

level at the Finance Center in Beckley, West Virginia. Further, the 

Committee directs the IRS to provide an annual report to the Committee on its efforts to protect and increase staffing levels at the 

Martinsburg and Beckley IRS facilities. 

Taxpayer Services in Alaska and Hawaii.—Given the remote distance of Alaska and Hawaii from the U.S. mainland and the difficulty experienced by Alaska and Hawaii taxpayers in receiving 

needed tax assistance by the national toll-free line, it is imperative 

that the Taxpayer Advocate Service Center in each of these States 

is fully staffed and capable of resolving taxpayer problems of the 
115 

most complex nature. The Committee directs the Internal Revenue 

Service to continue to staff each Taxpayer Advocate Service Center 

in each of these States with a Collection Technical Advisor and an 

Examination Technical Advisor in addition to the current complement of office staff. 

TAXPAYER SERVICES

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $2,142,275,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 2,079,151,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 2,059,151,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,110,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Taxpayer Services appropriation provides for taxpayer services, including forms and publications; processing tax returns and 

related documents; filing and account services; taxpayer advocacy 

services; and assisting taxpayers to understand their tax obligations, correctly file their returns, and pay taxes due in a timely 

manner. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $2,110,000,000 for Taxpayer Serv- ices, which is $32,275,000 below the fiscal year 2006 enacted level 

and $30,849,000 above the budget request. Bill language is included providing not less than $4,500,000 for the tax counseling for 

the elderly program and not less than $9,000,000 for low-income 

taxpayer clinic grants. 

Taxpayer Assistance Blueprint.—In response to the Committee’s 

directive in the fiscal year 2006 Treasury Appropriations Act, the 

IRS, in consultation with the IRS Oversight Board and the National Taxpayer Advocate, began developing a ‘‘Taxpayer Assistance Blueprint’’ to develop a 5-year strategic plan on taxpayer services. As directed by the Committee, the IRS is reviewing its current 

portfolio of taxpayer services and exploring other types of services 

to meet the needs of taxpayers. Further, this plan will detail how 

it plans to meet the service needs on a geographic basis (by State 

and major metropolitan area), including any proposals to realign 

existing resources to improve taxpayer access to services, and address how the plan will improve taxpayer service based on reliable 

data on taxpayer service needs. The plan will also address efforts 

to expand efforts to partner with State and local governments and 

private entities to improve taxpayer services. The Committee commends the IRS, the IRS Oversight Board, and the National Taxpayer Advocate for their time and efforts on the Blueprint. Further, 

the Committee appreciates the efforts to conduct research on taxpayer needs and taxpayer service performance. 

The Committee understands that the Blueprint may not be completed in time to be used as part of the development of the fiscal 

year 2008 budget request. However, the Committee strongly believes that the Blueprint should be incorporated in subsequent 

budget requests. 

E-Filing.—The Committee is disappointed with the IRS’s performance in increasing the number of tax filers who submit their 

returns electronically and without additional cost. Most experts, in-
116 

cluding the IRS Oversight Board, believe that the IRS will not 

meet its congressionally mandated goal of having 80 percent of tax 

returns filed electronically by 2007. Accordingly, the Committee directs the IRS, in consultation with stakeholders, such as the National Taxpayer Advocate, to develop a detailed strategic plan to 

meet the 80 percent e-File goal. This plan should be submitted to 

the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by no later 

than June 4, 2007. 

Research.—The Committee believes that the IRS will provide better taxpayer service, resulting in improved compliance, if taxpayer 

behavior is better understood and applied research is integrated 

into the development of taxpayer service and enforcement initiatives. Toward that end, the Committee directs the National Taxpayer Advocate, in consultation with IRS Office of Research, to report to the Appropriations Committees of the House and Senate by 

September 30, 2007, on activities that tax administrators in other 

nations undertake to understand taxpayer behavior. The report 

shall also make recommendations for the establishment of a cognitive learning and applied research laboratory. In addition, the report should identify innovative methods of understanding taxpayer 

behavior, including the use of agent-based computer simulations, 

and recommend whether the establishment of a cognitive learning 

laboratory would improve tax administration. 

ENFORCEMENT

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $4,701,970,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 4,797,126,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 4,757,126,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 4,797,126,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Enforcement appropriation provides for the examination of 

tax returns, both domestic and international; the administrative 

and judicial settlement of taxpayer appeals of examination findings; technical rulings; monitoring employee pension plans; determining qualifications of organizations seeking tax-exempt status; 

examining tax returns of exempt organizations; enforcing statutes 

relating to detection and investigation of criminal violations of the 

internal revenue laws; identifying under reporting of tax obligations; securing unfiled tax returns; and collecting unpaid accounts. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends the budget request level of 

$4,797,126,000 for enforcement activities for fiscal year 2007. This 

amount is $95,156,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. Bill 

language is included to transfer not less than $55,584,000 to the 

Interagency Crime and Drug Enforcement [ICDE] program and to 

transfer up to $10,000,000 from enforcement to the Operations 

Support account to support the ICDE program. 

National Research Program.—The Committee strongly supports 

the work of the National Research Program [NRP] to increase understanding on the tax gap. While the IRS’s NRP has done a commendable job in updating the tax gap estimates, there remain significant gaps in the gap. The IRS and others have expressed con-
117 

cerns with the certainty of the overall tax gap estimate in part because some areas of the estimate rely on old data (from the 1970s 

and 1980s) and it has no estimates for other areas of the tax gap. 

GAO, TIGTA, the National Taxpayer Advocate, and the IRS Oversight Board also have all recommended greater and more frequent 

data collection and studies of the tax gap. The Committee agrees 

with this recommendation. Accordingly, the Committee directs the 

IRS to submit a detailed research plan that will address the shortfalls in the NRP. The plan should include the use of a rolling sample, which was recommended by the IRS Oversight Board and GAO 

that covers all types of tax returns. Under this approach, one-fifth 

of the sample could be collected every year. The plan should include cost estimates of implementing the plan. The plan should be 

developed in consultation with the National Taxpayer Advocate 

and approved by the IRS Oversight Board prior to its submission 

to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by no later 

than March 12, 2007. Finally, to cover the costs of implementing 

the plan, the Committee encourages the IRS to request the use of 

unobligated funds as part of the reprogramming authority provided 

under this act. 

The Committee believes that an understanding of the causes of 

inadvertent noncompliance and the role of preparers in facilitating 

both inadvertent and intentional noncompliance will improve tax 

administration and should inform IRS’s allocation of resources. 

Thus, in administering its NRP for fiscal year 2007, the Committee 

directs the IRS to collect information on the causes of inadvertent 

noncompliance, the type of return preparation method (self, volunteer, or paid preparer), and whether the taxpayer was represented 

during the examination. The Committee directs the National Taxpayer Advocate to assist with this effort. 

Misclassification of Contractors.—The Committee is concerned 

with the misclassification of workers as independent contractors, 

who are filed under IRS form 1099. Many of these workers should 

be correctly classified as employees and filed under W–2 forms. 

This misclassification leads to the underreporting of self-employment taxes, which the IRS estimates accounts for $148,000,000,000 

per year and 43 percent of the gross tax gap. Therefore, the Committee strongly urges the IRS to provide increased tax enforcement 

in industries where misclassification of employees is widespread. 

OPERATIONS SUPPORT

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $3,467,443,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 3,488,404,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 3,459,152,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,487,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Operations Support appropriation provides for overall planning and direction of the IRS including shared service support related to facilities services, rent payments, printing, postage, and security; other support functions that are considered overhead but essential to the successful operation of IRS programs including resources for headquarters management activities, including IRSwide support for strategic planning, communications and liaison, fi-
118 

nance, human resources, EEO and diversity; research and statistics 

of income; and necessary expenses for information systems and 

telecommunication support, including developmental information 

systems and operational information systems. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $3,487,000,000 for Operations Sup- port for fiscal year 2007. This amount is $19,557,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level and $1,404,000 below the budget request. Bill language is included allowing $75,000,000 of these funds 

to remain available until September 30, 2009; up to $1,000,000 for 

research activities; and $50,000 for official reception and representation. The Committee has provided additional reception and representation funds due to the IRS’s growing role in international tax 

administration. These funds will be used to host meetings with 

international tax organizations such as the Joint International Tax 

Shelter Information Centre, Inter-American Center for Tax Administrators, and others. 

IT Management and Oversight.—The IRS has made significant 

strides in improving the management and oversight of its business 

systems modernization [BSM] program. Unfortunately, the IRS has 

not adequately addressed major systemic problems with its nonBSM portfolio of information technology projects as demonstrated 

by recent failures during the past filing season. TIGTA has identified problems in several areas of IT management and oversight including, but not limited to, such areas as: classification of investment projects, oversight and governance structure, risk management, contingency planning, and contractor performance and accountability. Further, it appears that the Department of the Treasury and the Office of Management and Budget have not exercised 

proper oversight for the business cases (OMB Circular A–11 Exhibit 300) used to justify the funding of the IRS’s IT projects. 

To the IRS’s credit, it has begun addressing some of its IT problems through a reorganization of the Modernization and Information Technology Services [MITS] organization that began earlier 

this year. Nevertheless, the Committee remains troubled by the IT 

management and oversight problems at the IRS, as demonstrated 

by the failures with the Electronic Fraud Detection System, and it 

expects better performance to ensure it can support its tax administration activities. Accordingly, the Committee directs the IRS to 

review its entire non-BSM IT portfolio (regardless of tier classification) and make any changes as necessary to ensure that each 

project has (1) been properly classified for investment decision and 

management purposes, (2) the appropriate governance structure in 

place (such as an executive steering committee), (3) a risk management plan, (4) a contingency plan in case of breakdowns or failures 

in scheduled deliverables, (5) adequate provisions in the contracts 

to ensure penalties and repayment to the agency if performance is 

not met, (6) adequate contractor staffing and management in place 

to fulfill the contract terms and deliverables, and (7) been certified 

by the head of the relevant IRS business unit that the project is 

deemed necessary for its operations and meets its requirements. 

The Committee also directs the Chief Information Officer to certify 

that this review has been completed and submits such certification 
119 

to the IRS Oversight Board, the Department of the Treasury, the 

Office of Management and Budget, the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, the House Ways and Means Committee, 

and the Senate Finance Committee by no later than 90 days after 

the date of enactment of this act. This certification should be accompanied by a report on every individual IT project reviewed, a 

list of projects considered to be high risk, and any actions being 

taken to address problems identified by this review. Last, the Committee directs the IRS to provide monthly briefings to the IRS 

Oversight Board and TIGTA on the status of its IT portfolio and 

to report immediately on any project that has experienced significant cost variances or milestone delivery date slippages. 

Modernization Vision and Strategy.—The Committee highly commends the IRS for developing a new vision and strategy plan for 

IT modernization. This plan was a joint effort between the MITS 

organization and the IRS business units to develop a comprehensive business strategy for the IRS’s IT needs. The Committee recommends that the plan be further refined to include a finer level 

of detail, and specifically, to include milestones and out-year cost 

estimates. 

BSA Direct.—The Committee appreciates the IRS’s assistance 

provided to FinCEN in preventing any disruption in information 

technology service in administering BSA filing data activities by allowing FinCEN to use the IRS’s WebCBRS system. The Committee 

directs the IRS to continue providing such assistance and to coordinate with FinCEN on future BSA filing data needs. 

BUSINESS SYSTEMS MODERNIZATION

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $242,010,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 212,310,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 197,060,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 245,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides for revamping business practices and acquiring new technology. The agency is using a formal methodology 

to prioritize, approve, fund, and evaluate its portfolio of business 

systems modernization investments. This methodology is designed 

to enforce a documented, repeatable, and measurable process for 

managing investments throughout their life cycle. The process is 

reviewed by the Government Accountability Office on a regular 

basis as part of the submission requirements for expenditure plans 

to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. The expenditure plan approval process prior to the use of appropriated 

funds continues for fiscal year 2007. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $245,000,000 for Business Systems 

Modernization [BSM] for fiscal year 2007. This amount is 

$32,690,000 above the budget request and $2,990,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. Bill language is included requiring an 

expenditure plan for these funds. Under the new appropriations account structure, the BSM account has been modified to include 
120 

funding for IRS staffing associated with direct management of the 

BSM program. 

The Committee continues to believe that BSM is the IRS’s highest management and administrative priority that will require management’s focus and attention for several years. To the IRS’s credit, 

the program has made steady progress over the past 2 years. Unfortunately, the budget request cuts BSM by $29,700,000 or 15.2 

percent from the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. The Committee is 

troubled by the proposed cut since it will slow the momentum of 

the BSM’s progress in modernizing IRS’s antiquated tax administration and financial systems. GAO noted that the proposed funding level would likely affect the IRS’s ability to deliver the 

functionality planned for the fiscal year and could result in project 

delays and/or scope reductions. Further, this could in turn impact 

the long-term pace and cost of modernizing IRS tax systems and 

of ultimately improving taxpayer service and strengthening enforcement. 

Based on the views of the GAO and the IRS Oversight Board, the 

Committee has included an additional $32,690,000 for the BSM 

program. The Committee directs that these additional funds be 

used for the modernized e-File program based on the recommendation of the IRS Oversight Board. 

HEALTH INSURANCE TAX CREDIT ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $20,008,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 14,846,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 14,846,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 14,846,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation provides operating funds to administer the 

advance payment feature of a new Trade Adjustment Assistance 

health insurance tax credit program to assist dislocated workers 

with their health insurance premiums. The tax credit program was 

enacted by the Trade Act of 2002 (Public Law 107–210) and became 

effective in August 2003. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation provides the budget request 

level of $14,846,000 for the Health Insurance Tax Credit Administration in fiscal year 2007. This amount is $5,162,000 below the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

IRS OVERSIGHT BOARD

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $1,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 1,500,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 1,500,000 

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

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The IRS Oversight Board was established by the Congress under 

the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 [RRA]. Its legislatively-mandated mission is to oversee the IRS in its administration, 

management, conduct, direction, and supervision of the execution 
121 

and application of the internal revenue laws. The Board is composed of nine members, appointed by the President and confirmed 

by the Senate. RRA provided the Board with specific responsibilities to review and approve strategic and performance plans; review 

operational functions; review the selection, evaluation, and compensation of senior executives; and review and approve the budget 

request of the IRS. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $2,000,000 for the IRS Oversight 

Board for fiscal year 2007. This amount is $500,000 above the 

budget request and the fiscal year 2006 enacted levels. These additional funds are provided to increase the Board’s oversight of IRS 

operations, primarily in the area of information technology. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

The Committee has included five administrative provisions carried in prior appropriations acts and six new administrative provisions. The administrative provisions are as follows: 

Section 201 continues a provision allowing the IRS to transfer up 

to 5 percent of any appropriation made available to the Agency in 

fiscal year 2007 to any other IRS account, with the exception of the 

Enforcement account, which is limited to 3 percent. The IRS is directed to follow the Committee’s reprogramming procedures outlined earlier in this report. 

Section 202 continues a provision maintaining a training program in taxpayers’ rights and cross-cultural relations. 

Section 203 continues a provision requiring the IRS to institute 

and enforce policies and procedures, which will safeguard the confidentiality of taxpayer information. 

Section 204 continues a provision directing that funds shall be 

available for improved facilities and increased manpower to support a 1–800 help line service for taxpayers. 

Section 205 continues a provision designating not less than 

$170,000,000 for the Taxpayer Advocate Service [TAS]. Further, 

this amount does not include the normal overhead expenses that 

IRS provides outside of the TAS account. Accordingly, the Committee directs the IRS to continue providing overhead support from 

accounts outside of TAS. 

Section 206 includes a new provision requiring the IRS to submit 

its fiscal year 2008 budget justification in the same format provided under this act. 

Section 207 is a new provision that allows the IRS to transfer up 

to $10,000,000 from IRS appropriations accounts to manage the 

Earned Income Tax Credit program. 

Section 208 is a new provision that allows the IRS to transfer up 

to $35,000,000 from the Taxpayer Services or Enforcement accounts to the Operations Support account for purposes of enhancing information technology systems that support taxpayer service 

and enforcement activities. 
122 

Section 209 is a new provision that establishes new IRS appropriations accounts as Taxpayer Services, Enforcement, and Operations Support. 

Section 210 is a new provision that allows the IRS to transfer 

funds among its new accounts to implement the new account structure in this act. 

Section 211 is a new provision that requires the IRS to develop 

a tax gap strategic plan that details the approaches it will use to 

achieve a voluntary compliance rate of 85 percent in 2009. This 

goal was established by the administration in its fiscal year 2007 

budget justifications. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

The Committee includes nine administrative provisions carried 

over from prior appropriations acts and two new administrative 

provisions. The administrative provisions are as follows: 

Section 212 authorizes certain basic services within the Treasury 

Department in fiscal year 2007, including purchase of uniforms; 

maintenance, repairs, and cleaning; purchase of insurance for official motor vehicles operated in foreign countries; and contracts 

with the Department of State for health and medical services to 

employees and their dependents serving in foreign countries. 

Section 213 authorizes transfers, up to 2 percent, between Departmental Offices, Office of Inspector General, Financial Management Service, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, and the Bureau of the Public 

Debt appropriations under certain circumstances. 

Section 214 authorizes transfer, up to 2 percent, between the Internal Revenue Service and the Treasury Inspector General for Tax 

Administration under certain circumstances. 

Section 215 requires the purchase of law enforcement vehicles be 

consistent with Departmental vehicle management principles. 

Section 216 prohibits the Department of the Treasury and the 

Bureau of Engraving and Printing from redesigning the $1 Federal 

Reserve Note. 

Section 217 authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to transfer 

funds from Salaries and Expenses, Financial Management Service, 

to the Debt Collection Fund as necessary to cover the costs of debt 

collection. Such amounts shall be reimbursed to the Salaries and 

Expenses account from debt collections received in the Debt Collection Fund. 

Section 218 amends section 122 of Public Law 105–119 (5 U.S.C. 

3104 note), by striking ‘‘8 years’’ and inserting ‘‘9 years’’. 

Section 219 requires prior approval for the construction and operation of a museum by the United States Mint. 

Section 220 prohibits the merger of the United States Mint and 

the Bureau of Engraving and Printing without prior approval of 

the committees of jurisdiction. 

Section 221 is a new provision that authorizes the Department’s 

intelligence activities. This language was included at the request of 

the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. 
123 

Section 222 is a new provision that requires the Department to 

submit quarterly reports to the House and Senate Committees on 

Appropriations regarding all uncommitted, unobligated, unexpended, and excess funds in each program and activity and requires the Department to submit additional, updated budget information to these Committees upon request. 
(124) 

TITLE III 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $33,593,827,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 34,118,007,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 35,297,266,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 36,587,572,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] was 

established by the Housing and Urban Development Act (Public 

Law 89–174), effective November 9, 1965. This Department is the 

principal Federal agency responsible for programs concerned with 

the Nation’s housing needs, fair housing opportunities, and improving and developing the Nation’s communities. 

In carrying out the mission of serving the needs and interests of 

the Nation’s communities and of the people who live and work in 

them, HUD administers mortgage and loan insurance programs 

that help families become homeowners and facilitate the construction of rental housing; rental and homeownership subsidy programs 

for low-income families who otherwise could not afford decent housing; programs to combat discrimination in housing and affirmatively further fair housing opportunity; programs aimed at ensuring an adequate supply of mortgage credit; and programs that aid 

neighborhood rehabilitation, community development, and the preservation of our urban centers from blight and decay. 

HUD administers programs to protect the homebuyer in the marketplace and fosters programs and research that stimulate and 

guide the housing industry to provide not only housing, but better 

communities and living environments. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends for fiscal year 2007 an appropriation of $36,587,572,000 for the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development. This is $2,993,745,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level and $2,469,565,000 above the budget request. 

TENANT-BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE

(INCLUDING RESCISSION AND TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2006 1 ........................................................................... $15,417,919,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 1 ......................................................................... 15,920,000,000 

House allowance 1 .................................................................................. 15,846,400,000 

Committee recommendation 1 ............................................................... 15,920,000,000 

1 Include an advance appropriation of some $4,200,000,000. 
125 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides funding for the section 8 tenant-based 

(voucher) program. Section 8 tenant-based housing assistance is 

one of the principle appropriations for Federal housing assistance 

and provides rental housing assistance to over 2 million families. 

Further, it funds incremental vouchers to assist non-elderly disabled families, to provide vouchers for tenants that live in projects 

where the owner of the project has decided to leave the section 8 

program, or for replacement of units lost from the assisted housing 

inventory (tenant protection vouchers), etc. Under these programs, 

eligible low-income families pay 30 percent of their adjusted income 

for rent, and the Federal Government is responsible for the remainder of the rent, up to the fair market rent or some other payment 

standard. This account also provides funding for the Contract Administrator program, Family Self-Sufficiency [FSS] and the Family 

Unification program. Under FSS, families receive job training and 

employment that should lead to a decrease in their dependency on 

welfare programs and move towards economic self-sufficiency. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $15,920,000,000 

for fiscal year 2007, including $4,200,000,000 as an advance appropriation to be made available on October 1, 2007. These funds are 

$502,081,000 above the fiscal year 2006 level. Of these amounts, 

the Committee has allocated $14,436,200,000 for the renewal of all 

expiring section 8 contracts; $149,300,000 for section 8 preservation 

contracts through tenant protections; $47,500,000 for family selfsufficiency contracts; $1,271,100,000 for administrative fees; up to 

$10,000,000 for the Family Unification program that provides 

vouchers to families for whom the lack of adequate housing is a 

primary factor in the separation, or the threat of imminent separation, of children from their families, and also provides vouchers to 

youths 18 to 21 years old who left foster care at age 16 or older 

and lack adequate housing; and $5,900,000 for transfer to the 

Working Capital Fund. 

This account provides funding for section 8 tenant-based housing 

programs based on a budget-based approach that seeks to ensure 

funding for vouchers in use while permitting public housing agencies [PHAs] to fund vouchers up to the authorized level. This account funds housing for over 2 million families. Moreover, this level 

of funding will ensure that PHAs have adequate funds for all 

vouchers-in-use. The Committee expects that many PHAs will be 

able to pay the cost of all vouchers up to the legal authorized level. 

In addition, the account funds incremental vouchers to assist 

non-elderly disabled families, vouchers for tenants that live in 

projects where the owner of the project has decided to opt-out of 

the section 8 project-based program, or for the replacement of other 

units lost from the assisted housing inventory. The Committee remains concerned over the increased costs of section 8 rents over the 

last few years and what these costs could mean to this program in 

the future expecially in consideration of increasing utility costs. 

Nevertheless, the Committee believes that many PHAs have not 

taken prudent steps in reducing the energy costs associated with 
126 

public housing. High costs of fuel are only one component related 

to high energy bills. 

The Committee believes that the budget-based approach will ensure a more rigorous rent policy and fiscally responsible approach. 

As a result, the Committee directs HUD to report semi-annually on 

rent increases for affordable, low-income housing throughout the 

Nation, including the cost to the Government for its failure to promote or implement a policy for developing low-income housing, especially in tight rental housing markets. The Committee also directs HUD to report annually, beginning no later than June 30, 

2007 on the effectiveness of this budget-based approach to vouchers, including the extent to which available housing units are lost 

because of new cost adjustments as well as the impact of this policy 

on extremely low-income families (those at or below 30 percent of 

median income for an area). 

The Committee has also broadened the base for determining the 

funding for section 8 vouchers for each PHA by eliminating the 3 

month May through July snapshot of voucher costs and replacing 

it with the most recent 12 month period as a method for providing 

accurate and reliable data. The legislation also includes up to 

$100,000,000 for HUD to award funds to PHAs that were unfairly 

disadvantaged from excessive costs due to portability over the last 

year as well as other anomolies such as high utility costs. This 

funding should eliminate the need for any central fund. The Committee includes $149,300,000 for tenant protection as- sistance. This is the same as the budget request and $28,900,000 

less than the fiscal year 2006 level. 

The Committee remains concerned that HUD is not committed to 

maintaining section 8 project-based housing and may be encouraging owners to opt out of the program. This would be a tremendous mistake since affordable housing needs are growing while the 

stock of affordable low-income housing is shrinking. HUD is directed to report no later than June 30, 2007 on the status of HUD’s 

efforts to retain section 8 project-based housing, including a 5-year 

analysis of units lost and retained, by year, State, and locality. 

HUD is also directed to provide an analysis of all efforts made by 

HUD to preserve low-income section 8 units. The Committee also 

directs GAO to again assess HUD’s efforts and success in preserving HUD-assisted low-income housing, especially section 8 

project-based housing, including recommendations on how better to 

preserve this housing. The Committee expects an annual report on 

this issue. 

The Committee directs the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, in consultation with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 

to conduct a study of the Rental Vouchers for Veterans Affairs Supported Housing Program authorized under title 42 United States 

Code section 1437f(o)(19) and provide an overview of the program 

including the total number of vouchers, average cost, locations receiving vouchers, selection procedure and the cost of maintaining 

such vouchers. The Secretary shall submit such report to the Committees on Appropriation not later than 120 days after the enactment of this act. 

The Committee recommends $1,271,100,000 for administrative 

fees for PHAs. These funds are to be allocated on a formula tied 
127 

to units under lease. These funds are intended to ensure the success of the section 8 voucher program, but can be used to provide 

related low-income housing, including development costs. 

The Committee provides $47,500,000 for Family Self-Sufficiency 

coordinators. These funds are designed to promote self-sufficiency 

by moving from welfare to work. 

The Committee includes $5,900,000 to transfer to HUD’s Working Capital Fund which is needed for HUD to complete an effective 

IT system to track HUD funding. 

HOUSING CERTIFICATE FUND

(RESCISSION)

Appropriations, 2006 .............................................................................¥$2,050,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... ¥2,000,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... ¥2,000,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ¥2,000,000,000 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a rescission of $2,000,000,000, the 

same as the budget request and $50,000,000 less than the fiscal 

year 2006 rescission level. The administration has been unable to 

demonstrate there are adequate ‘‘excess’’ section 8 funds available 

for rescission, which has been the source for prior year rescissions. 

Instead, the administration appears likely to rescind funds from 

congressional priority programs such as the Homeless Assistance 

programs, HOME, HOPE VI section 202 housing for elderly and 

section 811 Housing for Persons with Disabilities. As a result, because both HUD and OMB have recommended this rescission from 

section 8 funds, to the extent there are inadequate ‘‘excess’’ section 

8 funding for the rescission, the next source of rescission funding 

is to be obtained, in part, first from an amount equal to 10 percent 

of HUD salaries and expenses and an amount equal to 10 percent 

of OMB funding. Only after this source of funds are exhausted can 

unobligated funds from other HUD programs be used to satisfy this 

rescission. 

PROJECT-BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $5,037,417,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 5,675,700,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 5,475,700,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 5,675,700,000 

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Section 8 project-based rental assistance provides a rental subsidy to a private landlord that is tied to a specific housing unit as 

opposed to a voucher which allows a recipient to seek a unit, subject primarily to certain rent caps. Amounts in this account include 

funding for the renewal of expiring 8 project-based contracts, including section 8, moderate rehabilitation, and single room occupancy [SRO] housing. 
128 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee provides a total of $5,675,700,000 for the annual 

renewal of project-based contracts, of which up to $145,500,000 is 

for the cost of contract administrators, $3,960,000 is for the Working Capital Fund. This funding is equal to the budget request and 

$635,937,000 above the fiscal year 2006 level. As discussed in the 

Tenant-Based Rental Assistance account, GAO is directed to annually assess the status of HUD’s efforts to preserve assisted housing. 

PUBLIC HOUSING CAPITAL FUND

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $2,438,964,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 2,178,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 2,208,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,460,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides funding for modernization and capital 

needs of public housing authorities (except Indian housing authorities), including management improvements, resident relocation and 

homeownership activities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,460,000,000 

for the public housing capital fund, which is $282,000,000 above 

the budget request and $21,036,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

Of the amount made available under this section, up to 

$30,000,000 is for supportive services for residents of public housing. Per the budget request, $7,920,000 is available from this account to pay for the costs of administrative and judicial receiverships and $14,850,000 shall be transferred to the Working Capital 

Fund. 

HUD is prohibited from using any funds under this account as 

an emergency reserve under section 9(k) of the United States Housing Act of 1937, but is provided up to $19,800,000 for emergency 

capital needs. 

The bill includes up to $15,345,000 to support the ongoing financial and physical assessment activities at the Real Estate Assessment Center [REAC]. 

PUBLIC HOUSING OPERATING FUND

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $3,564,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 3,564,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 3,564,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,660,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides funding for the payment of operating subsidies to some 3,050 public housing authorities (except Indian housing authorities) with a total of over 1.2 million units under management in order to augment rent payments by residents in order 

to provide sufficient revenues to meet reasonable operating costs. 
129 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,660,000,000 

for the public housing operating fund, which is $96,000,000 above 

the fiscal year 2006 level and $96,000,000 more than the budget request. Additional funds have been included in anticipation of high 

utility costs. 

HUD is prohibited from using any funds under this account as 

an emergency reserve under section 9(k) of the United States Housing Act of 1937. The bill includes language from the fiscal year 

2004 appropriations bill that prohibits the use of operating funds 

to pay for the operating expenses for a prior fiscal year. 

REVITALIZATION OF SEVERELY DISTRESSED PUBLIC HOUSING [HOPE VI]

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $99,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... ........................... 

House allowance .................................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 100,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The ‘‘Revitalization of severely distressed public housing’’ [HOPE 

VI] account makes awards to public housing authorities on a competitive basis to demolish obsolete or failed developments or to revitalize, where appropriate, sites upon which these developments 

exist. This is a focused effort to eliminate public housing which 

was, in many cases, poorly located, ill-designed, and not well constructed. Such unsuitable housing has been very expensive to operate, and difficult to manage effectively due to multiple deficiencies. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $100,000,000 for 

the ‘‘HOPE VI’’ account, which is $100,000,000 above the budget 

request and $1,000,000 above the fiscal year 2006 level. The administration also sought to eliminate this program by rescinding 

$99,000,000 of the fiscal year 2006 funding. The Committee urges 

the Department to reconsider the elimination of the HOPE VI program, and consider a restructured HOPE VI program that is more 

efficient, cost effective and still capable of leveraging other funds 

for rebuilding often distressed communities in which these ‘‘HOPE 

VI’’ projects are located. 

This is an important program that has revitalized many distressed properties and has anchored revitalization activities for the 

many communities in which these properties are located. The Committee acknowledges that many of the funds appropriated for this 

program have yet to be expended as projects are delayed and remain in the pipeline due to the complexities related to the funding 

of these types of projects as well as local controversies between interested local parties. Nevertheless, the program has proven to be 

very successful in transforming the lives of the assisted families 

and in rebuilding often distressed communities. 
130 

NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANT

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $623,700,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 625,680,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 625,680,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 625,680,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account funds the native American housing block grants 

program, as authorized under title I of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 [NAHASDA]. 

This program provides an allocation of funds on a formula basis to 

Indian tribes and their tribally designated housing entities to help 

them address the housing needs within their communities. Under 

this block grant, Indian tribes will use performance measures and 

benchmarks that are consistent with the national goals of the program, but can base these measures on the needs and priorities established in their own Indian housing plan. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $625,680,000 for the Native American Housing Block Grant, of which $1,980,000 is set aside for a 

credit subsidy for the section 601 Loan Guarantee Program. The 

Committee recommendation is the same as the budget request and 

$1,980,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

The Committee continues to believe that training and technical 

assistance in support of NAHASDA should be shared, with 

$2,000,000 to be administered by the National American Indian 

Housing Council [NAIHC] and $3,465,000 by HUD in support of 

the inspection of Indian housing units, contract expertise, training 

and technical assistance in the training, oversight, and management of Indian housing and tenant-based assistance. The Committee is concerned that HUD has attempted to micro manage 

many activities of the NAIHC to the detriment of NAIHC, the 

tribes, and the program. These policies have also led to unacceptable levels of carryover. The Committee expects HUD to resolve 

these issues while ensuring NAIHC is able to make effective and 

meaningful contributions to tribal heads. 

The Committee continues to be very concerned with both the policy and method by which HUD revised the eligibility requirements 

under which HUD allocates the Native American Housing Assistance Block Grant [NAHASDA]. On April 19, 2004, HUD issued its 

NAHASDA funding for fiscal year 2004 by using ‘‘multi-race’’ census data for making funding allocations as opposed to funding 

tribes based on members of a ‘‘single race’’. While this may be a 

legitimate approach, HUD’s allocation is based on census date that 

relies on self-certification. Equally troubling is the fact that HUD 

failed to use ‘‘notice and comment’’ rulemaking in making such a 

substantial policy change. This concern is reinforced by the fact 

that HUD was unable to reach a consensus among tribal groups on 

this policy change. Consequently, while the Committee is not looking to challenge the policy change at this time, the Committee does 

direct HUD to reassess this decision through notice and comment 
131 

rulemaking. The Committee also directs HUD to establish oversight procedures to ensure that tribal members are qualified for 

purposes of the NAHASDA tribal funding allocations. 

NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANT

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $8,727,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 5,940,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 8,815,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 8,815,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Hawaiian Homelands Homeownership Act of 2000 created 

the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant program to provide 

grants to State of Hawaiian Home Lands for housing and housing 

related assistance to develop, maintain, and operate affordable 

housing for eligible low income Native Hawaiian families. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $8,815,000 for this program which 

is $88,000 more than the fiscal year 2006 enacted level and 

$2,875,000 more than the budget request. Of the amount provided, 

$299,211 shall be for training and technical assistance activities. 

INDIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Program account Limitation on di- rect loans 

Appropriations, 2006 .......................................................................................................... $3,960,000 $116,276,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................................................... 5,940,000 251,000,000 

House allowance ................................................................................................................. 3,960,000 116,276,000 

Committee recommendation ............................................................................................... 5,940,000 251,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This program provides access to private financing for Indian families, Indian tribes and their tribally designated housing entities 

who otherwise could not acquire housing financing because of the 

unique status of Indian trust land. As required by the Federal 

Credit Reform Act of 1990, this account includes the subsidy costs 

associated with the loan guarantees authorized under this program. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $5,940,000 in program subsidies to 

support a loan guarantee level of $251,000,000. This is $1,980,000 

more than both the fiscal year 2006 enacted level and the same as 

the budget request. 
132 

NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND PROGRAM

ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Program account Limitation on di- rect loans 

Appropriations, 2006 .......................................................................................................... $891,000 $35,714,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................................................... 1,010,000 43,000,000 

House allowance ................................................................................................................. 1,010,000 43,000,000 

Committee recommendation ............................................................................................... 1,010,000 43,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This program provides access to private financing for native Hawaiians who otherwise could not acquire housing finance because 

of the unique status of the Hawaiians Home Lands as trust land. 

As required by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, this account 

includes the subsidy costs associated with the loan guarantees authorized under this program. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,010,000 in program subsidies to 

support a loan guarantee level of $43,000,000. The subsidy level is 

$119,000 more than the fiscal year 2006 level and the same as the 

budget request. 

COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS [HOPWA]

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $286,110,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 300,100,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 300,100,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 295,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS [HOPWA] 

Program is designed to provide States and localities with resources 

and incentives to devise long-term comprehensive strategies for 

meeting the housing needs of persons living with HIV/AIDS and 

their families. 

Statutorily, 90 percent of appropriated funds are distributed by 

formula to qualifying States and metropolitan areas on the basis of 

the number and incidence of AIDS cases reported to Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention by March 31 of the year preceding 

the appropriation year. The remaining 10 percent of funds are distributed through a national competition. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $295,000,000 for 

this program, which is $8,890,000 more than the fiscal year 2006 

enacted level and $5,100,000 below the budget request. The Committee also requires HUD to allocate these funds in a manner that 

preserves existing HOPWA programs to the extent these programs 

are determined to be meeting the needs of persons with AIDS. 
133 

OFFICE OF RURAL HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $16,830,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... ........................... 

House allowance .................................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 20,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Rural Housing and Economic Development was established to ensure that the Department has a comprehensive approach to rural housing and rural economic development issues. 

The account includes funding for technical assistance and capacity 

building in rural, underserved areas, and grants for Indian tribes, 

State housing finance agencies, State and local economic development agencies, rural nonprofits and rural community development 

corporations to pursue strategies designed to meet rural housing 

and economic development needs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $20,000,000 for the Office of Rural 

Housing and Economic Development for fiscal year 2007 to support 

housing and economic development in rural communities as defined 

by USDA and HUD. This funding level is $3,170,000 above the fiscal year 2006 level and $20,000,000 above the budget request. 

The Committee does not accept the administration’s recommendation to eliminate funding for this program. The Committee believes that the Office of Rural Housing and Economic Development plays an important role in HUD’s community development activities. Twenty-five percent of nonmetropolitan homes are 

renter-occupied, and the high cost of housing burdens those in 

rural areas, as it does in urban communities. Furthermore, the 

Committee notes that the programs of the Office of Rural Housing 

and Economic Development are sufficiently different from the housing programs administered by the Department of Agriculture to 

warrant separate appropriations. 

HUD is directed to administer this program according to existing 

regulatory requirements. It is expected that any changes to the 

program shall be made subject to notice and comment rulemaking. 

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $4,177,800,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 3,032,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 4,215,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 4,215,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Under title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 

1974, as amended, the Department is authorized to award block 

grants to units of general local government and States for the funding of local community development programs. A wide range of 

physical, economic, and social development activities are eligible 

with spending priorities determined at the local level, but the law 

enumerates general objectives which the block grants are designed 
134 

to fulfill, including adequate housing, a suitable living environment, and expanded economic opportunities, principally for persons 

of low and moderate income. Grant recipients are required to use 

at least 70 percent of their block grant funds for activities that benefit low- and moderate-income persons. 

Funds are distributed to eligible recipients for community development purposes utilizing the higher of two objective formulas, one 

of which gives somewhat greater weight to the age of housing 

stock. Seventy percent of appropriated funds are distributed to entitlement communities and 30 percent are distributed to nonentitlement communities after deducting designated amounts for special 

purpose grants and Indian tribes. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,215,000,000 

for the Community Development Fund in fiscal year 2007. This is 

an increase of $1,183,000,000 above the budget request for fiscal 

year 2007 and $37,200,000 over the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

The administration has proposed to reform and dramatically reduce funding for the Community Development Block Grant [CDBG] 

program in fiscal year 2007 by $1,183,000,000 or 28 percent from 

the fiscal year 2006 level. The Committee recognizes that adequately funding the CDBG program is essential for HUD to meet 

its core mission in addressing State and local community needs for 

low and moderate income residents across this Nation. While some 

reforms may be warranted, the reforms presented by the administration are very controversial. 

The Committee has not included funding for Youthbuild. The fiscal year 2007 budget proposes to transfer Youthbuild from HUD to 

the Department of Labor. The Committee recognizes that authorizing language to initiate the transfer is currently under consideration by Congress and will continue to work with the Department 

and interested parties to ensure that this program will not expire 

for fiscal year 2007. 

The Committee also funds the Economic Development Initiative 

at $250,000,000 and the Neighborhood Initiatives program at 

$30,000,000. 

The Economic Development Initiatives are as follows: 

$750,000 for the city of Craig, Alaska to acquire the Ward Cove 

Cannery Property in the city of Craig; 

$250,000 for the Rural Alaska Community Action Program in 

Anchorage, Alaska for improvements to Head Start and Early Head 

Start facilities in rural communities in Alaska; 

$2,500,000 for the Tongass Coast Aquarium in Ketchikan, Alaska 

for the construction of the aquarium; 

$1,000,000 for the Bering Straits Native Corporation in Nome, 

Alaska for Cape Nome Quarry upgrades; 

$1,000,000 for the city of Phenix City, Alabama for the redevelopment of downtown and riverfront; 

$400,000 for the city of Eutaw, Alabama for the revitalization of 

the Greene County Courthouse Square; 

$400,000 for the Cleburne County Economic and Industrial Authority, Alabama, for the development of Industrial Park; 
135 

$500,000 for Troy University, Alabama for the establishment of 

the Center for International Business and Economic Development; 

$500,000 for the city of Abbeville, Alabama for a downtown revitalization project; 

$200,000 for the Tannehill Ironworks Historical State Park, Alabama for science and technology enhancements; 

$500,000 for the Calhoun County Commission, Alabama for economic development of Old Fort McClellan; 

$300,000 to the Black Warrior and Cahaba Rivers Land Trust to 

purchase multi-acre tract of land along Red Mountain in Jefferson 

County, Alabama; 

$250,000 to the Blount County Commission for updates, improvements, and the expansion of existing outdoor recreational facilities 

at Rickwood Caverns State Park; 

$200,000 to the Historic Blakeley State Park for infrastructure 

development and improvements to Blakeley State Park; 

$250,000 to the Clark County Commission to identify and 

prioritize infrastructure needs including acquisition of property for 

industrial parks, development of roads, and rail spurs; 

$500,000 for Miami Dade College in Miami-Dade County, Florida 

for the design and construction of the Cuban American Historical 

Museum at the Miami Dade College Freedom Tower; 

$300,000 for the Tampa Metropolitan Area YMCA in Tampa, 

Florida for construction of transitional housing for foster youth; 

$200,000 for the city of Sarasota, Florida for the planning and 

construction of the Robert L. Taylor Community Center; 

$800,000 for the Cobb Performing Arts Centre, Georgia for the 

Cobb Performing Arts Centre construction in Cobb County, Georgia; 

$200,000 for the city of Chickamauga, Georgia, for the acquisiton 

of the Gordon Lee Mansion, in Walker County, Georgia; 

$200,000 city of Moultrie, Georgia for the creation of the 

Moultrie-Community Multi-Purpose Facility; 

$200,000 Morehouse School of Medicine, for the Atlanta WestEnd Community Revitalization Initiative, Atlanta, Georgia; 

$200,000 Cusseta-Chattahoochee County, Georgia for downtown 

revitalization in Cusseta-Chattahoochee County; 

$200,000 Paulding County, Georgia, for industrial park site preparation for Paulding County Airport and BusinessTechnology Park; 

$200,000 Henry County, Georgia for the creation of a Veterans 

Wall of Honor in Henry County; 

$500,000 for the city of Storm Lake, Iowa for the destination 

park in Storm Lake; 

$380,000 for the National Cattle Congress in Waterloo, Iowa for 

renovations of facilities; 

$220,000 for the city of Mt. Pleasant, Iowa for redevelopment activities; 

$200,000 for the city of Sioux City, Iowa for the demolition of the 

former swift plant in the yards in Sioux City; 

$200,000 for the city of Waterloo, Iowa for the demolition of the 

Chamberlain Manufacturing facility in Waterloo; 

$1,000,000 for the city of Caldwell, Idaho for downtown revitalization; 
136 

$500,000 for the Western Elmore County Recreation District in 

Mountain Home, Idaho for planning, design, and construction of a 

community center complex; 

$750,000 for Boise State University in Boise, Idaho for planning, 

design, and construction of an environmental science and economic 

development building; 

$500,000 for the Idaho Migrant Council for planning, design, and 

construction of a community center in Burley, Idaho; 

$250,000 for the Idaho State Historical Society for the Idaho Heritage Tourism and Historic Preservation Community Development 

Project; 

$300,000 for the Second Harvest Food Bank of East Central Indiana, Anderson, Indiana; for the construction of a warehouse; 

$400,000 for the Unity Center, Muncie, Indiana; for the construction of a community center; 

$300,000 for the Randolph County YMCA, Winchester, Indiana; 

for the expansion of the child day care space; 

$750,000 for Sedgwick County, Kansas for the construction of a 

technical education and training center; 

$750,000 for TLC for Children and Families in Olathe, Kansas 

for the construction of a residential treatment center; 

$500,000 for the Greater Kansas City Community Foundation in 

Kansas City, Missouri for the NeighborhoodsNOW neighborhood 

revitalization project in Wyandotte County, Kansas; 

$600,000 for the Kansas Polymer Research Center at Pittsburg 

State University for the purchase of equipment for its facility in 

Pittsburg, Kansas; 

$500,000 for the city of Atchison, Kansas to redevelop the central 

businesss district pedestrian mall in the city of Atchison; 

$500,000 for the city of Kansas City, Kansas for the downtown 

redevelopment and revitalization project in the city of Kansas City, 

Kansas; 

$200,000 for the city of Wichita, Kansas for the 21st Street industrial corridor revitalization plan and pre-engineering designs in 

the city of Wichita; 

$200,000 for World Impact Incorporated’s Good Samaritan Clinic 

to renovate existing clinic facilities in the city of Wichita, Kansas; 

$1,000,000 for LaRue County, Kentucky for an Abraham Lincoln 

Bicentennial development project; 

$2,000,000 for the the Murray-Calloway Industrial Authority in 

Murray, Kentucky, for the Murray-Calloway Industrial Park Development Project; 

$250,000 for the Robinson Film Center is Shreveport, Louisiana, 

for facility renovations; 

$250,000 for the Robert E. Nims Center for Entertainment Arts 

and Multi-Media Technology in Jefferson Parish, to upgrade existing facilities, equipment, and curriculum; 

$400,000 for the city of Brewer, Maine for a redevelopment 

project on the site of the former Eastern Fine Paper Mill; 

$200,000 for the town of Rumford, Maine to create affordable 

quality housing; 

$200,000 for the city of Gardiner, Maine for shore stabilization 

and waterfront infrastructure; 
137 

$200,000 for community concepts in Lewiston, Maine to construct 

a family service center; 

$200,000 for the Shalom House in Portland, Maine to develop affordable housing for the homeless and disabled; 

$200,000 for the Holbrook Community Foundation in Harpswell, 

Maine to purchase Holbrook’s Wharf for continued use as a working waterfront; 

$200,000 for the Penobscot Theatre Company in Bangor, Maine 

to renovate the Bangor Opera House; 

$200,000 for the Maine Historical Society in Portland, Maine to 

renovate and expand its research library; 

$200,000 to the Office of Community Development, Maine Department of Economic and Community Development, for construction of public facilities and site improvements to support education 

in horticultural and environmental stewardship; 

$200,000 for the Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, in Red 

Lake, Minnesota, to expand and upgrade the Red Lake Criminal 

Justice Complex; 

$200,000 for the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, in St. Paul, 

Minnesota, for supportive housing for long-term homeless providing 

eight long-term homeless families and individuals with housing 

and rehabilitation; 

$200,000 for the Mesabi Academy of KidsPeace in Buhl, Minnesota, to renovate their therapeutic programming center; 

$200,000 for the Sheriff’s Youth Programs of Minnesota, in Rochester, Minnesota, to be used for the construction of a new facility 

in Dodge County and a permanent chemical dependency outpatient 

facility in Rochester; 

$200,000 for the Audubon Center of the North Woods in Sandstone, Minnesota, for facilities construction and renovation to their 

center; 

$1,000,000 for the University of Mississippi Innovation and Outreach Center; 

$1,000,000 for the Historic Madison Gateway Project in Madison, 

Mississippi; 

$400,000 for the University of Montana Law School’s facility construction and expansion, Missoula, Montana; 

$400,000 for the Southwestern Montana Family YMCA, facility 

construction, Dillon, Montana; 

$750,000 for Montana State University to purchase the historic 

Story Mansion, Bozeman, Montana; 

$500,000 for the Rocky Boy Reservation’s utilization of 

Malmstrom Air Force Base’s excess housing, Montana; 

$350,000 for Butte-Silver Bow County’s rehabilitation of the 

Butte Naval Reserve Recreational Center, Butte, Montana; 

$500,000 for the Big Sky Economic Development Authority’s redevelopment of a recreational facility, Billings, Montana; 

$400,000 for Gallatin County’s efforts to redevelop a recreational 

facility, Bozeman, Montana; 

$200,000 for the town of Eureka, Montana to construct a community center, Eureka, MT; 

$200,000 for the city of Wilson, North Carolina to clear dilapidated buildings and warehouses; 
138 

$200,000 for the city of Fayetteville, North Carolina for Military 

Business Park Development; 

$200,000 for the the Charlotte Mecklenburg Housing Partnership 

in Charlotte, North Carolina to redevelop the Statesville Avenue 

Corridor; 

$200,000 to the city of Monroe, North Carolina for the renovation 

of Old Armory for neighborhood revitalization; 

$200,000 to the city of Greenville, North Carolina for neighborhood revitalization; 

$200,000 for Rocky Mount, North Carolina for the Booker T. 

Washington renovations to provide the city with a recreational 

community center; 

$200,000 for Ayden, North Carolina for renovations to the Ayden 

Arts and Recreation Community Center; 

$200,000 for the Sabre Society of Hickory, North Carolina to construct a military avaiation and tranportation musuem for economic 

development; 

$200,000 for the city of Durham, North Carolina for the West 

Point on the Eno Education and Resource Center; 

$200,000 for the city of Ahoskie, North Carolina for the Senior 

Citizen Housing Project; 

$250,000 for University of Nebraska-Omaha to develop its Center 

for Business Intelligence and Visualization; 

$250,000 for Northeast Community College to develop a collaborative education center in South Sioux City, Nebraska; 

$250,000 for Heartland Family Service’s Sarpy County Family 

Services Center in Papillion, Nebraska; 

$250,000 for People’s City Mission to develop Transitional Housing for Domestic Violence Victims in Lincoln, Nebraska; 

$1,000,000 for the Northern Community Investment Corporation 

in Saint Johnsbury, Vermont, for a broadband initiative serving the 

North Country of New Hampshire; 

$300,000 for Operation Flood Relief by the Southwestern Community Services, New Hampshire, to assist with damages suffered 

in October 2005 flood; 

$300,000 for the State of New Hampshire Department of Resources and Economic Development, for the reconstruction of the 

Robert Frost Farm; 

$400,000 for the Harbor Homes, Inc, Buckingham Place, Nashua 

New Hampshire, for the construction of transitional housing and 

support services for homeless military veterans; 

$400,000 NH Community Technical College-Pease Campus, 

Portsmouth, New Hampshire, for a photonics and laser laboratory 

to develop an undergraduate and certificate program to support 

high technology manufacturing jobs; 

$400,000 Easter Seals, Manchester, New Hampshire, to assist 

with the repair and renovation of the Easter seals facility following 

major flood damage; 

$200,000 Southwestern Community Services, Operation Flood 

Relief, Keene, New Hampshire, to assist with the repair and rehabilitation of housing for flood victims with uninsured, and otherwise unmet, losses following severe flooding in Cheshire and Sullivan Counties in October 2005; 
139 

$250,000 for Don ̃ a Ana County, New Mexico, for expansion of facilities for La Pin ̃ on Sexual Assault Recovery Services in Las 

Cruces, New Mexico; 

$200,000 for the city of Las Cruces, New Mexico, for expansion 

of La Casa, Inc. facilities; 

$800,000 for Presbyterian Medical Services in Santa Fe, New 

Mexico, for construction of the Aztec-Bloomfield, New Mexico Head 

Start Facility; $500,000 for the city of Belen, New Mexico, for the construction 

of its community multi-purpose center; $750,000 for Bernalillo County, New Mexico, for construction of 

its Metropolitan Assessment and Treatment Transitional Housing 

Facility; $500,000 for Eastern New Mexico University in Portales, New 

Mexico for technology infrastructure and equipment; $1,000,000 for the Nathan Adelson Hospice in Henderson, Nevada for the construction of an adult day care center; $200,000 for the Transitional Housing, Inc. in Cleveland, Ohio 

for capitol improvements to its facility; $200,000 for the city of Cincinnati, Ohio for acquistion and remediation of the Queen City Barrel area; $200,000 for the Washington State Community College Foundation in Marietta, Ohio for planning and design of a health resources building; $200,000 for Defiance County in Defiance, Ohio for construction 

of the Defiance County Senior Services Center; $1,300,000 for Youngstown Central Area Community Improvement Corporation for the Youngstown Technology Center, Ohio, for 

land and site acquisition, demolition, facilities construction and 

parking facilities; $200,000 for Rhodes State College, Lima, Ohio, for the Integrated 

Manufacturing Training Center (IMTC), for equipment; $200,000 for Connecting our Workforce to the Future (CWF) program, Clark State Community College, Ohio for land and site acquisition, demolition, facilities construction and equipment; 

$200,000 for Glen Helen Ecology Institute, Yellow Springs, Ohio, 

to upgrade facilities; 

$300,000 for the Lorain County Community College Foundation 

in Elyria, Ohio for the construction of the Entrepreneurship Innovation Center; 

$200,000 for the city of Ardmore, Oklahoma, to construct the 

Ardmore Community Resources Center; 

$200,000 for Rural Enterprises Institute of Oklahoma to continue 

the HUD Employer Assisted Housing Project; 

$200,000 for Norman Economic Development Coalition, Norman, 

Oklahoma, to construct an aerospace engineering incubator; 

$200,000 for the Native American Cultural and Educational Authority, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, to construct the American Indian Cultural Center; 

$200,000 for the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for the Acree-Woodworth/Massman Expansion Project; 

$200,000 for Neighbors for Kids in Depoe Bay, Oregon for the 

Depoe Bay Kids Zone Facility Expansion Project; 
140 

$300,000 for the port of Toledo to develop a marine industrial 

site in Toledo, Oregon; $300,000 for the Portland Development Commission to develop 

affordable housing within the South Waterfront District in Portland, Oregon; $200,000 for the Port of Cascade Locks in Cascade Locks, Oregon 

for its waterfront development project; $200,000 for the borough of Kennett Square, Pennsylvania, for 

the Kennett Square Downtown Revitalization Project; $200,000 for the Urban League of Pittsburgh in Pittsburgh, 

Pennsylvania to establish The Urban Entrepreneurial Development 

Center; 

$200,000 for the city of Hermitage, Pennsylvania, to construct 

the LindenPointe Technology and Innovation Center; $200,000 for the Sharon Reed Development Corporation, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for renovations as part of the 59th Street 

project; $200,000 for the Beaver County Planning Commission, Beaver, 

Pennsylvania, for development of the Hopewell Industrial Park 

Phase II; 

$200,000 for the city of Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania for construction at the Coal Street complex rehabilitation project; $200,000 for the Allegheny County Department of Planning, 

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania for mixed-use development of the Mt. 

Ararat Community Renaissance; $200,000 for Erie County, Erie, Pennsylvania, to build technology-based incubator at Gannon University in the city of Erie; $200,000 for Muhlenberg Township, Pennsylvania for site improvement, and other pre-development preparation of a brownfield 

site; 

$200,000 for the city of Johnstown, Pennsylvania for the conversion of an existing brownfield into public space; $200,000 for Our City Reading in Reading, Pennsylvania to rehabilitate abandoned houses and provide down payment assistance to 

home buyers; 

$200,000 for the Redevelopment Authority of the County of 

Washington in Washington, Pennsylvania to rehabilitate, renovate, 

and restore the former Western Center Administration building 

into a Regional Learning Center; 

$200,000 for Universal Community Homes in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for planning, design, demolition and construction of affordable housing units; 

$200,000 for Edgemont Community Improvement Association in 

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania for the renovation, rehabilitation and 

conversion of a former school building into a community center; 

$200,000 for the city of Hazleton, in Hazelton, Pennsylvania for 

planning and rehabilitation of the Markle Building and Market 

Faire; 

$200,000 for the Erie Municipal Airport Authority in Erie, Pennsylvania for redevelopment and construction of a multi-modal cargo 

distribution center; 

$200,000 for the August Wilson Center for African American Culture in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania for planning, site preparation and 

construction of an African American Cultural Center; 
141 

$200,000 for the city of Bethlehem in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania 

to support the redevelopment, renovation and construction of a 

South Bethlehem Workforce Training and Development Center at 

Northampton Community College; 

$200,000 for the Redevelopment Authority of the city of 

Coatesville in Coatesville, Pennsylvania for planning site preparation, revitalization and construction of a New Coatesville Incubator; 

$200,000 for the Economic Development Company of Lancaster 

in Lancaster, Pennsylvania for demolition, redevelopment and construction at the site of the former Armstrong Liberty Street plant; 

$200,000 for the Stadium Theatre in Woonsocket, Rhode Island 

for building renovations; 

$200,000 for the town of Lincoln, Rhode Island for improvements 

at Barney Pond; 

$200,000 for the Town of Warren, Rhode Island for improvements to the Town Wharf; 

$200,000 for the town of West Warwick for improvements at 

Riverpoint Park; 

$200,000 for the Cranston Alternate Education Program in Cranston, Rhode Island for building improvements; 

$200,000 for the Providence Performing Arts Center in Providence, Rhode Island for building renovations; 

$200,000 for the town of Burrillville, Rhode Island for construction of the Jesse Smith Library and Meeting Center; 

$200,000 for Meeting Street School in Providence, Rhode Island 

for the construction of the Meeting Street National Center of Excellence; 

$200,000 for the CVS/Highlander Charter School in Providence, 

Rhode Island for the construction of the Broad Street Children’s 

Zone; 

$200,000 for the World War II Memorial Commission of Rhode 

Island for the construction of the World War II Memorial; 

$500,000 for the city of Union, South Carolina to develop a regional robotics training center; 

$400,000 for the city of Florence, South Carolina to develop a 

community/activity center; 

$200,000 for York County, South Carolina to develop a business/ 

industry incubator project; 

$200,000 for Dillon County, South Carolina to develop an I-95 

Gateway Industrial Park Spec Building; 

$500,000 for the city of Rock Hill, South Carolina for the 

infrastrcutre improvements for the Hagins-Fewell Neighborhood 

with the installation of a new storm water system; 

$200,000 for the city of Greenville, South Carolina to redevelop 

the community recreation center; 

$400,000 to the Wakpa Sica Reconciliation Place in Fort Pierre, 

South Dakota for construction of the Wakpa Sica Reconciliation 

Place; 

$600,000 to the Childrens Home Society in Sioux Falls, South 

Dakota for at-risk youth facilities expansion; 

$500,000 for Middle Tennessee State University in Murfreesboro, 

Tennessee to construct an education and conference center; 
142 

$500,000 for the African American History Foundation of Nashville, Inc. in Nashville, Tennessee for construction of facilities and 

equipment; 

$500,000 for the city of Jackson, Tennessee to construct community facilites and infrastructure; 

$200,000 for the town of Pittman Center, Tennessee to construct 

a community center; 

$250,000 for Cumberland County, Tennessee to establish a business incubator; 

$300,000 for the city of Memphis, Tennessee for the University 

Place housing revitalization project; 

$300,000 for the PNI Neighborhood Commercial and Small Business Development Program in Knoxville, Tennessee to support economic development activities; 

$250,000 for the city of Johnson City, Tennessee to construct infrastructure and facilities at the Innovation Park; 

$200,000 for the Tri-Cities Economic Development Alliance in 

Blountville, Tennessee to support the regional World Trade Center; 

$200,000 for Tom Green County, Texas, for the relocation and expansion of the Tom Green County Library; 

$200,000 for Laredo, Texas, for the renovation of the Historic 

Plaza Theatre; 

$200,000 for Beaumont, Texas, for downtown improvements in 

the city of Beaumont; 

$200,000 for Harris County, Texas, for the Hurricane Katrina 

Evacuee Workforce Development Initiative; 

$200,000 for the North Texas Food Bank in Dallas, Texas, for facility renovation and expansion; 

$200,000 for Marshall, Texas, for the renovation of the Memorial 

Hall Visitor and History Center; 

$200,000 for Hillsboro, Texas, for downtown streetscape improvements in the city of Hillsboro; 

$200,000 for Temple, Texas, for the development of the Performing Arts Centre; 

$200,000 for Brownwood, Texas, for downtown streetscape improvements in the city of Brownwood; 

$200,000 for Midland, Texas, for downtown redevelopment in the 

city of Midland; 

$200,000 for the city of Pearland, Texas for the planning and design of the Pearland Business and Commerce Park in the city of 

Pearland; 

$300,000 for the city of Abilene, Texas for the construction of a 

new hanger at the Abilene Regional Airport Industrial Park in the 

city of Abilene; 

$300,000 for Global Samaritan Resources, Inc. in Abilene, Texas 

for the construction of a food distribution warehouse; 

$200,000 for the Houston Community College in Houston, Texas 

for the enhancement and expansion of the Multi-Cultural Business 

Entrepreneurial Center; 

$400,000 for the city of Smithfield, Utah to construct a plaza for 

the new city center; 

$450,000 for the city of Salina, Utah to construct a community 

center; 
143 

$450,000 for Grand County, Utah to construct a senior citizen 

housing center; 

$200,000 for the city of Ogden, Utah for rehabilitation of affordable housing; 

$200,000 for Provo City Downtown Parking Structure in Provo, 

Utah, to develop a parking structure for approximately 400 vehicles; 

$200,000 for community development and park facility improvements for Eagle Mountain’s Pony Express Regional Park, Eagle 

Mountain, Utah; 

$200,000 for municipal offices project in Syracuse City, Utah, for 

the construction of a new city office building; 

$200,000 for Brigham City, Utah, to renovate a building for use 

as a regional innovation center in Northern Utah; 

$200,000 for San Juan County, Utah, to move the fairgrounds 

site, including a new exhibit building/indoor-arena and other livestock exhibits for 4-H, Junior Livestock, and other activities to site 

located south of Monticello, Utah; 

$200,000 for the city of Newport News, Virginia for the enhancement of the J. Clyde Morris ‘‘Avenue of the Arts’’; 

$200,000 for the city of Suffolk, Virginia for improvements of the 

Museum of African-American History; 

$200,000 for the Staunton Performing Arts Center in Staunton, 

Virginia, for continued enhancements of the Center; 

$200,000 for the Shenandoah County Arts Center Foundation in 

Edinburg, Virginia for the renovation and expansion of the Center; 

$300,000 for the Appalachian Service Project in Jonesville, Virginia to support the year round home repair program; 

$400,00 for the Christopher Newport University Real Estate 

Foundation in Newport News, Virginia, for the Warwick Boulevard 

Commercial Corridor Redevelopment Project; 

$300,000 for the Alexandria Branch of the Boys and Girls Club 

in Alexandria, Virginia, for the renovation and expansion of the Alexandria Branch of the Boys and Girls Club; 

$200,000 for the The Mariners’ Museum in Newport News, Virginia, for the The USS Monitor Center at the Mariners’ Museum; 

$400,000 for the University of Wyoming Technology Business 

Center, Laramie Wyoming, for information technology, among 

other things servers, routers, photonics for high-speed data transmission; 

$200,000 for the Campbell County Senior Center, city of Gillette 

Wyoming, to conduct an assessment of existing infrastructure for 

future growth and expansion; 

$200,000 for the Wyoming Rural Development Council, Cheyenne 

Wyoming, for county assistance to Wyoming counties to conduct 

community assessments to look at their respective economic development assets and liabilities; 

$200,000 for the Lander Business Park, city of Lander Wyoming, 

for the installation of enhancements to complete the business park; 

$200,000 for the city of Gillette, Wyoming for construction of the 

Wyoming Technical Training Center at the Gillette Campus of the 

Northern Wyoming Community College; 
144 

$200,000 for the Central Wyoming College Foundation in Riverton, Wyoming for construction and the purchase of equipment for 

the Intertribal Education and Community Center; 

$200,000 for the Sheridan Heritage Center in Sheridan, Wyoming for restoration of the Sheridan Inn; 

$200,000 for the city of Kemmerer, Wyoming to purchase necessary technology equipment for the South Lincoln Events Center; 

$200,000 for the city of Cheyenne, Wyoming for construction of 

the Community Recreation Center; 

$900,000 for Northeast Mississippi Community College for facility renovations; 

$1,500,000 for the University of Mississippi for facilities restoration and development; 

$700,000 for the town of Marietta, Mississippi for the multi purpose building; 

$800,000 for Hinds Community College Utica Campus facility 

restoration and development; 

$500,000 to for the city of Hattiesburg, Mississippi to redevelop 

the Hattiesburg High School; 

$400,000 for the city of Canton, Mississippi to redevelop the historic Canton High School; 

$200,000 for the city of Vicksburg, Mississippi to renovate St. 

Francis Xavier auditorium; 

$200,000 for the town of Bolton, Mississippi municipal building; 

$800,000 for Delta State University facility restoration and development; 

$1,000,000 for the development of the Center for Functional 

Foods, Missouri, for construction and equipment costs; 

$875,000 for the development of the Agricultural Complex, Stoddard County, Missouri, for transportation and infrastructure improvements; 

$875,000 for the Mobile Biosciences Education Unit at the St. 

Louis Science Center, St. Louis, Missouri, for equipment and programmatic costs; 

$500,000 for the development of the George Washington Carver 

Building Restoration Project, Jackson County, Missouri, for safety 

and environmental improvements; 

$750,000 for the development of the Allied Health Building at 

North Central Missouri College, Grundy County, Missouri, for infrastructure expansion; 

$250,000 for the redevelopment of the William Jewell College 

Student Union, Clay County, Missouri, for the reconstruction of a 

new facility; 

$250,000 for the development of a planetarium at Truman State 

University, Adair County, Missouri, for construction and equipment 

costs; 

$250,000 for the development of the Winston Churchill Memorial, Callaway County, Missouri, for the continued restoration 

costs; 

$250,000 for the development of the Downtown West Plains Business Incubator, Howell County, Missouri, for construction and 

equipment costs; 
145 

$200,000 for planning and construction of the Kauai Children’s 

Discovery Museum and the Garden Island Arts Council Joint Venture: Visitors Center, Kauai County, Hawaii; $200,000 for Gregory House renovations, Honolulu, Hawaii. 

Gregory House provides transitional housing for individuals with 

HIV/AIDS; 

$200,000 for planning and construction of the Arc of Hilo’s Client 

Support Services Facility in Hilo, Hawaii; $200,000 for the Harvest Community Foundation to build the 

Billings Heights Community Center; $200,000 for CommunityWorks to build the facility and create 

the exhibits for the ExplorationWorks Center which will be an innovative, hands-on museum of science and culture; 

$200,000 for Butte Silver Bow Arts Foundation to renovate their 

building in Historic Uptown Butte to create a world-class art museum, an accredited arts school, and an art incubator; 

$200,000 for the University Montana to renovate and upgrade its 

law school; 

$200,000 for the Daly Mansion Preservation Trust to restore and 

preserve the Daly Mansion; $200,000 for Columbus, Indiana to build and equip the Mill Race 

Center for seniors; 

$200,000 to the St. Michael’s School and Nursery, Inc. in Wilmington, Delaware for the continued expansion of the school; $200,000 for the Ministry of Caring, Sacred Heart Village, in 

Wilmington, Delaware for renovation of the facility; $200,000 for expansion of the Beautiful Gate Outreach Center, 

Wilmington, Delaware; $300,000 for the city of Coral Gables, Florida for the renovation 

of the Historic Biltmore complex; $300,000 for the city of Orlando, Florida for the Parramore 

Neighborhood Revitalization Project; $200,000 for the city of Miami, for the Performing Arts Center; 

$200,000 for the city of Hollywood for the renovation of the Holocaust Education and Documentation Center; 

$200,000 for the city of Miami for the Elderly Assistance Program; 

$200,000 for the Central Florida YMCA for construction of the 

Viera Project; 

$200,000 for the Old Town Boys and Girls Club, Albuquerque, 

New Mexico, for a facility; 

$200,000 for a Veterans’ War Memorial in Carlsbad, New Mexico; 

$250,000 for TV-I’s Southwest Center for Advanced Manufacturing and Mechatronics Education facility, Albuquerque, New 

Mexico; 

$300,000 for the Boys and Girls club of Socorro County, New 

Mexico, for a facility; 

$250,000 for the South Valley Regional Recreational Center in 

Dona Ana County, New Mexico; 

$200,000 for a city-county public safety building in McKinley 

County, New Mexico; 

$400,000 for the Boys and Girls Club, San Bernardino, California, for repair and renovations of the current facility to provide 
146 

academic and afterschool programs for at-risk youth in a low income area; 

$200,000 for the Carl R. Hansen Teen Center, Sacramento, California, for construction of a new teen center facility in the South 

Natomas area that will expand the capability of serving youth ages 

12–18 in a low income area; 

$1,000,000 to repair and renovate the Memorial Building in 

Princeton, West Virginia, for an All-Wars Museum; $1,400,000 to support the construction of a new training facility 

for the PACE Training and Evaluation Center (PACE Tec) in Morgantown, West Virginia. PACE Tec is a non-profit vocational rehabilitation center that provides vocational opportunities to people 

with disabilities; 

$100,000 for the Raleigh County, WV, Branch of the NAACP for 

the development of a Multi-Cultural Museum and Community Center; 

$200,000 for the city of Lewes, Delaware, for the reuse of a 

brownfield site and the adjacent asphalt parking area as community space and recreation area along the canalfront in Lewes, Delaware; 

$200,000 for the Riverfront Redevelopment Corporation to construct a children’s museum as part of the larger effort to remove 

blight and redevelop brownfields along the Christina Riverfront in 

Wilmington, Delaware; $200,000 for the expansion of the Middletown-Odessa-Townsend 

Senior Center in Middletown, Delaware, to respond to the burgeoning senior population and help the elderly poor in the area to 

remain independent; $800,000 for the construction and expansion of the National 

Women’s Hall of Fame for economic development in Seneca Falls, 

New York; 

$200,000 for the construction of the Schenectady YMCA for economic development in Schenectady, New York; 

$200,000 for the construction and expansion of wireless services 

for underserved areas in the city of Albany, New York; 

$200,000 for the construction and expansion of the St. Lawrence 

County Regional Rural Broadband in Canton, New York; 

$200,000 for renovation of the Strand for Economic Development 

in Plattsburgh, New York; 

$200,000 for the Williston Area Economic Development Partnership, Williston, North Dakota, for the construction of a petroleum 

safety and technology training center; 

$200,000 for the United Tribes Technical College in Bismarck, 

North Dakoa, for the construction of student family housing; 

$200,000 for the Minot Area Development Corporation, Minot, 

North Dakoa, for the construction a value-added agricultural complex; 

$200,000 for the Greater Minneapolis Council of Churches, Division of Indian Work in Minneapolis, Minnesota to renovate the 

Healing Spirit House which provides housing for American Indian 

foster children; 

$200,000 for the Lao Advancement Association of America in 

Minneapolis, Minnesota for structural repairs to the interior and 

exterior of the Lao Cultural Center; 
147 

$200,000 for the town of Vernon, Connecticut, for necessary interior and exterior renovations to the Amberbelle Mill facility that 

will prevent blight and keep the structure viable for commercial 

purposes in a low-income neighborhood; 

$200,000 for Empower New Haven, Inc., New Haven, Connecticut, for assisting low-income homeowners in making necessary 

repairs to their properties; 

$200,000 for the city of Hartford, Connecticut, homeownership 

initiative for increasing the city’s current homeownership rate of 25 

percent; 

$200,000 for The Children’s Home, Cromwell, Connecticut, for 

the reconstruction of its facilities serving children with special 

needs and their families; 

$400,000 for REAP Zones, Rugby North Dakota, for continuation 

of economic development initiatives; 

$350,000 for the Dakota Boys and Girls Ranch, Minot North Dakota, for facility improvements; 

$300,000 for the University of North Dakota BLS–3 Lab, Grand 

Forks North Dakota, for research and development for therapeutic 

agents and vaccines; 

$300,000 for the Bismarck State College National Energy Technology Training Center, Bismarck North Dakota, to acquire additional classroom space; 

$250,000 for the Sitting Bull College Student Center, Fort Yates 

North Dakota, for construction of a student support center; 

$200,000 for the Turtle Mountain Youth Center, Belcourt North 

Dakota, for construction of a center to provide a safe-haven for 

youth; 

$300,000 for the Looking for Lincoln Heritage Coalition for the 

ongoing Looking for Lincoln economic development and tourism initiative in more than 12 Illinois communities; 

$500,000 statewide for utilization and capital expenses for 

broadband installation in underserved and low-income areas. Administered by the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic 

Opportunity; 

$250,000 for Boys and Girls Club of Springfield for a new community center on Springfield’s East Side; 

$250,000 for the city of Quincy’s riverfront infrastructure improvement initiative, connecting public facilities and public space 

in an economically distressed area; 

$200,000 to help construct a senior citizen Lifespan Center for 

the Coles County Council on Aging; 

$200,000 for Community Support Services, Inc in Brookfield to 

construct a facility that will provide support services for families 

with disabilities; 

$250,000 for the city of Des Plaines for construction of a youth 

and community center to supplement existing, overcrowded facilities; 

$250,000 for the Lakeview Museum in Peoria to match non-federal funds for construction of a museum facility designed to promote economic development and tourism in downtown Peoria; 

$250,000 for the city and county of San Francisco, California for 

Mason Street Housing supportive housing for the homeless; 
148 

$250,000 for the city of Redding, California for the Stillwater 

Business Park economic development project; $250,000 for the city of Fresno, California for the Regional Economic Development and Research Center; $250,000 for the Watts Cinema and Education Center, Los Angeles, California, for the Wattstar Theatre and Education Center job 

creation and economic development project; $200,000 for the county of Fresno, California for the Westside 

Vocational Training Center; $800,000 for the Iowa Department of Economic Development for 

the Main Street Program; $300,000 for Council Bluffs, Iowa for the 23rd Avenue Neighborhood Project; $300,000 for Cedar Rapids, Iowa for redevelopment; 

$300,000 for the Scott County Iowa Housing Council for affordable housing; $300,000 for the Iowa Finance Authority for assisted living facilities; 

$300,000 for the Keehi Memorial Organization, Honolulu, Hawaii, for the establishment of a Keehi Adult Day Health Center to 

provide social, cultural educational, and recreational activities for 

economically disadvantaged senior citizens; $300,000 for the Waipahu Jack Hall Memorial Housing Corporation, Honolulu, Hawaii, to repair, operate, and maintain the Kunia 

Village’s housing infrastructure. Kunia Village is a rural complex 

that houses employees of Del Monte Fresh Produce Hawaii, a pineapple company that is terminating its operations in 2008; $200,000 for the Agribusiness Development Corporation, Honolulu, Hawaii, to initiate the planning and designing of dam safety 

improvements of the Lake Wilson Dam, to ensure the recreational 

and residential integrity of this community resource; $200,000 for the Goodwill Industries of Hawaii, Inc., to build a 

career and learning center in Leeward Oahu, for job training and 

development programs, as well as a Goodwill retail store and donation center; 

$200,000 for the Easter Seals Hawaii, to construct an 18,000 

square foot program service center in Kapolei, Hawaii, to serve 500 

youths and adults with autism, cerebral palsy, Down’s Syndrome, 

and other disabilities within the West Oahu community; 

$200,000 for the construction of a research center at the Kauai 

Botanical Gardens, to preserve the rare plant and book collection, 

and to protect them from the extreme weather conditions that the 

Kauai Island frequently faces; 

$200,000 for the Hawaii Nature Center, Honolulu, Hawaii, to design, develop, and construct interactive exhibits that would create 

community awareness on environmental issues; 

$200,000 for the Catholic Charities Hawaii, to purchase and renovate facilities for a Catholic Charities Hawaii Social Service Community Center; 

$200,000 for the Arc of Hilo, to build a 17,000 square foot client 

support services facility in Hilo, to expand its services in meeting 

the needs of persons with disabilities; 

$200,000 for the expansion and preservation of the Calvin Coolidge State historic site in Plymouth Notch, Vermont; 
149 

$200,000 for the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board to 

construct affordable housing in Windham County and Caledonia 

County, Vermont; $200,000 for accessibility improvements to the River Arts community facility in Morrisville, Vermont; $1,000,000 to the University of South Dakota in Vermillion, 

South Dakota, for medical school construction; 

$400,000 to Four Bands Community Fund in Eagle Butte, South 

Dakota, for revolving loan fund recapitalization; $500,000 for City Year, Inc., Boston, Massachusetts, for the acquisition and design of a new headquarters facility; $300,000 for the city of Pittsfield, Massachusetts for the redevelopment of a historic building; $200,000 for Mont Marie Senior Residence, Inc., Holyoke, Massachusetts, for the development of a low-income senior housing facility; $200,000 for the city of Northampton, Massachusetts for the design and construction of an affordable housing development; $200,000 for the city of North Adams, Massachusetts for the redevelopment of a historic building; $200,000 for the Boys and Girls Club of Greater Westfield, Inc., 

Westfield, Massachusetts for facility renovations and repairs; $200,000 for the city of Taunton, Massachusetts for renovations 

to senior housing facility; $200,000 for the city of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for the Convent 

Hill low income housing development; $200,000 for the Waukesha Technical College, Waukesha, Wisconsin, for the expansion of the Printing Applied Technology Center; 

$200,000 for the city of Rhinelander, Wisconsin for the construction of a business park; $200,000 for the city of Beloit, Wisconsin, for the Beloit Neighborhood Development Low Income Housing restoration and infrastructure improvements; 

$200,000 for the town of Madison, Wisconsin, for the remediation 

of a Brownfield on the Novation Technology Campus; 

$200,000 for the Agape Community Center Expansion in Milwaukee, Wisconsin; 

$200,000 for the riverfront expansion project in La Crosse, Wisconsin; 

$200,000 for the town of Grantsburg, Wisconsin, for the Northwest Enterprise Center Expansion Project; 

$200,000 for the Redevelopment Authority of the city of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for the Milwaukee VA Medical Campus Redevelopment; 

$200,000 for the city of Racine, Wisconsin, for the Redevelopment 

of the Walker Manufacturing Property; 

$200,000 for the city of Lake Charles to build a wetlands center 

to increase public awareness of the conservation efforts taking 

place in South Louisiana; 

$200,000 for the Audubon Living Science Museum to develop and 

design the second phase of the insectarium; 

$200,000 for the Center for Planning Excellence to fund the Old 

South Baton Rouge Strategic Plan Pilot Project by developing af-
150 

fordable housing, neighborhood rehabilitation and to create and improve public spaces; 

$200,000 for the Edison Wetlands Association in Edison, New 

Jersey for the Dismal Swamp Conservation Trails Project. Funding 

will be used for the design and construction of trails for passive 

public recreation in the Dismal Swamp Conservation Area; 

$200,000 for the Tri-County Community Action Partnership in 

Bridgeton, New Jersey for the Southeast Gateway Project. Funds 

will go to construction of neighborhood parks, gardens, acquisition 

of property for retail opportunities, providing grants for home repair; 

$200,000 for Wynona’s House Capital Improvements, Newark, 

New Jersey.Funds will go towards renovating its permanent home 

to establish a new child advocacy center that provides a spectrum 

of services to victims of child abuse; 

$2,000,000 for the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board, 

Montpelier, Vermont, for projects throughout Vermont to enhance 

affordable housing, economic development, land conservation and 

historic preservation; 

$200,000 to Michigan Technological University in Houghton, 

Michigan for the relocation of the A.E. Seaman Mineral Museum 

to the Keweenaw National Park Site; 

$200,000 for the city of Benton Harbor, Michigan for costs associated with the Harbor Shores Development Project; 

$200,000 for the Ruth Ellis Center in Highland Park, Michigan 

for costs associated with their Street Outreach Program; 

$200,000 for the Horace Bushnell Memorial Hall Corporation in 

Hartford, Connecticut for facility repair and renovation; 

$200,000 for the town of Branford, Connecticut for the repair and 

restoration of the James Blackstone Memorial Library; 

$200,000 for Empower New Haven in New Haven, Connecticut 

for the New Haven Home Repair Program; 

$200,000 for the town of Manchester, Connecticut for construction of a youth development center on Spruce Street; 

$300,000 for the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff for the construction of the Business Support Incubator in Pine Bluff, Arkansas; 

$300,000 for the University of Arkansas-Monticello for the construction of the Forest Resources Center in Monticello, Arkansas; 

$200,000 for Audubon Arkansas for the development of the Audubon Nature Center at Gillam Park in Little Rock, Arkansas; 

$200,000 for Hudson County, New Jersey for the redevelopment 

of the Koppers Coke brownfields site; 

$200,000 for borough of Collingswood, New Jersey for the Collingswood Community Theatre; 

$200,000 for Monmouth County, New Jersey for the Monmouth 

County Children’s Advocacy Center; 

$200,000 for the Housing and Neighborhood Development Services, Inc., Orange, New Jersey for the Berg Hat Factory Commercial Arts Center; 

$200,000 for the Mercer County Improvement Authority, Trenton, New Jersey for the renovation of the American Steel and Wire 

Company Factory Building; 
151 

$300,000 for the Diakon Housing and Development, Baltimore, 

Maryland for costs related to the development of Diakon Place, a 

child care and youth services center; 

$1,000,000 for the East Baltimore Development Project, Maryland for services to the low-income residents of East Baltimore and 

for general operating costs; 

$300,000 for the Patterson Park Community Development Corporation, Baltimore, Maryland for acquisition and redevelopment of 

blighted property in and around Library Square; 

$200,000 for the Washington County Free Library, Boonsboro, 

Maryland for the design and construction of a new library; 

$400,000 for Montgomery County, Maryland for pedestrian safety 

improvements in the Long Branch community; 

$250,000 for the city of Bellingham, Washington for construction 

of the Bellingham Marine Trades Center; 

$500,000 for the city of Everett, Washington for to renovate and 

expand the Everett Senior Activity Center; 

$250,000 for the Northwest Maritime Center in Port Townsend, 

Washington for redevelopment of the former Thomas Oil 

Brownfield Site; 

$500,000 for the Asian Counseling and Referral Service in Seattle, Washington for facility construction; 

$300,000 for El Centro de la Raza in Seattle, Washington for facility improvements and repairs; 

$450,000 for FareStart in Seattle, Washington for construction 

and rehabilitation of its new facility; 

$250,000 for the Seattle Housing Authority in Seattle, Washington for construction of the High Point Neighborhood Center; 

$250,000 for the Nisei Veterans Committee in Seattle, Washington for renovations to its Memorial Hall; 

$400,000 for the Boys and Girls Clubs of King County in Seattle, 

Washington for construction of the Rainier Vista Boys and Girls 

Club; 

$300,000 for the East Central Community Organization in Spokane, Washington for facility improvements and expansion; 

$300,000 for the Boys and Girls Club of King County in Seattle, 

Washington for facility renovation and construction of the Jim 

Wiley Community Center at Greenbridge; 

$250,000 for the YMCA of Tacoma-Pierce County in Tacoma, 

Washington for construction of a YMCA facility in Gig Harbor, 

Washington; 

$600,000 for the Boys and Girls Home of Nebraska for construction of a residential treatment facility for children and adolescents 

in South Sioux City, Nebraska; 

$400,000 for Northeast Community College for construction of an 

education center in South Sioux City, Nebraska; 

$200,000 for Heartland Family Service for construction of the 

Sarpy County Family Service Center in Papillion, Nebraska; 

$200,000 to the county of Peoria, Illinois for equipment and costs 

related to the physical lead removal program for domestic dwellings and structures in order to reduce the occurrences of childhood 

lead poisoning in low income families most affected by this problem; 
152 

$200,000 to the city of Shawneetown, Illinois for construction of 

a children’s park, including a play station and adjoining community 

center to serve as the centerpiece for redevelopment of the largest 

town in Gallatin County, one of the poorest counties in Illinois; 

$200,000 to the Decatur Park District, Illinois for construction 

and development of the lakefront area in order to promote the economic development of the currently diminished area; 

$200,000 to the city of Rock Island, Illinois for renovation and 

construction on the Martin Luther King, Jr. Community Center 

serving the surrounding low-income community; 

$200,000 for the Jeanne Jugan Residence of the Poor, Pawtucket, 

Rhode Island, for tuck pointing and roof replacement of the building; 

$500,000 for the Urban League of Rhode Island, Providence, 

Rhode Island, for construction of an addition to its South Providence Neighborhood Center; 

$300,000 for Crossroads Rhode Island, North Kingstown, Rhode 

Island, for renovation of the affordable housing development located on Navy Drive; 

$200,000 for Coventry Friends of Human Services, Coventry, 

Rhode Island, for renovations and construction to the Coventry 

CARES Community Center; 

$500,000 for the construction of a Trade Training Center in Las 

Vegas, Nevada; 

$300,000 for Opportunity Village in Las Vegas, Nevada for construction of an Employment and Training Center; 

$250,000 for the city of Reno, Nevada for construction of the 

Community Assistance Center; 

$300,000 for Washoe County, Nevada for construction of a senior 

center; 

$250,000 for the city of Las Vegas, Nevada for improvements to 

the Fifth Street School; 

$200,000 for the city of Sparks, Nevada for construction of the 

West End Community Center; 

$200,000 for the city of North Las Vegas, Nevada for construction 

of a multi-generational recreation facility; 

$200,000 for the city and county of Denver, Colorado Homeless 

Veterans Supportive Housing Project; 

$200,000 for the Gateway Park at the Historic Arkansas 

Riverwalk of Pueblo, Colorado; 

$200,000 for the Old Blair Auditorium Community Center renovation project, Silver Spring, Maryland; 

$200,000 for the facility improvements and training for the Baltimore Child Abuse Center, Baltimore, Maryland; 

$200,000 for the Points North Housing Coalition, Watertown, 

New York to establish emergency housing for at risk families; 

$200,000 for the Fordham University Regional Science Center, 

Bronx, New York for the art science center that will serve the 

Bronx and lower Westchester communities; 

$200,000 for the Syracuse Area Landmark Theater, Syracuse, 

New York for the reconstruction and expansion of the historic theater; 
153 

$200,000 for the Hudson Valley Community College Model Automotive Dealership, Troy, New York for a new building for 

intraining auto technicians; $200,000 for the Catholic Family Center, Rochester, New York 

Ways to Work Program providing small loans for automobile purchase or repair to help low-income families access employment, 

school, and day care facilities; $600,000 for expansion of The United Way Training Center in 

Detroit, Michigan; $500,000 for development and expansion of the TechTown Training and Business Technology Incubator in Detroit, Michigan; $200,000 for the Housing Commission of Muskegon Heights, 

Michigan for its Neighborhood Networks Initiative; $250,000 for Saginaw, Michigan for renovations of abandoned 

buildings; $250,000 for Presbyterian Villages of Michigan of Southfield, 

Michigan for facility renovations; $800,000 for the city of Portland, Oregon for the Regional 

Bridges to Housing Program. 

The Neighborhood Initiative Programs awards are as follows: 

$1,000,000 for the city of Fulton, Mississippi for economic development; $500,000 to the Self Reliance Network to support the National 

Hispanic Financial Literacy and Homeownership Initiative; $2,750,000 for West Virginia University to complete the development of a facility to house forensic science research and academic 

programs; $1,000,000 for economic development and infrastructure activities in Mingo County, West Virginia; $1,000,000 for the development of Camp Barnabas, Barry County, Missouri, for the construction and equipment necessary for 

handicap accessible housing for children with special needs; $325,000 for research Examining Policy Options to Increase Minority Homeownership and Eradicate Urban Poverty at the University of Missouri, St. Louis; 

$675,000 for construction and equipment needs at Morningstar 

Youth and Family Life Center, Jackson County, Missouri, for construction and equipment needs. 

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LOAN GUARANTEES PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Limitation on guar- anteed loans Program costs 

Appropriations, 2006 .................................................................................................. $137,500,000 $2,970,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ............................................................................................... ........................... ........................... 

House allowance ......................................................................................................... ........................... 2,970,000 

Committee recommendation ....................................................................................... 137,500,000 3,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Section 108 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 

1974, as amended, authorizes the Secretary to issue Federal loan 

guarantees of private market loans used by entitlement and nonentitlement communities to cover the costs of acquiring real prop-
154 

erty, rehabilitation of publicly owned real property, housing rehabilitation, and other economic development activities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

program costs associated with the section 108 loan guarantee program. This amount is $30,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted 

level and $3,000,000 more than the budget request. The administration recommended no funding for this program. While the program has had an uneven history, it does afford some communities 

the ability to leverage private capital for large projects through a 

pledge of future CDBG funds. 

Of the funds provided, $3,000,000 is for credit subsidy costs to 

guarantee $137,500,000 in section 108 loan commitments in fiscal 

year 2007, and $750,000 is for administrative expenses to be transferred to the salaries and expenses account. 

BROWNFIELDS REDEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $9,900,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... ........................... 

House allowance .................................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ........................... 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Section 108(q) of the Housing and Community Development Act 

of 1974, as amended, authorizes the Brownfields Redevelopment 

program. This program provides competitive economic development 

grants in conjunction with section 108 loan guarantees for qualified 

brownfields projects. Grants are made in accordance with Section 

108(q) selection criteria. The program supports the cleanup and 

economic redevelopment of contaminated sites. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends no funding for this program. This 

amount is $9,900,000 less than the fiscal year 2006 enacted level 

and the same as the budget request. The administration requested 

no funding for this program. While this program has been instrumental in the redevelopment of many communities, funds have 

been made available for a similar program through the Environmental Protection Agency. 

HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $1,757,250,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 1,916,640,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 1,916,640,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,941,640,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Title II of the National Affordable Housing Act, as amended, authorizes the HOME Investment Partnerships Program. This program provides assistance to States and units of local government 

for the purpose of expanding the supply and affordability of hous-
155 

ing to low- and very low-income people. Eligible activities include 

tenant-based rental assistance, acquisition, and rehabilitation of affordable rental and ownership housing and, also, construction of 

housing. To participate in the HOME program, State and local governments must develop a comprehensive housing affordability 

strategy. There is a 25 percent matching requirement for participating jurisdictions which can be reduced or eliminated if they are 

experiencing fiscal distress. Funding for the American Dream 

Downpayment Assistance initiative is also provided through the 

HOME program. This initiative provides downpayment assistance 

to low income families to help them achieve homeownership. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,916,640,000 

for the HOME Investment Partnerships Program, including 

$25,000,000 for the American Dream Downpyment Fund. This 

amount is $184,390,000 more than the fiscal year 2006 enacted 

level and $25,000,000 more than the budget request. 

The Committee includes $9,000,000 for technical assistance, the 

same amount as provided in fiscal year 2006. Of this amount, 

$2,700,000 is for qualified nonprofit intermediaries to provide technical assistance to Community Housing and Development Organizations [CHDOs]. The remaining $6,300,000 is for intermediaries to 

provide technical assistance to HOME participating jurisdictions. 

The Committee objects to any proposal by the Department that ties 

the use of HOME funds for homeownership to the allocation of 

funds under the American Dream Downpayment Fund. 

The Committee includes $25,000,000 for the administration’s 

American Dream Downpayment Fund [ADDF]. The Committee 

supports expanding homeownership opportunities, but is concerned 

that this program may be helping families with excessive credit 

risk and who may not be the best candidates for homeownership. 

The Committee requests that HUD report to the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations on the rate of default by those in 

the program as well as the numbers of participants who have 

missed their mortgage payments by 30 days, by 60 days and by 90 

days and/or who have received some form of relief to keep their 

mortgages current. This report is due no later than July 31, 2006 

and shall be repeated annually. 

In addition the Committee notes that GAO–06–677 report cites 

several weakness in the ADDF, including large unexpended balances since the programs inception and HUD’s inability to segregate ADDF funding from non-ADDF funding as required to measure performance. 

Of the amount provided for the HOME program, $42,000,000 is 

for housing counseling assistance. The Committee does not fund 

housing assistance counseling in a new account, as proposed by the 

administration. The Committee views homeownership counseling, 

including pre- and post-purchase counseling, as an essential part of 

successful homeownership. The Committee expects that this program will remain available to those participating in all HUD’s 

homeownership programs. The Committee continues to urge HUD 

to utilize this program as a means of educating homebuyers on the 
156 

dangers of predatory lending, in addition to the administration’s 

stated purpose of expanding homeownership opportunities. 

SELF-HELP AND ASSISTED HOMEOWNERSHIP

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $60,390,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 39,700,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 60,390,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 66,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program [SHOP] funds 

assist low-income homebuyers willing to contribute ‘‘sweat equity’’ 

toward the construction of their houses. The funds will increase 

nonprofit organization’s ability to leverage funds from other sources 

and produce at least 2,000 new homeownership units. In 2006, 

SHOP became a separate account. SHOP was previously funded as 

a set-aside within the Community Development Fund. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $66,000,000 for the Self Help and Assisted Homeownership Program which is $5,610,000 more than 

the fiscal year 2006 enacted level and $26,300,000 more than the 

budget request. The budget request did not propose any funding in 

this account beyond the Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity 

Program. The Committee has included funding for additional programs to enhance affordable housing though capacity building to 

maximize Federal investments. The Committee has provided 

$35,000,000 for capacity building. Set-asides include $3,500,000 for 

the Housing Assistance Council; $2,000,000 for the National American Indian Council; $2,500,000 for the National Council of La 

Raza; $31,000,000 for LISC and Enterprise Foundation; $4,000,000 

for Habitat for Humanity International. 

HOMELESS ASSISTANCE GRANTS

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $1,326,600,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 1,535,990,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 1,535,990,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,511,190,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Homeless Assistance Grants Program provides funding to 

break the cycle of homelessness and to move homeless persons and 

families to permanent housing. This is done by providing rental assistance, emergency shelter, transitional and permanent housing, 

and supportive services to homeless persons and families. The 

emergency grant is a formula funded grant program, while the supportive housing, section 8 moderate rehabilitation single-room occupancy program and the shelter plus care programs are competitive 

grants. Homeless assistance grants provide Federal support to one 

of the Nation’s most vulnerable populations. These grants assist localities in addressing the housing and service needs of a wide variety of homeless populations while developing coordinated Continuum of Care [CoC] systems that ensure the support necessary 
157 

to help those who are homeless to attain housing and move toward 

self-sufficiency. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,511,190,000 for homeless assistance grants. This amount is $184,590,000 above the fiscal year 

2006 enacted level and $24,800,000 below the budget request. Of 

the amount provided, $285,000,000 is to fund fully Shelter Plus 

Care renewals on an annual basis, $10,395,000 is for technical assistance and data analysis, and $2,475,000 is for the Department’s 

working capital fund. Bill language also is included that (1) requires not less than 30 percent of the funds appropriated, excluding renewal costs, for permanent housing; (2) requires the renewal 

of all expiring Shelter Plus Care contracts on an annual basis if the 

contract meets certain requirements; (3) requires a 25 percent 

match for social services; and (4) requires all homeless funding recipients to coordinate and integrate their programs with other 

mainstream and targeted social programs. No funding is provided 

for the Prisoner Re-Entry initiative due to budget constraints. 

The Committee continues to be committed to ending chronic 

homelessness over 10 years and supports the President’s stated 

goal of achieving this goal by 2012. To that end, the Committee 

supports Federal, State, and local efforts to increase the supply of 

permanent housing until the need of an estimated 150,000 units is 

met. Accordingly, the Committee again includes bill language that 

requires the Department to spend a minimum of 30 percent of 

funds appropriated under this account for permanent housing. This 

set-aside has been critical in re-balancing the homeless assistance 

account so that more permanent housing is being developed. Prior 

to the establishment of this set-aside, a small portion of homeless 

assistance was being used for permanent housing. Research and 

anecdotal results clearly indicate that permanent housing is a critical component of ending homelessness among all types of homeless 

people. Cities that have seized the opportunity to develop more permanent housing have begun to see concrete results in the form of 

less chronic homelessness, among individuals and families with disabilities, veterans and others. 

To assist States and localities create more permanent housing, 

the Committee supports the Department’s request to use technical 

assistance funding to address capital financing issues. 

The Committee appreciates the Department’s sustained commitment to meeting the needs of homeless families. Although one-third 

of homeless people are members of homeless families, about half of 

the persons served by HUD homeless programs are members of 

homeless families. This demonstrates that, while the Department 

has placed an emphasis on chronic homelessness, it has continued 

to address the needs of homeless families. 

The Committee also continues to support an effort begun in 2001 

that charged the Department with collecting homeless data 

through the implementation of a new Homeless Management Information System [HMIS]. The Department has recently begun collecting data on the Nation’s homeless population and developing 

annual reports through an Annual Homeless Assessment Report 

[AHAR] through the HMIS. Further, the Committee supports the 
158 

Department’s efforts to ensure participation of HMIS through financing and other incentives. Nevertheless, the Committee continues to believe that the Department must ensure full participation by all grantees in the HMIS effort and ensure that grantees 

and interested stakeholders fully understand the importance of this 

effort and that adequate protections are in place for homeless people. Due to the Committee’s continued interest in the Department’s 

data collection and analysis efforts, the Committee again directs 

HUD to report on its progress by no later than March 23, 2007. 

The Committee also reiterates the directive included in the conference report for the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 

(House Report 108–792) regarding out-year costs of renewing 

HUD’s permanent housing programs. Therefore, the Department 

should continue to include 5-year projects, on an annual basis, for 

the cost of renewing the permanent housing component of the Supportive Housing program and the Shelter Plus Care program in its 

fiscal year 2008 budget justifications. 

HOUSING PROGRAMS

HOUSING FOR THE ELDERLY

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $734,580,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 545,490,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 746,580,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 750,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides funding for housing for the elderly under 

section 202. Under this program, the Department provides capital 

grants to eligible entities for the acquisition, rehabilitation, or construction of housing for seniors. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $750,000,000 for 

the section 202 program, an increase of $15,420,000 over the fiscal 

year 2006 level and an increase of $204,510,000 over the budget request. Of these funds, $59,400,000 is for service coordinators and 

for the continuation of existing congregate service grants; up to 

$24,750,000 for the conversion of projects to assisted living housing 

for substantial rehabilitation an for emergency capital repairs; 

$20,000,000 for grants to nonprofits for architectural and engineering work, site control and planning activities. The Committee also 

includes $1,980,000 for the Working Capital Fund. 

According to a 2003 GAO report, section 202 has reached only 8 

percent of very low income elderly households. The Committee believes that greater resources should be devoted to the section 202 

program and continues to encourage the Department to make this 

program more of a priority, including better targeting to extremely 

low-income elderly households. Further, the Department needs to 

facilitate the construction of section 202 projects. Finally, many of 

the existing 202 units have serious repair needs that are not being 

adequately addressed by the Department. 
159 

HOUSING FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $236,610,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 118,800,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 239,610,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 240,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides funding for housing for the persons with 

disabilities under section 811. Under this program, the Department 

provides capital grants to eligible entities for the acquisition, rehabilitation, or construction of housing for persons with disabilities. 

Up to 25 percent of the funding may be made available for tenantbased assistance under section 8. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $240,000,000 for 

the section 811 program, an increase of $3,390,000 over the fiscal 

year 2006 level and $121,200,000 over the budget request. HUD is 

directed to ensure that all tenant-based assistance made available 

under this account shall remain available for persons with disabilities upon turnover. The Committee has limited the amount of 

funds that may be used for incremental section 8 vouchers to 

$5,000,000. In addition, section 811 funds may be used for inspections by HUD’s Real Estate Assessment Center [REAC] and for related inspection activities. HUD is directed to submit a budget to 

the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations before funding any REAC inspections. The Committee also includes $990,000 

for the Working Capitol Fund. 

OTHER ASSISTED HOUSING PROGRAMS

RENTAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides amendment funding for housing assisted 

under a variety of HUD housing programs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $24,750,000 for HUD-assisted, 

State-aided, non-insured rental housing projects. 

FLEXIBLE SUBSIDY FUND

(TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 authorized 

HUD to establish a revolving fund for the collection of rents in excess of the established basic rents for section 236 projects. Subject 

to appropriations, HUD is authorized to transfer excess rent collection received after 1978 to the Flexible Subsidy Fund. 
160 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends that the account continue to serve 

as the repository for the excess rental charges appropriated from 

the Rental Housing Assistance Fund; these funds will continue to 

offset flexible subsidy outlays and other discretionary expenditures 

to support affordable housing projects. The language is designed to 

allow surplus funds in excess of allowable rent levels to be returned to project owners only for purposes of the rehabilitation and 

renovation of projects. 

MANUFACTURED HOUSING FEES TRUST FUND

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $13,000,000 

Budget request, 2007 ............................................................................. 16,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 16,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 16,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety 

Standards Act of 1974, as amended by the Manufactured Housing 

Improvement Act of 2000, authorizes the Secretary to establish 

Federal manufactured home construction and safety standards for 

the construction, design, and performance of manufactured homes. 

All manufactured homes are required to meet the Federal standards, and fees are charged to producers to cover the costs of administering the act. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $16,000,000 to support the manufactured housing standards programs to be derived from fees collected and deposited in the Manufactured Housing Fees Trust 

Fund account. The amount recommended is the same as the budget 

request and $3,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2006 enacted 

level. 

The Committee thanks the Department for submitting line-item 

expenses for the manufactured housing program in its proposed fiscal year 2007 budget request, and encourages the HUD to continue 

doing so in its future budgets. In addition, the Committee encourages HUD to continue to prioritize its expenditures for this program in accordance with the appropriate sections of the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000. 

FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION

MUTUAL MORTGAGE INSURANCE PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Limitation on direct 

loans 

Limitation on guaranteed loans Administrative expenses 

Appropriations, 2006 ......................................................... $50,000,000 $185,000,000,000 $351,450,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ...................................................... 50,000,000 185,000,000,000 351,450,000 

House allowance ................................................................ 50,000,000 185,000,000,000 351,450,000 

Committee recommendation .............................................. 50,000,000 185,000,000,000 351,450,000 
161 

GENERAL AND SPECIAL RISK PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Limitation on direct 

loans 

Limitation on guaranteed loans Administrative expenses Program costs 

Appropriations, 2006 .................................. $50,000,000 $35,000,000,000 $229,086,000 $8,712,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ............................... 50,000,000 35,000,000,000 229,086,000 8,600,000 

House allowance ......................................... 50,000,000 35,000,000,000 229,086,000 8,600,000 

Committee recommendation ....................... 50,000,000 35,000,000,000 229,086,000 8,600,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal Housing Administration [FHA] fund covers the 

mortgage and loan insurance activity of about 40 HUD mortgage/ 

loan insurance programs which are grouped into the mutual mortgage insurance [MMI] fund, cooperative management housing insurance [CMHI] fund, general insurance fund [GI] fund, and the 

special risk insurance [SRI] fund. For presentation and accounting 

control purposes, these are divided into two sets of accounts based 

on shared characteristics. The unsubsidized insurance programs of 

the mutual mortgage insurance fund and the cooperative management housing insurance fund constitute one set; and the general 

risk insurance and special risk insurance funds, which are partially 

composed of subsidized programs, make up the other. 

The amounts for administrative expenses are to be transferred 

from appropriations made in the FHA program accounts to the 

HUD ‘‘Salaries and expenses’’ accounts. Additionally, funds are also 

appropriated for administrative contract expenses for FHA activities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee has included the following amounts for the ‘‘Mutual Mortgage Insurance Program’’ account: a limitation on guaranteed loans of $185,000,000,000, a limitation on direct loans of 

$50,000,000, and an appropriation of $351,450,000 for administrative expenses. For the GI/SRI account, the Committee recommends 

$35,000,000,000 as a limitation on guaranteed loans, a limitation 

on direct loans of $50,000,000, and $229,086,000 for administrative 

expenses, of which $347,490,000 shall be transferred to HUD ‘‘Salaries and Expenses’’, up to $3,960,000 shall be transferred to the Office of the Inspector General, and $23,562,000 shall be transferred 

to the Working Capital Fund. 

In addition, the Committee directs HUD to continue direct loan 

programs in 2007 for multifamily bridge loans and single family 

purchase money mortgages to finance the sale of certain properties 

owned by the Department. Temporary financing shall be provided 

for the acquisition and rehabilitation of multifamily projects by 

purchasers who have obtained commitments for permanent financing from another lender. Purchase money mortgages will enable 

governmental and nonprofit intermediaries to acquire properties 

for resale to owner-occupants in areas undergoing revitalization. 

HUD has submitting a number of initiatives designed to reform 

FHA mortgage insurance and allow HUD to begin to regain some 

market share while also attracting borrowers with positive credit 
162 

ratings. In part, the intent of the legislation is to balance the adverse pool of borrowers who have come to characterize the FHA 

MMIF with FHA homeowners with better credit ratings and who 

pose less risk. Unfortunately, it is not clear that the legislation includes the necessary reforms that will allow HUD to compete in the 

housing marketplace without being subject to increased financial 

risk to the FHA MMIF as well as significant fraud and abuse. For 

example, HUD still intends to pursue products such as the Zero 

Downpayment program which would allow a homebuyer to use 

FHA mortgage insurance to purchase a home without any downpayment. 

As noted last year, the Zero Downpayment program, where all 

fees and costs are rolled into the mortgage, is a major policy 

change that generates receipts but poses substantial financial risks 

to the FHA Single Family program—this is a 100 percent loan 

guarantee where realtors and bankers have no disincentive against 

placing high-risk families in homes. New homeowners also would 

have no stake in these homes in the event of financial hardship as 

they also would have limited or no ability to pay for any big ticket 

costs such as a failed furnace or leaky roof. From a historical perspective, a similar policy almost bankrupted FHA in the late 1980s 

and economically hurt neighborhoods because large numbers of defaults in marginal neighborhoods often result in diminished property values for the entire neighborhood. Recent audits of the FHA 

Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund have indicated that these policies likely would undermine the long-term financial soundness of 

the fund. For example, the HUD IG audit of FHA’s financial statements for fiscal years 2004 and 2003 demonstrate a substantial increase in the default rate over the last 5 years from 2.99 percent 

in fiscal year 2000 to 6.9 percent in fiscal year 2004. Moreover, 

claims have increased from some $5,500,000,000 in fiscal year 2000 

to some $8,500,000,000 in fiscal year 2004, a 54 percent increase 

while insurance-in-force decreased 13 percent to $430,000,000 during the same period. FHA is clearly becoming a lender of last resort, taking on the most risky mortgages, especially those likely to 

default. 

More recently, FHA’s share of the market dropped 40 percent in 

fiscal year 2005—FHA’s home sales were 4.3 percent for fiscal year 

2005 compared with 7.6 percent in fiscal year 2004. In addition, 

home sales for the entire market were up 7 percent in fiscal year 

2005. FHA endorsements dropped 46.7 percent in fiscal year 2005 

and insurance-in-force dropped 13 percent in fiscal year 2005. Default rates increased to 6.36 percent in fiscal year 2005, compared 

to 6.13 percent in fiscal year 2004. 

While the Committee supports reform, it must be handled carefully. There must be controls in the law that minimize fraud and 

risk of loss. The Committee supports a balancing of the risk based 

on the creditworthiness of the homebuyer. However, there needs to 

be firm benchmarks and guidelines that ensure HUD does not remain the lender of last resort where its FHA mortgage pools are 

primarily made up of the most adverse credit risks in the marketplace. As a result, the Committee is very concerned that the proposed legislation does not include the necessary safeguards. In addition, the Committee is concerned that homebuyers with sub- 
163 

prime loans will seek to refinance their debt through FHA. Clearly, 

these homeowners represent the greatest risk for default and loss 

to the MMIF and HUD is directed to develop safeguards to limit 

exposure of financial risk. 

The Committee is disappointed with HUD’s endorsement of the 

Nehemiah program whereby certain nonprofits help homebuyers 

with downpayment assistance where the downpayment assistance 

does not meet FHA requirements of being a ‘‘boni-fide gift’’. In 

these cases, the nonprofit is being reimbursed by the property seller. A recent GAO audit was very critical of this practice, concluding 

that ‘‘Nehemiah’’ assistance from a seller financed nonprofit raised 

the claim rate 81 percent relative to similar loans with no assistance. 

The Committee again advises that HUD should assist in the education of potential homebuyers who plan to use FHA mortgage insurance as part of the purchase process. While the requirements 

for an appraisal are clear, HUD needs to educate homebuyers regarding the value of requiring a home inspection before a purchase 

is complete. In too many cases, homebuyers waive this option, thus 

exposing them to unforeseen and unexpected physical deficiencies 

in the purchased home. This especially is troubling with moderateand low-income homebuyers who barely have enough funds to close 

on the house. Without a home inspection, these purchasers may 

find themselves responsible for such high-cost items as a new roof, 

furnace or other significant structural liabilities. In these cases, the 

cost to repair the home and pay for the mortgage may far exceed 

the financial ability of the homebuyer, thus putting the home at 

risk of foreclosure. 

The Committee is deeply concerned with the proposed increase in 

the annual premium charged for most multifamily loan guarantees 

in the fiscal year 2007 request. The stated rationale for this substantial premium increase is to offset administrative costs associated with these programs. This appears disingenuous since the 

CBO has scored the net increase of revenue at $70,000,000. However no detailed explanation has been given for the amount of this 

premium increase, its likely adverse effect on loan volume and affordable rental housing production, or the resulting rent increases 

necessary to cover the cost of the higher premium payments. Moreover, the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 specifically mandates 

that administrative costs associated with loan guarantee programs 

be paid from discretionary appropriations rather than being reflected in the credit programs financing. 

The Committee sees no merit in the administration’s argument 

that these mortgage insurance premiums should be raised because 

these programs have not clearly demonstrated effectiveness in 

meeting affordable housing goals. Raising program costs can only 

diminish the contribution of these programs in expanding lower 

cost housing opportunities. In the face of the growing nationwide 

shortage of affordable housing, imposing further constraints on 

FHA rental housing development makes little sense. Further, the 

Committee believes that this action will drive the better quality 

projects to other sources of financing, thus causing an increase in 

the loss ratio for the FHA program in the long term. 
164 

The proposed mortgage insurance premium increase reverses the 

previous policy of the administration to work toward the lowest 

premium allowable while still enabling FHA to offer this rental 

housing financing at no cost to the taxpayers. For the largest moderate income rental housing development program offered by FHA, 

the proposed premium represents more than a 71 percent increase 

in annual cost. Very substantial premium increases would also be 

levied against the FHA nursing home and hospital financing programs. 

Given the very substantial size of the premium increase and the 

abrupt reversal of the underlying policy of the Department in setting these premiums, the Committee believes strongly that full notice and comment rulemaking would be the only appropriate mechanism to pursue prior to implementing this proposal. The failure 

of the Department to do this represents a serious breach with congressional policy. Such administrative procedures would accord 

FHA industry partners, including lenders, developers, and builders, 

an opportunity to comment on the proposal. It would also permit 

a full assessment of the likely impact of such a premium increase 

on the volume of multifamily rental housing development, and the 

consequential effects of higher financing costs on rents borne by 

moderate income residents. 

Therefore, the Department is directed to submit to the appropriate Committees of Congress a thorough assessment of the potential adverse effects of the proposed premiums structure, including 

the evaluation of alternatives such as utilizing negative subsidy 

and program revenues to cover administrative costs, before proceeding with implementation of the fee increases proposed in the 

budget. The Committee further directs that prior to increasing the 

mortgage insurance premiums the formula used for determining 

credit subsidy should be reviewed and revised to more heavily 

weight experience since 1990 when improvements in underwriting 

were implemented by FHA. The current formula appears to be extremely conservative in the context of recent experience, and, we 

believe the current mortgage insurance premium levels would generate significant negative credit subsidy without the proposed increase. 

GOVERNMENT NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION

GUARANTEES OF MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES LOAN GUARANTEE

PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2006: 

Limitation on guaranteed loans ................................................ $200,000,000,000 

Administrative expenses ........................................................... 10,700,000 

Budget estimate, 2007: 

Limitation on guaranteed loans ................................................ 100,000,000,000 

Administrative expenses ........................................................... 10,700,000 

House allowance: 

Limitation on guaranteed loans ................................................ 100,000,000,000 

Administrative expenses ........................................................... 10,700,000 

Committee recommendation: 

Limitation on guaranteed loans ................................................ 100,000,000,000 

Administrative expenses ........................................................... 10,700,000 
165 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Government National Mortgage Association [GNMA], 

through the mortgage-backed securities program, guarantees privately issued securities backed by pools of mortgages. GNMA is a 

wholly owned corporate instrumentality of the United States within the Department. Its powers are prescribed generally by title III 

of the National Housing Act, as amended. GNMA is authorized by 

section 306(g) of the act to guarantee the timely payment of principal and interest on securities that are based on and backed by a 

trust, or pool, composed of mortgages that are guaranteed and insured by the Federal Housing Administration, the Rural Housing 

Service, or the Department of Veterans Affairs. GNMA’s guarantee 

of mortgage-backed securities is backed by the full faith and credit 

of the United States. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation on new commitments of 

mortgage-backed securities of $100,000,000,000. This amount is the 

same level as proposed by the budget request and $100,000,000,000 

less than the fiscal year 2006 level. The Committee also has included $10,700,000 for administrative expenses, the same as the 

budget request and the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH

RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $55,787,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 68,360,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 55,787,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 60,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Title V of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970, as 

amended, directs the Secretary of the Department of Housing and 

Urban Development to undertake programs of research, evaluation, 

and reports relating to the Department’s mission and programs. 

These functions are carried out internally and through grants and 

contracts with industry, nonprofit research organizations, educational institutions, and through agreements with State and local 

governments and other Federal agencies. The research programs 

seek ways to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and equity of 

HUD programs and to identify methods to achieve cost reductions. 

Additionally, this appropriation is used to support HUD evaluation 

and monitoring activities and to conduct housing surveys. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $60,000,000 for research and technology activities in fiscal year 2007. This amount is $4,213,000 

more than the fiscal year 2006 enacted level and $8,360,000 below 

the budget request. Of this funding, $5,000,000 is for the Partnership for Advancing Technologies in Housing [PATH] program. Language is included to ensure the funding of existing cooperative 

agreements in fiscal year 2006. The Committee expects the PATH 
166 

program to continue its cold climate housing research with the 

Cold Climate Housing Research Center in Fairbanks, Alaska. The 

Committee also supports the continuing research on promising 

technologies for the manufactured housing industry. 

In addition, because in the past HUD has used this office’s broad 

authority to administer new and unauthorized programs, the Office 

of Policy Development and Research is denied demonstration authority except where approval is provided by Congress in response 

to a reprogramming request. 

FAIR HOUSING AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

FAIR HOUSING ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $45,540,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 44,550,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 44,550,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 44,550,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The fair housing activities appropriation includes funding for 

both the Fair Housing Assistance Program [FHAP] and the Fair 

Housing Initiatives Program [FHIP]. 

The Fair Housing Assistance Program helps State and local 

agencies to implement title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as 

amended, which prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of housing and in the provision of brokerage services. The 

major objective of the program is to assure prompt and effective 

processing of title VIII complaints with appropriate remedies for 

complaints by State and local fair housing agencies. 

The Fair Housing Initiatives Program is authorized by section 

561 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1987, as 

amended, and by section 905 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992. This initiative is designed to alleviate housing discrimination by increasing support to public and private organizations for the purpose of eliminating or preventing discrimination in housing, and to enhance fair housing opportunities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation provides $44,550,000, of which 

$19,800,000 is for the fair housing assistance program [FHAP] and 

no more than $24,759,000 is for the fair housing initiatives program [FHIP]. The total is $990,000 more than the fiscal year 2006 

enacted level and the same as the budget request. 

The Committee emphasizes that State and local agencies under 

FHAP should have the primary responsibility for identifying and 

addressing discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of housing and in the provision of brokerage services. It is critical that 

consistent fair housing policies be identified and implemented to insure continuity and fairness, and that States and localities continue to increase their understanding, expertise, and implementation of the law. 
167 

OFFICE OF LEAD HAZARD CONTROL

LEAD HAZARD REDUCTION

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $150,480,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 114,840,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 149,840,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 152,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Title X of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 

established the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction 

Act under which HUD is authorized to make grants to States, localities and native American tribes to conduct lead-based paint 

hazard reduction and abatement activities in private low-income 

housing. This has become a significant health hazard, especially for 

children. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], some 434,000 children have elevated blood levels, down 

from 1.7 million in the late 1980’s. Despite this improvement, lead 

poisoning remains a serious childhood environmental condition, 

with some 2.2 percent of all children aged 1 to 5 years having elevated blood lead levels. This percentage is much higher for low-income children living in older housing. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $152,000,000 for lead-based paint 

hazard reduction and abatement activities for fiscal year 2007. This 

amount is $37,160,000 more than the budget request and 

$1,520,000 more than the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. Of this 

amount, HUD may use up to $9,000,000 for the Healthy Homes 

Initiative under which HUD conducts a number of activities designed to identify and address housing-related illnesses. The Committee recommends $48,000,000 for the lead hazard reduction demonstration program which was established in fiscal 

year 2003 to focus on major urban areas where children are disproportionately at risk for lead poisoning. 

As previously discussed, there remains significant lead risks in 

privately owned housing, particularly in unsubsidized low-income 

units. For that reason, approximately 1 million children under the 

age of 6 in the United States suffer from lead poisoning. While lead 

poisoning crosses all socioeconomic, geographic, and racial boundaries, the burden of this disease falls disproportionately on low-income and minority families. In the United States, children from 

poor families are eight times more likely to be poisoned than those 

from higher income families. Nevertheless, the risks associated 

with lead-based paint hazards can be addressed fully over the next 

decade. 

As noted last year, the urban lead hazard reduction program is 

designed to target funding to major urban areas where the lead 

hazard risk for low-income children under the age of 6 is greatest. 

Qualified applicants are identified by the Secretary as having the 

highest number of pre-1940 units of rental housing and a disproportionately high number of documented cases of lead-poisoned 

children. At least 90 percent of funds must be used for abatement 

and interim control of lead-based paint hazards. Further, the pro-
168 

gram targets abatement to units that serve low-income families. As 

a condition of assistance, each applicant shall submit a detailed 

plan for use of funds that demonstrates sufficient capacity acceptable to the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. The 

plans should identify units with the most significant risk, and 

should include strategies to reduce the risk of lead hazards and to 

mobilize public and private resources. The Committee fully expects 

that this program will be administered in a manner consistent with 

the guidelines and criteria used in the fiscal year 2003 and 2004 

funding cycles. 

The Committee also encourages HUD to work with grantees on 

its lead-based paint abatement hazards programs so that information is disclosed to the public on lead hazard abatements, risk assessment data and blood lead levels through publications and internet sites such as Lead-SafeHomes.info. 

MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

[In thousands of dollars] 

Appropriation FHA funds GNMA 

funds 

CDBG 

funds 

Title VI 

transfer 

Indian 

housing 

block 

grant 

Native 

Hawaiian 

loan 

Total 

Appropriations, 2006 .............. 573,210 562,400 10,700 750 150 250 35 1,147,495 

Budget estimate, 2007 .......... 594,000 556,776 10,593 .............. 148 248 35 1,157,800 

House allowance .................... 493,240 556,776 10,700 .............. 149 248 35 1,061,148 

Committee recommendation .. 594,000 556,776 10,700 750 149 248 35 1,156,658 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The ‘‘Salaries and expenses’’ account finances all salaries and related expenses associated with administering the programs of the 

Department of Housing and Urban Development. These include the 

following activities: 

Housing and Mortgage Credit Programs.—This activity includes 

staff salaries and related expenses associated with administering 

housing programs, the implementation of consumer protection activities in the areas of interstate land sales, mobile home construction and safety, and real estate settlement procedures. 

Community Planning and Development Programs.—Funds in this 

activity are for staff salaries and expenses necessary to administer 

community planning and development programs. 

Equal Opportunity and Research Programs.—This activity includes salaries and related expenses associated with implementing 

equal opportunity programs in housing and employment as required by law and Executive orders and the administration of research programs and demonstrations. 

Departmental Management, Legal, and Audit Services.—This activity includes a variety of general functions required for the Department’s overall administration and management. These include 

the Office of the Secretary, Office of General Counsel, Office of 

Chief Financial Officer, as well as administrative support in such 
169 

areas as accounting, personnel management, contracting and procurement, and office services. 

Field Direction and Administration.—This activity includes salaries and expenses for the regional administrators, area office managers, and their staff who are responsible for the direction, supervision, and performance of the Department’s field offices, as well as 

administrative support in areas such as accounting, personnel 

management, contracting and procurement, and office services. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,156,658,000 

for salaries and expenses. This amount is $9,163,000 more than the 

fiscal year 2006 enacted level and $1,142,000 less than the budget 

request. The appropriation includes the requested amount of 

$550,766,000 transferred from various funds from the Federal 

Housing Administration, $10,700,000 transferred from the Government National Mortgage Association, $247,500 from the Indian 

Housing Loan Guarantee Fund Program, $148,500 from the Native 

American Housing Block Grant, and $35,000 from the Native Hawaiian Housing Program as well as $750,000 from the Community 

Development Loan Guarantee program, which the administration 

sought to eliminate. 

The Committee remains concerned about HUD’s ability to administer its programs and place staff where most needed. Therefore, 

the Committee directs HUD to report quarterly to the House and 

Senate Committees on Appropriations on all hiring within the Department, including justifications for any significant increase in 

FTEs for any particular office or activity. 

In addition, the Department is prohibited from employing more 

than 77 schedule C and 20 noncareer senior executive service employees. The Committee understands that the Department is 

staffed largely by personnel who are close to retirement and at the 

top of the civil service pay schedule. The Committee encourages 

HUD to implement hiring practices that result in the hiring of 

young professionals who can gain experience and advancement. 

The Committee directs the Department to issue quarterly reports 

on HUD travel to the Senate Committee on Appropriations. These 

reports shall include a list of all HUD-related trips, the names of 

all staff on each trip, and all costs, including the individual costs 

of lodging, food, transportation and any other costs. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriation FHA funds by 

transfer Total 

Appropriations, 2006 ................................................................................. $81,180,000 $23,760,000 $104,940,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 .............................................................................. 83,240,000 23,760,000 107,000,000 

House allowance ........................................................................................ 83,240,000 23,760,000 107,000,000 

Committee recommendation ...................................................................... 83,240,000 23,760,000 115,000,000
170 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation will finance all salaries and related expenses 

associated with the operation of the Office of the Inspector General 

[OIG]. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an overall funding level of 

$115,000,000 for the Office of Inspector General [OIG]. This 

amount is $10,060,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level and 

$8,000,000 above the budget request. This funding level includes 

$23,760,000 by transfer from various FHA funds. The Committee 

commends OIG for its commitment and its efforts in reducing 

waste, fraud and abuse in HUD programs. 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $195,030,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 219,780,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 219,780,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The working capital fund, authorized by the Department of 

Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965, finances information 

technology and office automation initiatives on a centralized basis. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $219,780,000 for the working capital fund for fiscal year 2007. These funds are the same as the 

budget request and $24,750,000 over the fiscal year 2006 level. 

This fund is needed to enhance efficient use of appropriated funds 

and improve budget projections and needs for submission of the 

Committees on Appropriations. 

OFFICE OF FEDERAL HOUSING ENTERPRISE OVERSIGHT

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $60,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 62,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 62,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 67,600,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation funds the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight [OFHEO], which was established in 1992 to regulate the financial safety and soundness of the two housing Government sponsored enterprises [GSE’s], the Federal National Mortgage 

Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation. The 

Office was authorized in the Federal Housing Enterprise Safety 

and Soundness Act of 1992, which also instituted a three-part capital standard for the GSE’s, and gave the regulator enhanced authority to enforce those standards. 
171 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $67,600,000 for the Office of Federal 

Housing Enterprise Oversight, which is $5,600,000 above the budget request and $7,600,000 more than the fiscal year 2006 enacted 

level. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

The Committee recommends administrative provisions. A brief 

description follows. 

SEC. 301. This section promotes the refinancing of certain housing bonds. 

SEC. 302. This section clarifies a limitation on use of funds under 

the Fair Housing Act. 

SEC. 303. This section clarifies the allocation of HOPWA funding 

for fiscal year 2006. 

SEC. 304. This section clarifies housing issue in Michigan. 

SEC. 305. This section requires HUD to award funds on a competitive basis unless otherwise provided. 

SEC. 306. This section allows funds to be used to reimburse GSEs 

and other Federal entities for various administrative expenses. 

SEC. 307. This section limits HUD spending to amounts set out 

in the budget justification. 

SEC. 308. This section clarifies expenditure authority for entities 

subject to the Government Corporation Control Act. 

SEC. 309. This section requires HUD to submit certain additional 

information as part of its annual budget justifications. 

SEC. 310. This section requires quarterly reports on all uncommitted, unobligated and excess funds associated with HUD programs. 

SEC. 311. This section requires HUD to maintain section 8 assistance on HUD-held or owned multifamily housing. 

SEC. 312. This section makes a number of corrections to the 

award of HOPWA funding. 

SEC. 313. This section requires HUD to submit annual reports on 

the number and cost of HUD-assisted units. The Committee is concerned that HUD’s property disposition program is not adequately 

committed to preserving the affordability of formerly subsidized 

units, and directs HUD to establish and submit to the Committee 

workable criteria for ensuring the maintenance of project-based 

section 8 wherever possible. The Committee also expects HUD to 

improve its consultation and coordination with units of local government and residents. HUD is reminded that it should use its discretionary preservation authority for the purpose of preserving affordability. 

SEC. 314. This section requires HUD to submit its fiscal year 

2008 budget justifications according to congressional requirements. 

SEC. 315. This section requires vouchers for non-elderly disabled 

families to be renewed, to the extent practicable, to non-elderly disabled families. 

SEC. 316. This section exempts Los Angeles County, Alaska, 

Iowa, and Mississippi from the requirement of having a PHA resident on the board of directors for fiscal year 2006. Instead, the public housing agencies in these States are required to establish advi-
172 

sory boards that include public housing tenants and section 8 recipients. 

SEC. 317. This section allows HUD to authorize the transfer of 

existing project-based subsidies and liabilities from obsolete housing to housing that better meets the needs of the assisted tenants. 

SEC. 318. This section provides allocation requirements for Native Alaskans under the Native American Indian Housing Block 

Grant program. 

SEC. 319. This section requires vouchers for family unification to 

be renewed, to the extent practicable, for the family unification. 

SEC. 320. This section reforms certain section 8 rent calculations 

as to athletic scholarships. 

SEC. 321. This section expands the availability of Reverse Equity 

Mortgage without limit and requires HUD to consider the number 

of HECM mortgages that are already insured in a geographic region. 

The Committee is concerned over what appears to be excessive 

fees that are charged to HECM loans. The combined fees range 

from $8,000 to $17,000, and are 2 to 4.5 times higher than forward 

loans. The most troubling fee is the origination fee. HUD allows 

origination fees of 2 percent of the loan amount or $2,000, whichever is higher. However, origination costs do not rise proportionally 

with the home’s value for loans above a certain level. In addition, 

if there were an increase in HECM loan limits, the fees seniors pay 

may be even higher. The Committee also directs HUD and GAO to 

review the HECM program with particular emphasis on the financial risk to FHA and the homeowner if Congress were to raise the 

HECM loan limits. This report should include an assessment of the 

Fees that are charged in the HECM program as to whether the 

fees are fair and consistent with requirements of the HECM program. The report is due within 6 months of enactment. 

SEC. 322. This section extends mark-to-market until 2011. 

SEC. 323. This section prohibits HUD from insuring mortgages 

that are part of a nehemial program. 

SEC. 324. This section allows PHAs to use their capital funds for 

central office costs. 

SEC. 325. This section moves the date for subsidy reductions for 

PHAs to January 1, 2007. This section also allows operating subsidies to be reduced by 5 percent during calendar year 2007. 

SEC. 326. This section makes reforms to the tax credit program 

as it applies to section 8. 

SEC. 327. This section extends HOPE VI until September 30, 

2007. 
(173) 

TITLE IV 

THE JUDICIARY 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Established under Article III of the Constitution, the judicial 

branch of Government is a separate but equal branch. The Federal 

Judiciary consists of the Supreme Court, United States Courts of 

Appeals, District Courts, Bankruptcy Courts, Court of International Trade, Court of Federal Claims and several other entities 

and programs. The organization of the judiciary, the district and 

circuit boundaries, the places of holding court, and the number of 

Federal judges are legislated by the Congress and signed into law 

by the President. 

The Committee’s recommended funding levels support the Federal judiciary’s role of providing equal justice under the law and include sufficient funds to support this critical mission. The recommended funding level includes the salaries of judges and support staff and the operation and security of our Nation’s courts. 

The judicial branch is reminded that it, too, is subject to the 

same funding constraints facing the executive and legislative 

branches and continues to urge the Federal judiciary to devote its 

resources primarily to the retention of staff. Further, the judiciary 

is encouraged to contain controllable costs such as travel, construction, and other non-essential expenses. 

In addition, the judiciary is reminded that section 705 of the accompanying act applies to the judicial as well as the executive 

branch. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $60,143,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 63,405,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 63,405,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 63,405,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The United States Supreme Court consists of nine justices appointed under Article III of the Constitution of the United States, 

one of whom is appointed as Chief Justice of the United States. 

The Supreme Court acts as the final arbiter in the Federal court 

system. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $63,405,000 for 

the Justices, their supporting personnel, and the costs of operating 

the Supreme Court, excluding the care of the building and grounds. 
174 

The recommendation is $3,262,000 above the fiscal year 2006 funding level and identical to the budget request. 

CARE OF THE BUILDING AND GROUNDS

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $5,568,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 12,959,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 12,959,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 12,959,000 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $12,959,000 for 

personnel and other services related to the Supreme Court building 

and grounds, which is supervised by the Architect of the Capitol. 

The recommendation is $7,391,000 above the fiscal year 2006 funding level and identical to the budget request. 

The Committee has provided the requested funds to complete the 

Supreme Court’s building modernization project and the necessary 

renovations to the East and West Conference Room ceilings. The 

Committee has also provided the requested funds to begin needed 

repairs and renovations to the Court’s roof system. Because this 

project will be phased over 5 years, the Committee directs the 

Court to report to the House and Senate Committee on Appropriations as the Court becomes aware of any changes in schedule or 

budgetary needs. 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $23,780,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 26,300,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 26,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 25,273,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was 

established under Article III of the Constitution on October 1, 

1982. The court was formed by the merger of the United States 

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals and the appellate division of 

the United States Court of Claims. The court consists of twelve 

judges who are appointed by the President, with the advice and 

consent of the Senate. Judges are appointed to the court under Article III of the Constitution of the United States. 

The Federal Circuit has nationwide jurisdiction in a variety of 

subject matter, including international trade, government contracts, patents, certain claims for money from the United States 

Government, Federal personnel, and veterans’ benefits. Appeals to 

the court come from all Federal district courts, the United States 

Court of Federal Claims, the United States Court of International 

Trade, and the United States Court of Veterans Appeals. The court 

also takes appeals of certain administrative agencies’ decisions, including the Merit Systems Protection Board, the Board of Contract 

Appeals, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, and the 

Trademark Trial and Appeals Board. Decisions of the United 

States International Trade Commission, the Office of Compliance of 
175 

the United States Congress and the Government Accountability Office Personnel Appeals Board are also reviewed by the court. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $25,273,000. 

The recommendation is $1,493,000 above the fiscal year 2006 funding level and $1,027,000 below the budget request. 

Of the amount provided, the Committee has funded the requested increase for disaster recovery of information, but denies 

the program increase requests for information technology upgrades 

and the retrofitting of courtrooms to provide enhanced technological capabilities. The Committee notes that the Federal Circuit 

currently has appropriate technology upgrades in one of its three 

courtrooms, which meets existing standards enacted by the Judicial 

Conference. 

U.S. COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $15,345,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 16,182,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 16,182,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 16,182,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The United States Court of International Trade, located in New 

York City, consists of nine Article III judges. The court has exclusive nationwide jurisdiction over civil actions brought against the 

United States, its agencies and officers, and certain civil actions 

brought by the United States, arising out of import transactions 

and the administration and enforcement of the Federal customs 

and international trade laws. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $16,182,000. 

The recommendation is $837,000 above the fiscal year 2006 funding level and the same as the budget request. 

COURTS OF APPEALS, DISTRICT COURTS, AND OTHER JUDICIAL

SERVICES

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $4,308,345,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 4,687,244,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 4,556,114,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 4,583,360,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Salaries and Expenses is one of four accounts that provide total 

funding for the Courts of Appeals, District Courts and Other Judicial Services. In addition to funding the salaries of judges and support staff, this account also funds the operating costs of appellate, 

district and bankruptcy courts, and probation and pretrial services 

offices. 
176 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,583,360,000. 

The recommendation is $275,015,000 above the fiscal year 2006 

funding level and $103,884,000 below the budget request. 

The Committee has adequately funded this account to enable the 

courts to meet their workload demands. As previously stated, the 

Committee urges the Judicial Conference to make the retention of 

personnel its top priority. The Committee supports the Federal judiciary sharing its case management electronic case filing system 

at the State level and urges the judiciary to undertake a study of 

whether sharing such technology, including electronic billing processes, is a viable option. 

Southwest Border.—The Committee is concerned about the impact that increased immigration funding and enforcement activities 

are having on the Federal judiciary’s caseload and their ability to 

handle such a dramatic increase in filings. At present, the criminal 

cases filed in the five districts along the Southwest border account 

for nearly one-third of criminal cases nationwide. Since 2001, approximately 1,200 border agents have been added along the border 

with Mexico, resulting in a significant increase in caseload and 

workload levels. The judiciary plays an integral role in the Nation’s 

homeland security efforts, and the Committee commends the numerous judges and staff who have ensured the continuing success 

of this vital piece of the Nation’s border security strategy. Because 

the border courts remain critically understaffed, the Committee has 

provided $20,371,000, as requested, for magistrate judges and critical staff positions for those districts located along the Southwest 

border. The Committee directs the Administrative Office to include 

a plan for the hiring of these positions in its fiscal year 2007 financial plan and to keep the Committee apprised of the number of positions actually brought on board along the Southwest border 

throughout fiscal year 2007. 

Staffing Formulas.—The Committee is aware that the Administrative Office utilizes a sophisticated staffing formula to determine 

the staffing needs for the local courts. Due to the varied nature of 

caseload levels throughout the Nation, courts maintain different requirements for staffing. While the Southwest Border Courts have 

seen the greatest increase in funds allocated over the past several 

fiscal years, the gap between their funding allotment and their actual workload growth remains substantially greater when compared to the courts throughout the rest of the Nation. For example, 

during several of the past few fiscal years, supplemental funding 

from the administrative office and Congress has been required to 

meet the unique needs of the Southwest Border Courts. This consistent need for additional urgently needed funding in this one region demonstrates, at a minimum, the need for a thorough review 

of the staffing formulas used to determine local court needs. The 

Committee recognizes that the formulas currently employed to determine staffing needs place significant weight on the work requirements of the local courts’ districts. However, due to the increasing gap between workload and staffing levels, the Committee 

is concerned that the current formula does not adequately address 

the differing staffing requirements that face courts located along 
177 

the Southwest border. As such, the Administrative Office will report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations no 

later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this act on what 

steps it has taken to ensure that its staffing formulas reflect these 

changing trends in caseload activity. The Committee also directs 

the administrative office to ensure that the staffing formula ensures that adequate resources are being directed to the Southwest 

border and particularly to the Probation and Pretrial Services program. 

Courthouse Construction.—The Committee is aware that the judiciary’s self-imposed moratorium on courthouse construction 

projects ends September 30, 2006. The Committee notes that the 

judiciary continues to face rising rent costs that are, in part, a result of past courthouse construction projects that were not adequately reduced in scope. As such, the Committee strongly urges 

the Judicial Conference to weigh carefully its need for more space 

to adjudicate cases against the Federal judiciary’s rent needs. The 

Committee encourages the Judicial Conference to ensure adequate 

checks are in place to guarantee that future construction requests 

and projects are subjected to the highest standards of cost-efficiencies. The June, 2006, GAO report entitled, ‘‘Federal Courthouses: Rent Increases Due to New Space and Growing Energy and 

Security Costs Require Better Tracking and Management’’ notes 

that there are currently no incentives for district and circuit courts 

to make more efficient use of their space. The Committee is concerned that such a lack of incentives has caused the judicial branch 

to pay rent for more space than is necessary. As such, the Administrative Office is directed to report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations no later than 120 days after the date of 

enactment of this act on steps that have been and are being taken 

to encourage more efficient use of space by district and circuit 

courts. Further, the Committee encourages the Administrative Office to continue to work with the General Services Administration 

to ensure fair and accurate rent charges and to pursue corrections 

to any inequities. 

Carryover Funds.—Due to unique circumstances, the judiciary 

reported significant carryover funds for fiscal year 2005 and 

projects more carryover in funding for fiscal year 2006. The Committee is concerned that the administrative office has not first used 

these carryover funds to offset projected decreases in fee collections 

and other projected needs and has, instead, used this funding to 

augment existing programs. This has resulted in an increase in the 

judiciary’s uncontrollable costs, unnecessary funding requests and 

greater baseline needs. As such, the Administrative Office is directed to ensure that current and projected funding needs are met 

first with carryover funds before enhancing any program. The Committee directs the Administrative Office to separately include in future financial plans, for approval by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, all sources of carryover funds and their 

desired application. 
178 

VACCINE INJURY COMPENSATION TRUST FUND

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $3,795,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 3,952,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 3,952,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,952,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Enacted by The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 

(Public Law 99–660), the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is 

a Federal no-fault program designed to resolve a perceived crisis in 

vaccine tort liability claims that threatened the continued availability of childhood vaccines nationwide. The statute’s primary intention is the creation of a more efficient adjudicatory mechanism 

that ensures a no-fault compensation result for those allegedly injured or killed by certain covered vaccines. This program protects 

the availability of vaccines in the United States by diverting a substantial number of claims from the tort arena. 

Not only did this act create a special fund to pay judgments 

awarded under the act, but it also created the Office of Special 

Masters [OSM] within the United States Court of Federal Claims 

to hear vaccine injury cases. The act stipulates that up to eight 

special masters may be appointed for this purpose. The special 

masters expenditures are reimbursed to the judiciary for vaccine 

injury cases from a special fund set up under the Vaccine Act. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,952,000. The 

recommendation is $157,000 above the fiscal year 2006 funding 

level and consistent with the budget request. 

DEFENDER SERVICES

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $709,830,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 803,879,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 750,033,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 761,051,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Defender Services program ensures the right to counsel 

guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, the Criminal Justice Act (18 

U.S.C. 3006A(e)) and other congressional mandates for those who 

cannot afford to retain counsel and other necessary defense services. The Criminal Justice Act provides that courts appoint counsel 

from Federal public and community defender organizations or from 

a panel of private attorneys established by the court. The Defender 

Services program helps to maintain public confidence in the Nation’s commitment to equal justice under the law and ensures the 

successful operation of the constitutionally based adversary system 

of justice by which Federal criminal laws and federally guaranteed 

rights are enforced. 
179 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $761,051,000. 

The recommendation is $51,221,000 above the fiscal year 2006 

funding level and $42,828,000 below the budget request. 

While the Committee has provided sufficient funds to enable the 

Defenders Services program to continue to provide timely and quality counsel services, the Committee is concerned about recurring 

projected shortfalls in the Defender Services account. To the extent 

that the other salaries and expense accounts within the judiciary 

title must absorb certain mandatory adjustments to base, the Committee directs the Defender Services program to treat its Federal 

Defender Organizations in the same manner. The Committee has 

denied all program increase requests for this account and directs 

the Administrative Office to ensure that all resources provided are 

first used to ensure the timely payment of panel attorneys. 

Panel Attorney Pay Rates.—The Committee has included funding 

to annualize the fiscal year 2006 pay adjustment for capital and 

non-capital panel attorneys but denies all requests for cost of living 

adjustments and pay raises for panel attorneys for fiscal year 2007. 

The Committee notes that future cost of living adjustment requests 

should not be presented as adjustments to base, but should be requested as a program increase. 

FEES OF JURORS AND COMMISSIONERS

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $60,705,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 63,079,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 63,079,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 63,079,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides for the statutory fees and allowances of 

grand and petit jurors and for the compensation of jury and land 

commissioners. Budgetary requirements depend primarily upon the 

volume and the length of jury trials demanded by parties to both 

civil and criminal actions and the number of grand juries being 

convened by the courts at the request of the United States Attorneys. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $63,079,000. 

The recommendation is $2,374,000 above the fiscal year 2006 funding level and reflects the judiciary’s reestimate of fiscal year 2007 

requirements. 

COURT SECURITY

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $368,280,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 410,334,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 400,334,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 397,737,000 
180 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Court Security appropriation was established in 1983 and 

funds the necessary expenses incident to the provision of protective 

guard services, and the procurement, installation, and maintenance 

of security systems and equipment for United States courthouses 

and other facilities housing Federal court operations, including 

building access control, inspection of mail and packages, directed 

security patrols, perimeter security provided by the Federal Protective Service, and other similar activities as authorized by section 

1010 of the Judicial Improvement and Access to Justice Act (Public 

Law 100–702). 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $397,737,000. 

The recommendation is $29,457,000 above the fiscal year 2006 

funding level and $12,597,000 below the budget request. 

The Committee is concerned about the security of the United 

States Courthouses and is committed to ensuring the Nation’s Federal appellate and district courts possess adequate security measures. Sufficient funding has been provided to retain and hire all requested court security officers for fiscal year 2007. While the Committee has provided funding for the digital video recording initiative, the Committee is concerned about the significant costs associated with procuring these systems. The Committee notes that the 

United States Marshall’s Service has indicated that the vast majority of digital video recorders can be purchased for substantially less 

than expected and urges the Administrative Office to work with the 

United States Marshall’s Service to ensure optimum cost efficiencies. 

The Committee has limited the judiciary’s payments to the Federal Protective Service [FPS] to no more than $66,900,000 and directs the Administrative Office to obtain regular notifications from 

the FPS on any changes in funding requirements. 

Judicial Facility Security Program.—As provided in bill language, the United States Marshals Service [USMS] is responsible 

for administering the Judicial Facility Security Program consistent 

with standards and guidelines agreed to by the Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and the Attorney General. 

However, court security funding is appropriated by Congress directly to the judiciary which provides an important stewardship 

role, including financial and program oversight. While court security funding is subsequently transferred to the USMS, which is responsible for program administration, the Committee expects full 

cooperation from the USMS as the judiciary conducts the fiduciary 

and program oversight responsibilities pertaining to this funding. 

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $69,559,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 75,333,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 73,800,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 74,333,000 
181 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Administrative Office [AO] of the United States Courts was 

created in 1939 by an Act of Congress. It serves the Federal judiciary in carrying out its constitutional mission to provide equal justice under the law. Beyond providing numerous services to the Federal courts, the AO provides support and staff counsel to the Judicial Conference of the United States and its committees, and implements Judicial Conference policies as well as applicable Federal 

statutes and regulations. The AO is the focal point for communication and coordination within the judiciary and with Congress, the 

executive branch, and the public on behalf of the judiciary. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $74,333,000. 

This recommendation is $4,774,000 above the fiscal year 2006 

funding level and $1,000,000 below the budget request. 

Edwin L. Nelson Local Initiative Program.—As established in the 

fiscal year 2005 appropriations act, the Edwin L. Nelson Local Initiative Program made grants available to local courts to develop 

and implement information technology solutions for the unique 

problems they face. Such grants ensure greater flexibility, access to 

funds, information sharing and input into the various obstacles 

that must be overcome to produce a more automated and efficient 

Federal judiciary. The Committee urges the AO to continue to work 

with and provide adequate resources to the local courts for this 

purpose. 

FEDERAL JUDICIAL CENTER

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $22,127,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 23,787,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 23,500,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 23,390,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal Judicial Center, located in Washington, DC, improves the management of Federal judicial dockets and court administration through education for judges and staff and research, 

evaluation, and planning assistance for the courts and the Judicial 

Conference. The Center’s responsibilities include educating judges 

and other judicial branch personnel about legal developments and 

efficient litigation management and court administration. Additionally, the Center also analyzes the efficacy of case and court management procedures and ensures the Federal judiciary is aware of 

the methods of best practice. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $23,390,000. The recommendation is $1,263,000 above the fiscal year 2006 funding level and $397,000 below the budget request. 

The Committee has included all requested funds in the Center’s 

adjustment to base and half the funds requested for education, re-
182 

search and technology enhancements. The Committee directs the 

Federal Judicial Center to keep the Committee apprised of staff 

brought on board throughout fiscal year 2007. 

JUDICIAL RETIREMENT FUNDS

PAYMENT TO JUDICIARY TRUST FUNDS

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $40,600,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 58,300,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 58,300,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 58,300,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The funds in this account cover the estimated future benefit payments to be made to retired bankruptcy judges and magistrate 

judges, claims court judges, and spouses and dependent children of 

deceased judicial officers. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $58,300,000 for 

payments to the Judicial Officers’ Retirement Fund and the Claims 

Court Judges Retirement Fund. The recommendation is 

$17,700,000 above the fiscal year 2006 funding level and identical 

to the budget request. 

UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $14,256,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 15,740,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 15,500,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 15,340,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The United States Sentencing Commission establishes, reviews 

and revises sentencing guidelines, policies and practices for the 

Federal criminal justice system. The Commission is also required 

to monitor the operation of the guidelines and to identify and report necessary changes to the Congress. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $15,340,000. 

The recommendation is $1,084,000 above the fiscal year 2006 funding level and $400,000 below the budget request. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—THE JUDICIARY

The Committee recommends the following administrative provisions for the judiciary. 

Section 401 allows the judiciary to expend funds for the employment of experts and consultant services. 

Section 402 allows the judiciary, subject to the Committee’s reprogramming procedures, to transfer up to 5 percent between appropriations, but limits to 10 percent the amount that can be transferred into any one appropriation. 
183 

Section 403 limits official reception and representation expenses 

incurred by the Judicial Conference of the United States to no 

more than $11,000. 

Section 404 requires the Administrative Office to submit an annual financial plan for the judiciary. 

Section 405 allows for a salary adjustment for Justices and 

judges. 

Section 406 grants the judicial branch the same tenant alteration 

authorities as the executive branch. 

Section 407 prohibits any judge from being entitled to sole use 

of a courtroom and requires courtrooms to be scheduled based on 

the needs of the circuit and district courts. This is intended solely 

to address circumstances where courtrooms are not in full use and 

where the sharing of a courtroom will help reduce an overburdened 

judicial docket. 
(184) 

TITLE V 

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT AND FUNDS 

APPROPRIATED TO THE PRESIDENT 

COMPENSATION OF THE PRESIDENT

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $450,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 1 ......................................................................... 450,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 450,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 450,000 

1The budget proposes a consolidation of most accounts for the White House of $184,252,000. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides for the compensation of the President, including an expense allowance as authorized by 3 U.S.C. 102. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $450,000 for 

Compensation of the President, including an expense allowance of 

$50,000. This is the same as the fiscal year 2006 enacted level and 

the same as the budget estimate. The expense account is for official 

use as authorized by title 3 of U.S. Code and is not considered taxable to the President. The bill specifies that any unused amount 

shall revert to the Treasury consistent with 31 U.S.C. 1552. 

WHITE HOUSE OFFICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $53,292,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 1 ......................................................................... 51,952,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 51,952,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 51,952,000 

1The budget proposes a consolidation of most accounts for the White House of $184,252,000. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Salaries and Expenses account of the White House Office 

provides staff assistance and administrative services for the direct 

support of the President. The office also serves as the President’s 

representative before the media. In accordance with 3 U.S.C. 105, 

the office also supports and assists the activities of the First Lady. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $51,952,000 for 

White House Office Salaries and Expenses. The recommendation is 

$1,340,000 less than the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

The Committee has rejected the administration’s request to include many of the offices under the Executive Office of the Presi-
185 

dent under a single, consolidated account. The Committee objects 

to the overall proposal since it would undermine the ability of the 

Congress to exercise adequate oversight regarding how these funds 

are expended. Nevertheless, the Committee has incorporated the 

responsibilities of the Office of Policy Development [OPD] into the 

‘‘Salaries and Expenses’’ account of the White House Office. This 

represents some $3,385,000 of funding for OPD. The Committee 

agrees with the administration that this consolidation is a logical 

approach that will allow the White House to better manage its resources. The Committee includes $1,500,000 for the Privacy and 

Civil Liberties Oversight Board as a separate account. 

The Executive Office of the President submitted its fiscal year 

2007 budget request later than other agencies. This delay made it 

difficult for the Committee to begin its work. The Committee encourages the Executive Office of the President to submit its budget 

justification within a few days of the publication of the President’s 

budget. The Committee directs the Executive Office of the President to include detailed budget information for the Civil Liberties 

Oversight Board in next year’s justification. 

EXECUTIVE RESIDENCE AT THE WHITE HOUSE

OPERATING EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $12,312,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 1 ......................................................................... 12,041,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 12,041,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 12,041,000 

1The budget proposes a consolidation of most accounts for the White House of $184,252,000, 

including this account. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

These funds provide for the care, maintenance, repair, alteration, 

refurnishing, improvement, air-conditioning, heating, and lighting, 

of the White House and the official and ceremonial functions of the 

President. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $12,041,000 for 

the Executive Residence at the White House. The Committee recommendation is $271,000 less than the fiscal year 2006 enacted 

level and is equal to certain assumptions in the budget estimate. 

In particular, the administration’s request includes many of the accounts under the Executive Office of the President under a single, 

consolidated account, including this account. The Committee objects to the overall proposal since it would undermine the ability 

of the Congress to exercise adequate oversight regarding how these 

funds are expended. The accompanying bill also continues certain 

restrictions on reimbursable expenses for use of the Executive Residence that were enacted for fiscal year 2004. 
186 

WHITE HOUSE REPAIR AND RESTORATION

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $1,683,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 1 ......................................................................... 1,600,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 1,600,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,600,000 

1The budget proposes a consolidation of most accounts for the White House of $184,252,000, 

including this account. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account funds the repair, alteration, and improvement of 

the Executive Residence at the White House, a separate account 

was established in fiscal year 1996 to program and track expenditures for the capital improvement projects at the Executive Residence at the White House. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,600,000 for 

White House Repair and Restoration, the same amount as assumed 

in the overall budget request and a reduction of $83,000 from the 

fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $4,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 1 ......................................................................... 4,002,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 4,002,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 4,002,000 

1The budget proposes a consolidation of most accounts for the White House of $184,252,000, 

including this account. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Council of Economic Advisers analyzes the national economy 

and its various segments, advises the President on economic developments, recommends policies for economic growth and stability, 

appraises economic programs and policies of the Federal Government, and assists in the preparation of the annual Economic Report of the President to Congress. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,002,000 for 

salaries and expenses of the Council of Economic Advisers. This 

amount is the same as the amount assumed in the overall budget 

request and is $2,000 more than the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

OFFICE OF POLICY DEVELOPMENT

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $3,465,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 1 ......................................................................... 3,385,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 3,385,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,385,000 

1This budget proposes a consolidation of most accounts of the White House of $184,252,000, 

including this account. 
187 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Policy Development supports the National Economic Council and the Domestic Policy Council, in carrying out 

their responsibilities to advise and assist the President in the formulation, coordination, and implementation of economic and domestic policy. The Office of Policy Development also provides support for other domestic policy development and implementation activities as directed by the President. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee does not recommend funds for the Office of Policy 

Development as an independent office and has merged the office 

and funds into the White House Office. In particular, the administration’s request includes many of the accounts under the Executive Office of the President under a single, consolidated account, including this account. While the Committee objects to the overall 

proposal since it would undermine the ability of the Congress to exercise adequate oversight regarding how these funds are expended, 

the Committee believes this merger will facilitate a better use of 

these funds while preserving adequate oversight of their use. 

NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $8,618,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 1 ......................................................................... 8,405,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 8,405,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 8,405,000 

1The budget proposes a consolidation of most accounts of the White House of $184,252,000, 

including this account. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The National Security Council advises the President in integrating domestic, foreign, and military policies relating to the national security. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $8,405,000 for 

the salaries and expenses of the National Security Council [NSC]. 

This amount is the same as assumed in the budget request and 

$213,000 less than the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $88,429,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 1 ......................................................................... 102,417,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 91,393,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 91,393,000 

1This budget proposes a consolidation of most accounts of the White House of $184,252,000, 

including this account. 
188 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Administration’s mission is to provide high-quality, 

cost-effective administrative services to the Executive Office of the 

President. These services, defined by Executive Order 12028 of 

1977, include financial, personnel, library and records services, information management systems support, and general office services. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee has provided $91,393,000 to the Office of Administration for fiscal year 2007, an increase of $2,964,000 over the fiscal year 2006 enacted level and a decrease of $11,024,000 below the 

budget request. 

The Committee includes the funding levels for the Office of Administration activities at the proposed levels included in its budget 

justifications. In addition to the recommended level of funding, the 

Office of Administration receives reimbursements for information 

management support and general office services. 

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2006 1 ........................................................................... $76,161,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 68,780,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 76,185,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 76,185,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Management and Budget [OMB] assists the President in the discharge of his budgetary, management, and other executive responsibilities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $76,185,000 for 

the Office of Management and Budget which is $24,000 more than 

the fiscal year 2006 enacted level and $7,405,000 above the budget 

request. 

In 2005, the Federal Government failed to meet Executive order 

and statutory energy savings goals for the first time in more than 

a decade. Within 120 days after enactment of this act, the Committee directs the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, with assistance from appropriate Federal agencies, to issue a report to the Committees on Appropriations regarding the administration’s and OMB’s plans to monitor, measure, and increase Federal agency performance and participation in energy and environmental management. The Committee is particularly interested in 

products and services that guarantee energy and taxpayer savings, 

that measure performance, and that involve public/private partnerships. A specific focus of the report should include possible statutory obstacles. 
189 

OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $26,639,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 23,309,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 26,928,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 11,500,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of National Drug Control Policy [ONDCP], established 

by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, and reauthorized by Public 

Law 105–277, is charged with developing policies, objectives and 

priorities for the National Drug Control Program. In addition, 

ONDCP administers the Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center, the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas program, the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign, the Drug Free Communities Program and several other related initiatives. 

This account provides funding for personnel compensation, travel, and other basic operations of the Office, and for general policy 

research to support the formulation of the National Drug Control 

Strategy. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $11,500,000 for ONDCP’s salaries and expenses. This amount is $11,809,000 below 

the budget request and $15,139,000 below the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

The Committee is extremely displeased with the performance of 

ONDCP staff regarding their communication with the Committee 

and their responsiveness to congressional inquiries. ONDCP’s lethargy and the inadequate information provided severely impacts the 

ability of the Committee to conduct its oversight and make budgetary decisions in a timely manner. This kind of unresponsiveness 

on the part of ONDCP results in an unnecessary waste of time and 

energy; numerous follow up communications are required in almost 

every instance. The Committee is particularly concerned that 

ONDCP has attempted to prevent the Committee from meeting 

with the directors of ONDCP programs. Therefore the Committee 

has reduced the salaries and expenses budget to more closely reflect actual performance. 

The principal purpose of the White House Office of National 

Drug Control Policy [ONDCP] is to establish priorities, objectives, 

and policies for the Nation’s drug control program. The Committee 

is concerned that the overall organization of ONDCP is ineffective 

and must be improved. In fact, 6 years ago an independent review 

found weaknesses in ONDCP management and organization, unfortunately these problems persist today. The Committee believes an 

investigation into funding allocations and expenditures, as well as 

the use of resources is warranted. The Committee believes an independent review of the overall organization and management of 

grants and funding systems would be beneficial to ONDCP and the 

Congress. Such an evaluation may provide insight into changes and 

improvements that could make ONDCP more effective in the future. Therefore, the Committee has allocated funding for a study 
190 

by the National Academy of Public Administration [NAPA] to conduct a review of organization and management. In addition, the 

Committee also requests that the Government Accountability Office 

[GAO] review the grant management systems, and other funding 

systems—emphasizing the criteria and methodology used to award 

and distribute funds. The Committee is aware and supportive of 

GAO’s impending review of the Drug-Free Communities program, 

and recommends that GAO also review the Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center and High Intensity Drug Trafficking 

Areas Program, among others. The Committee expects NAPA and 

GAO to work together, sharing progress and information during 

the course of their reviews, which should begin within 60 days 

after the enactment of this act. 

The Committee directs the Director to provide to the Committees 

on Appropriations quarterly reports on travel expenditures, summarized by office, program, and individual, including dates and 

purpose of travel. The Committee further directs the Director to 

provide to the Committees on Appropriations quarterly reports on 

current staffing levels and plans for future hirings. The staffing report shall include office, position title, salary, and job classifications 

of all persons employed by ONDCP, including contractors. 

COUNTERDRUG TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT CENTER

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $29,700,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 9,600,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 19,600,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 20,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center [CTAC] was established by the Counter-Narcotics Technology Act of 1990 (Public 

Law 101–510) and reauthorized in 1998 (Public Law 105–277) to 

serve as the central counterdrug technology research and development organization for the United States Government. CTAC encompasses two separate functions: (1) the Research and Development program [R&D], which supports improvements to 

counterdrug capabilities that transcend the need of any single Federal agency; and (2) the Technology Transfer Program [TTP], which 

provides state-of-the-art, affordable, easily integrated and maintainable tools to enhance the capabilities of State and local law enforcement agencies for counterdrug missions. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $20,000,000 for 

the Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center, a decrease of 

$9,700,000 from the fiscal year 2006 enacted level and $10,400,000 

above the President’s request. Included in the appropriation is 

$10,000,000 for demand reduction and $10,000,000 for the Technology Transfer Program. The Committee continues to support the 

mandate that CTAC’s authority ‘‘shall not extend to contracts, 

management of individual projects, or other operational activities,’’ 

and should continue to transfer its appropriated funds to Contracting and Technical Agents at other Federal and military departments and agencies. 
191 

Demand Reduction R&D.—The Committee fully supports continuing the CTAC demand reduction program and reminds ONDCP 

that the fiscal year 2006 conference report directed the ‘‘completion 

of existing imaging system instrumentation validation effects at 

qualified academic institutions.’’ 

The report further directed that: ‘‘a spending plan be included in 

the ONDCP operating plan for fiscal year 2006.’’ This plan has not 

been received by the Committee, therefore the Committee directs 

submission of the fiscal year 2006 plan 30 days after enactment of 

this act. The plan shall include an accounting of the use of the fiscal year 2006 CTAC R&D appropriated funds and an accounting of 

all fiscal year 2006 funds that are unobligated and unexpended and 

the rationale for inaction. 

For fiscal year 2007, not more than $1,000,000 of the funding 

provided for counternarcotics research and development projects is 

directed toward supply reduction activities. The Committee directs 

submission of a spending plan for fiscal year 2007 that reinstates 

the demand instrumentation infrastructure development program. 

The plan must include demand instrumentation and infrastructure 

systems and technology development projects that would provide 

researchers with the tools to conduct more advanced NIH, NIDA, 

SAMHSA, NIMH drug addiction and scientific studies. The Committee further directs the fiscal year 2007 funds with expenditure 

project execution authority be completed and transferred to other 

Federal departments and agencies within 45 days of enactment of 

this act. 

Technology Transfer Program.—The Committee believes that this 

program demonstrates the best direct assistance the Federal Government has to offer to State and local law enforcement. The Committee is encouraged by the positive reception this program continues to receive by State and local law enforcement agencies. Thus 

prompting the Committee to request that the fiscal year 2008 

budget request include a specific accounting of the total number of 

TTP applications received and the number awarded in the previous 

year, so that the Committee may have a true understanding of 

CTAC’s ability to meet demand. 

FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE PRESIDENT

FEDERAL DRUG CONTROL PROGRAMS

HIGH INTENSITY DRUG TRAFFICKING AREAS

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $224,730,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... ........................... 

House allowance .................................................................................... 235,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 227,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas [HIDTA] program 

was established by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, as amended, 

and the Office of National Drug Control Policy’s reauthorization 

(Public Law 105–277) to provide assistance to Federal, State and 
192 

local law enforcement entities operating in those areas most adversely affected by drug trafficking. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $227,000,000 for 

the HIDTA program, an increase of $2,270,000 over the fiscal year 

2006 level and $227,000,000 over the budget request which proposed to transfer the program to the Department of Justice. This 

program is an important function of ONDCP and should not be 

transferred. The Committee directs that funding shall be provided 

for the existing HIDTAs at no less than the fiscal year 2006 initial 

allocation level, unless the Director submits to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, and the Committees approve, a 

request for reprogramming of the funds based on clearly articulated priorities for the HIDTA program, as well as published 

ONDCP performance measures of effectiveness. Furthermore, the 

Committee directs the Director to take appropriate steps to ensure 

that the HIDTA funds are transferred to the appropriate drug control agencies expeditiously. 

In allocating HIDTA funds, the Committee expects the Director 

of ONDCP to ensure that the entities receiving these limited resources make use of them strictly for implementing the strategy for 

each HIDTA, taking into consideration local conditions and resource requirements. In this regard, methamphetamine is a primary illicit drug threat across the country. Its widespread use and 

resulting addiction, combined with the overwhelming availability of 

high purity, low cost methamphetamine is cause for serious concern. Cocaine and heroin also represent significant threats and Ecstasy is an increasing danger. Marijuana is readily available and 

widely abused across the United States. Canadian-produced marijuana, commonly known as BC Bud, and potent marijuana from 

the Appalachian States are two examples that demonstrate the 

value of marijuana eradication programs. 

The HIDTA funds should not be used to supplant existing support for ongoing Federal, State, or local drug control operations 

normally funded out of the operating budgets of each agency. 

ONDCP is directed to hold back all HIDTA funds from a State 

until such time as a State or locality has met its financial obligation. 

The Committee is disappointed by ONDCP’s delay in the award 

of HIDTA funding, and includes provisions in the bill to address 

this issue. 

Allocation of Additional Funds.—The Committee is disappointed 

in the manner that ONDCP chooses to allocate funds. While the 

Committee supports the areas to which the additional funding is 

now directed, the Committee does not believe that these programs 

are being judiciously funded. ONDCP continues to disregard the 

congressional directive that at least $2,000,000 should be spent on 

new counties. The Committee believes new counties to be those 

that have not previously received HIDTA funding, and are an expansion of an existing HIDTA. The Committee includes provisions 

in the bill to address this issue. 
193 

OTHER FEDERAL DRUG CONTROL PROGRAMS

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $192,951,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 212,160,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 194,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 214,500,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (Public Law 100–690), as 

amended, and the Office of National Drug Control Policy’s reauthorization (Public Law 105–277) established the Special Forfeiture 

Fund to be administered by the Director of the Office of National 

Drug Control Policy in support of high priority drug control programs. This account includes the following programs: National 

Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign, Drug Free Communities Support Program, U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, National Drug Court Institute, Performance Measures Development, and World Anti-Doping 

Agency [WADA] membership dues. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $214,500,000 for 

Other Federal Drug Control Programs, which is $2,340,000 more 

than the requested amount and $21,549,000 more than the fiscal 

year 2006 enacted level. Within this amount, the Committee provides the following funding levels: 

Amount 

National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign ........................................................................................................ $120,000,000 

Drug Free Communities Support Program ........................................................................................................... 80,000,000 

U.S. Anti-Doping Agency ...................................................................................................................................... 9,000,000 

National Drug Court Institute .............................................................................................................................. 1,000,000 

National Alliance for Model State Drug Laws ..................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Performance Measure Development ..................................................................................................................... 2,000,000 

World Anti-Doping Agency [WADA] ....................................................................................................................... 1,500,000 

National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign.—The Committee 

has provided consistent monetary support for the National Youth 

Anti-Drug Media Campaign since it was initially funded by Congress in fiscal year 1998. The Committee continues to be concerned 

about the direction and efficacy of the Media Campaign as it is currently structured, and notes that independent reports have concluded that the Media Campaign has not had a demonstrable nationwide effect on reducing drug use among the Campaign’s target 

population. The Committee provides $120,000,000 for the Media 

Campaign, of which $15,000,000 shall be for the continuation of 

anti-methamphetamine advertising. The Committee is concerned 

with the priorities of the Media Campaign and wants to assure 

that America’s meth problem is addressed in a responsible manner 

by the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Of these funds, 

$20,000,000 may not be made available for use unless GAO certifies that the program is meeting the benchmarks established by 

OMB. 

The Committee remains concerned with the large proportion of 

Media Campaign resources devoted to administrative costs. The 

bill, therefore, directs that no more than 10 percent of the funding 

provided for the Media Campaign be used for administrative costs. 
194 

Drug-Free Communities Support Program.—ONDCP has directed 

the Drug-Free Communities Support Program [DFCSP] in partnership with the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention since it was created by the Drug-Free Communities Act of 

1997 (Public Law 105–20). DFCSP provides matching grants of up 

to 25 percent to local coalitions that mobilize their communities to 

prevent youth alcohol, tobacco, illicit drug, and inhalant abuse. 

Such grants support coalitions of youth; parents; media; law enforcement; school officials; faith-based organizations; fraternal organizations; State, local, and tribal government agencies; 

healthcare professionals; and other community representatives. 

The DFCSP enables these coalitions to strengthen their coordination and prevention efforts, encourage citizen participation in substance abuse reduction efforts, and disseminate information about 

effective programs. The Committee provides $80,000,000 for the 

continuation of the DFCSP. 

The Committee has also included a provision in the bill directing ONDCP to provide $2,000,000 of DFCSP funds as a direct grant to 

the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America in order to sustain 

the National Community Anti-Drug Coalition Institute. 

The Committee is displeased with the sudden changes made by 

ONDCP to the DFCSP, therefore the Committee has included a 

provision in the accompanying bill to address this issue. 

United States Anti-Doping Agency.—The United States AntiDoping Agency [USADA] is the independent anti-doping agency for 

Olympic sports in the United States, and is responsible for managing the testing and adjudication process for U.S. Olympic, Pan 

Am and Paralympic athletes. As a nonprofit corporation under the 

leadership of an independent Board of Directors, USADA has the 

authority to set forth guiding principles in anti-doping policy and 

to enforce any doping violations. In addition to managing collection 

and testing procedures, USADA is also responsible for enhancing 

research efforts and promoting educational programs to inform athletes of the rules governing the use of performance enhancing substances, the ethics of doping and its harmful health effects. 

The Committee provides $9,000,000 for USADA, which is 

$500,000 more than the requested amount. USADA’s efforts with 

respect to the Bay Area Laboratory Co-operative [BALCO] and the 

new threat of human growth hormone provide examples of the 

challenges facing this agency. 

World Anti-Doping Agency.—ONDCP is a full participant in the 

World Anti-Doping Agency [WADA], which promotes and coordinates international activities against doping in all forms of sports. 

The Committee provides $1,500,000 for membership dues to the 

WADA, consistent with the commitment the United States has 

WADA. In providing these funds, the Committee directs ONDCP to 

use its voice and vote as the United States’ representative in this 

world body to ensure that all countries’ athletes are subject to fair 

and equal standards and treatment. Thus establishing and maintaining the objectivity and integrity of this fledgling international 

athletic regulatory organization. 

National Drug Court Institute.—The National Drug Court Institute facilitates the growth of the drug court movement by promoting and disseminating education, research, and scholarship con-
195 

cerning drug court programs and providing a comprehensive drug 

court training series for practitioners. Drug courts provide an effective means to fight drug-related crime through the cooperative efforts of State and local law enforcement, the judicial system, and 

the public health treatment network. The Committee provides 

$1,000,000 for the National Drug Court Institute. 

National Alliance For Model State Drug Laws.—The National Alliance for Model State Drug Laws [NAMSDL] is a national organization that drafts, researches, and analyzes model drug and alcohol 

laws and related State statutes, provides access to a national network of drug and alcohol experts, and facilitates working relationships among State and community leaders and drug and alcohol 

professionals. In doing so, NAMSDL encourages States to adopt 

and implement laws, policies, and regulations to reduce drug trafficking, drug use, and their related consequences. The Committee 

provides $1,000,000 to NAMSDL and directs ONDCP to provide the 

entire amount directly to NAMSDL within 30 days after enactment 

of this act. 

Performance Measures Development.—Performance Measures Development [PMD] funding is used to conduct evaluation research 

for assessing the effectiveness of the National Drug Control Strategy. For this function, the Committee provides $2,000,000, which 

is the same as the requested amount. 

Projects undertaken with these resources are to entail efforts to 

encourage and work with selected programs to develop and improve 

needed data sources. 

UNANTICIPATED NEEDS

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $990,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 11,789,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

These funds enable the President to meet unanticipated exigencies in support of the national interest, security, or defense. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,000,000, which is $10,000 more 

than appropriated in fiscal year 2006 and $10,789,000 below the 

budget request. 

SPECIAL ASSISTANCE TO THE PRESIDENT

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $4,410,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 4,352,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 4,352,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 4,352,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation provides for staff and expenses to enable the 

Vice President to provide assistance to the President in connection 

with the performance of executive duties and responsibilities. The 
196 

Vice President also has a staff funded by the Senate to assist him 

in the performance of his legislative duties. These funds also support the official activities of the spouse of the Vice President. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,352,000 for 

special assistance to the President. This amount is the same as the 

budget request and $58,000 below than the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

OFFICIAL RESIDENCE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT

OPERATING EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $322,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 317,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 317,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 317,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account supports the care and operation of the Vice President’s residence on the grounds of the Naval Observatory. These 

funds specifically support equipment, furnishings, dining facilities, 

and services required to perform and discharge the Vice President’s 

official duties, functions and obligations. 

Funds to renovate the residence are provided through the Department of the Navy budget. The Committee has had a longstanding interest in the condition of the residence and expects to 

be kept fully apprised by the Vice President’s office of any and all 

renovations and alterations made to the residence by the Navy. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $317,000 for the 

official residence of the Vice President. This amount is the same as 

the budget request and $5,000 less than the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE

PRESIDENT AND FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE PRESIDENT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Section 501. The Committee continues a provision that provides 

flexibility in the use of funds in accounts under the Executive Office of the President. 

Section 502. The Committee includes a new provision requiring 

a financial plan by the Director of the ONDCP prior to the obligation of funds in fiscal year 2007. 

Section 503. The Committee includes a new provision allowing 

for the transfer of up to 3 percent among programs within ONDCP. 

Section 504. The Committee includes a new provision establishing new reprogramming requirements for ONDCP. 

Section 505. The Committee includes a new provision requiring 

ONDCP to comport with budget estimates except as otherwise provided in this act, or through an approved reprogramming. 
(197) 

TITLE VI 

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE

BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $5,882,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 5,957,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 5,957,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 5,957,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance 

Board (Access Board) was established by section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The Access Board was reauthorized in the 

Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1992, Public Law 102–569. 

Under this authorization, the Access Board’s functions are to ensure compliance with the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, the 

Telecommunication Act and to develop guidelines for and technical 

assistance to individuals and entities with rights or duties under 

titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Access 

Board establishes minimum accessibility guidelines and requirements for public accommodations and commercial facilities, transit 

facilities and vehicles, State and local government facilities, children’s environments, and recreational facilities. The Access Board 

also provides technical assistance to Government agencies, public 

and private organizations, individuals, and businesses on the removal of accessibility barriers. 

In 2002, the Access Board was given additional responsibilities 

under the Help America Vote Act. The Access Board serves on the 

Board of Advisors and the Technical Guidelines Development Committee, which helps Election Assistance Commission develop voluntary guidelines and guidance for voting systems, including accessibility for people with disabilities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $5,957,000 for the operations of the 

Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, the 

funding level requested by the administration and $75,000 over the 

fiscal year 2006 level. 
198 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $62,370,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 62,370,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 62,370,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 62,370,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Commission is an independent regulatory agency that was 

established on May 14, 1973, and is responsible for protecting the 

public against unreasonable risks of injury from consumer products; assisting consumers to evaluate the comparative safety of consumer products; developing uniform safety standards for consumer 

products and minimizing conflicting State and local regulations; 

and promoting research and investigation into the causes and prevention of product-related deaths, illnesses, and injuries. 

In carrying out its mandate, the Commission establishes mandatory product safety standards, where appropriate, to reduce the unreasonable risk of injury to consumers from consumer products; 

helps industry develop voluntary safety standards; bans unsafe 

products if it finds that a safety standard is not feasible; monitors 

recalls of defective products; informs and educates consumers about 

product hazards; conducts research and develops test methods; collects and publishes injury and hazard data, and promotes uniform 

product regulations by governmental units. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $62,370,000 for the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which is equal to the budget request and 

the same as the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $14,058,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 16,908,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 16,908,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 17,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Election Assistance Commission [EAC] was created by the 

Help America Vote Act of 2002 [HAVA]. Under HAVA, the EAC’s 

role is to promulgate voluntary State guidelines for election systems, develop a national certification program for voting equipment, and provide related guidance. The EAC is also charged with 

awarding grants to improve election administration and enhancing 

election equipment. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee provides $17,000,000 for EAC’s administrative expenses, which is $2,942,000 more than the fiscal year 2006 level. 
199 

The accompanying bill provides $4,950,000 of these funds for transfer to the National Institute for Standards and Technology for technical assistance related to the development of voluntary State voting systems guidelines. 

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $30,690,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 26,256,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 26,256,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 26,256,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The FDIC Office of Inspector General conducts audits, investigations, and other reviews to assist and augment the FDIC’s contribution to the stability of, and public confidence in, the Nation’s 

financial system. A separate appropriation more effectively ensures 

the OIG’s independence consistent with the Inspector General Act 

of 1978, as amended and other legislation. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $26,256,000 for the FDIC inspector 

general, the same as the budget request and $4,434,000 less than 

the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. Funds are to be derived by 

transfer from the Deposit Insurance Fund and the FSLIC resolution fund. 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $54,153,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 57,138,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 57,138,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 57,138,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal Election Commission [FEC] was created through the 

1974 Amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 

[FECA]. Consistent with its duty of executing our Nation’s Federal 

campaign finance laws, and in pursuit of its mission of maintaining 

public faith in the integrity of the Federal campaign finance system, FEC conducts three major regulatory programs: (1) providing 

public disclosure of funds raised and spent to influence Federal 

elections; (2) enforcing compliance with restrictions on contributions and expenditures made to influence Federal elections; and (3) 

administering public financing of Presidential campaigns. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $57,138,000 for the Federal Election 

Commission, which is the same as the budget request and 

$2,985,000 more than the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 
200 

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $25,213,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 25,218,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 25,218,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 25,218,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal Labor Relations Authority [FLRA] is an independent 

administrative Federal agency created by title VII of the Civil 

Service Reform Act of 1978 with a mission to carry out five statutory responsibilities: (1) determining the appropriateness of units 

for Labor organization representation; (2) resolving complaints of 

unfair labor practices; (3) adjudicating exceptions to arbitrator’s 

awards; (4) adjudicating legal issues relating to duty to bargain; 

and (5) resolving impasses during negotiations. 

The FLRA’s authority is divided by law and by delegation among 

a three-member authority and an Office of General Counsel, appointed by the President and subject to Senate confirmation; and 

the Federal Service Impasses Panel, which consists of seven parttime members appointed by the President. 

In addition, the FLRA is engaged in case-related interventions 

and training and facilitation of labor-management partnerships 

and in resolving disputes. FLRA promotes labor-management cooperation by providing training and assistance to labor organizations and agencies on resolving disputes, facilitates the creation of 

partnerships, and trains the parties on rights and responsibilities 

under the Federal Relations Labor Relations Management statute. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $25,218,000 for 

the Federal Labor Relations Authority. This amount is the same as 

the President’s budget request and $5,000 above the fiscal year 

2006 enacted level. 

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $20,294,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 21,474,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 20,294,010 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 21,474,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal Maritime Commission [FMC] is an independent regulatory agency which administers the Shipping Act of 1984 (Public 

Law 98–237) as amended by the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 

1998 (Public Law 105–258); section 19 of the Merchant Marine Act, 

1920 (41 Stat. 998); the Foreign Shipping Practices Act of 1988 

(Public Law 100–418); and Public Law 89–777. 

FMC regulates the international waterborne commerce of the 

United States. In addition, the FMC has responsibility for licensing 

and bonding ocean transportation intermediaries and assuring that 
201 

vessel owners or operators establish financial responsibility to pay 

judgments for death or injury to passengers, or nonperformance of 

a cruise, on voyages from U.S. ports. Major program areas for 2006 

are: carrying out investigations of foreign trade practices under the 

Foreign Shipping Practices Act; maintaining equitable trading conditions in U.S. ocean commerce; ensuring compliance with applicable shipping statutes; pursuing an active enforcement program designed to identify and prosecute violators of the shipping statutes; 

and reviewing ocean carrier operational and pricing agreements to 

guard against excessively anticompetitive effects. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee includes $21,474,000 for the salaries and expenses of the Federal Maritime Commission for fiscal year 2007. 

This amount is the same as the budget request and $1,180,000 

above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

The General Services Administration [GSA] was established by 

the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 when 

Congress mandated the consolidation of the Federal Government’s 

real property and administrative services. GSA is organized into 

the Public Buildings Service, the Federal Supply Service, the Federal Technology Service, the Office of Governmentwide Policy, and 

the Office of Citizen Services and Communications. 

FEDERAL BUILDINGS FUND—LIMITATIONS ON AVAILABILITY OF

REVENUE

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Limitation of availability of revenue: 

Limitation on availability, 2006 .................................................... $7,752,745,000 

Limitation on availability, 2007 .................................................... 8,046,666,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 7,180,886,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 8,064,737,000 

The Federal Buildings Fund program consists of the following activities financed from rent charges: 

Construction and Acquisition of Facilities.—Space is acquired 

through the construction or purchase of facilities and prospectuslevel extensions to existing buildings. All costs directly attributable 

to site acquisition, construction, and the full range of design and 

construction services, and management and inspection of construction projects are funded under this activity. 

Repairs and Alterations.—Repairs and alterations of public buildings as well as associated design and construction services are 

funded under this activity. Protection of the Government’s investment, health and safety of building occupants, transfer of agencies 

from leased space, and cost effectiveness are the principal criteria 

used in establishing priorities. Primary consideration is given to repairs to prevent deterioration and damage to buildings, their support systems, and operating equipment. This activity also provides 

for conversion of existing facilities and non-prospectus extensions. 

Installment Acquisition Payments.—Payments are made for liabilities incurred under purchase contract authority and lease pur-
202 

chase arrangements. The periodic payments cover principal, interest on the debt incurred for construction of Federal buildings. 

Rental of Space.—Space is acquired through the leasing of buildings including space occupied by Federal agencies in U.S. Postal 

Service facilities, 174 million rentable square feet in fiscal year 

2006, and 180 million rentable square feet in fiscal year 2007. 

Building Operations.—Services are provided for Governmentowned and leased facilities, including cleaning, utilities and fuel, 

maintenance, miscellaneous services (such as moving, evaluation of 

new materials and equipment, and field supervision), and general 

management and administration of all real property related programs including salaries and benefits paid from the Federal Buildings Fund. 

Other Programs.—When requested by Federal agencies, the Public Buildings Service provides building services, such as tenant alterations, cleaning and other operations, and protection services 

which are in excess of those services provided under the commercial rental charge. For presentation purposes, the balances of the 

Unconditional Gifts of Real, Personal, or Other Property trust fund 

have been combined with the Federal Buildings Fund. 

CONSTRUCTION AND ACQUISITION

Limitation on availability, 2006 ........................................................... ($792,056,000) 

Limitation on availability, 2007 ........................................................... (690,095,000) 

House allowance .................................................................................... 374,095,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 708,166,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The construction and acquisition fund shall be available for site, 

design, construction, management, and inspection costs for the construction of new Federal facilities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation of $708,166,000 for the 

fund. 

The judicial branch has indicated that it is in a funding crisis, 

in part, precipitated by the deficit concerns facing the Federal Government and, from its perspective, an onerous financial burden 

caused by GSA rent bills for Federal courtroom space. 

The Committee is concerned by continued efforts by the Federal 

judiciary to circumvent paying rents to the Federal Buildings Fund 

[FBF]. In a recent report by the Government Accountability Office 

on the courthouse construction program, GAO stated that any rent 

exemption for the Federal judiciary would seriously hinder the 

FBF’s ability to accumulate sufficient funds for capital investment 

for the 68 executive and legislative branch customers that it serves. 

Because GSA’s customer agencies contribute their fair share to the 

FBF, the FBF is fulfilling its intended role as a source of both operating and capital funds for the Federal Government as a whole. 

The Federal judiciary should be aware that the FBF has financed 

the judiciary’s request for courthouse repair and alteration as well 

as construction. Over the last 20 years, almost $1,700,000,000 in 

major modernizations for courthouses were funded by rent paid by 

executive, legislative, and judicial branch agencies. In addition, the 
203 

Committee would note that $3,400,000,000 in new construction for 

the Federal judiciary has been spent on approximately 50 new Government-owned and 30 lease-constructed courthouses over the past 

10 years. 

The Committee is disappointed that the judicial branch has 

sought to relieve its overall budget problems by challenging the requirement to pay rent and cost of its courthouses. In pursuing the 

$3,400,000,000 in new construction of Federal courthouses, the 

Federal judiciary was well aware that there were rents associated 

with the approval of these courthouses by Congress. Terms and 

rents were agreed to by the Federal judiciary, GSA, OMB, and ultimately approved by Congress. The rules of the game can not be 

changed at this time. 

The Committee would also note that the Federal judiciary’s 

Space and Facilities Committee will shortly be releasing its new 

courthouse management 5-year plan, following a moratorium and 

time out and review of 2 years. The Committee looks forward to reviewing the additional space and facility needs and increased rent 

payments that the Federal judiciary will be pursuing. 

The Committee notes the rental adjustments made by GSA in 

favor of the judiciary and urges GSA to continue to monitor and 

calculate rental charges carefully so as to avoid erroneous billings 

in the future. 

REPAIRS AND ALTERATIONS

Limitation on availability, 2006 ........................................................... $861,376,000 

Limitation on availability, 2007 ........................................................... 866,194,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 435,281,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 866,194,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Under this activity, the General Services Administration [GSA] 

executes its responsibility for repairs and alterations [R&A] of both 

Government-owned and leased facilities under the control of GSA. 

The primary goal of this activity is to provide commercially equivalent space to tenant agencies. Safety, quality, and operating efficiency of facilities are given primary consideration in carrying out 

this responsibility. 

R&A workload requirements originate with scheduled onsite inspections of buildings by qualified regional engineers and building 

managers. The work identified through these inspections is programmed in order of priority into the Inventory Reporting Information System [IRIS] and incorporated into a 5-year plan for accomplishment, based upon funding availability, urgency, and the volume of R&A work that GSA has the capability to execute annually. 

Since fiscal year 1995, design and construction services activities 

associated with repair and alteration projects have been funded in 

this account. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends new obligational authority of 

$866,194,000 for repairs and alterations in fiscal year 2007. This 

amount is the same as the President’s request. 
204 

INSTALLMENT ACQUISITION PAYMENTS

Limitation on availability, 2006 ........................................................... $168,180,000 

Limitation on availability, 2007 ........................................................... 163,999,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 163,999,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 163,999,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Public Buildings Amendments of 1972 enables GSA to enter 

into contractual arrangements for the construction of a backlog of 

approved but unfunded projects. This activity provides for the payment of interest to the Federal Financing Bank related to facilities 

acquired pursuant to the Public Buildings Amendments of 1972 (40 

U.S.C. 592). 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation of $163,999,000 for installment acquisition payments, the same as the budget request 

and $4,181,000 below the fiscal year 2006 funding level. 

RENTAL OF SPACE

Limitation on availability, 2006 ........................................................... $4,046,031,000 

Limitation on availability, 2007 ........................................................... 4,322,548,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 4,322,548,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 4,322,548,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

GSA is responsible for leasing general purpose space and land incident thereto for Federal agencies, except cases where GSA has 

delegated its leasing authority. GSA’s policy is to lease privately 

owned buildings and land only when: (1) Federal space needs cannot be otherwise accommodated satisfactorily in existing Government-owned or leased space; (2) leasing proves to be more efficient 

than the construction or alteration of a Federal building; (3) construction or alteration is not warranted because requirements in 

the community are insufficient or are indefinite in scope or duration; or (4) completion of a new Federal building within a reasonable time cannot be assured. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation of $4,322,548,000 for 

rental of space. The Committee recommendation is the same as the 

President’s budget request and $276,517,000 above the fiscal year 

2006 enacted level. 

BUILDING OPERATIONS

Limitation on availability, 2006 ........................................................... $1,885,102,000 

Limitation on availability, 2007 ........................................................... 2,003,830,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 1,885,102,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,003,830,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This activity provides for the operation of all Government-owned 

facilities under the jurisdiction of GSA and building services in 

GSA-leased space where the terms of the lease do not require the 
205 

lessor to furnish such services. Services included in building operations are cleaning, protection, maintenance, payments for utilities 

and fuel, grounds maintenance, and elevator operations. Other related supporting services include various real property management and staff support activities such as space acquisition and assignment; the moving of Federal agencies as a result of space alterations in order to provide better space utilization in existing buildings; onsite inspection of building services and operations accomplished by private contractors; and various highly specialized contract administration support functions. 

The space, operations, and services referred to above are furnished by GSA to its tenant agencies in return for payment of rent. 

Due to considerations unique to their operation, GSA also provides 

varying levels of above-standard services in agency headquarter facilities, including those occupied by the Executive Office of the 

President, such as the east and west wings of the White House. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation of $2,003,830,000 for 

building operations. This amount is the same as the President’s 

budget request and $118,728,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

The Committee is pleased with the initial actions of GSA to promote exercise and good health through the promotion of the use of 

stairs in Federal buildings, and the Committee encourages these efforts to be continued. 

GOVERNMENT-WIDE POLICY

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $52,796,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 52,550,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 52,550,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 52,550,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Government-wide Policy provides for Governmentwide policy development, support, and evaluation functions associated with real and personal property, supplies, vehicles, aircraft, 

information technology, acquisition, transportation and travel management. This office also provides for the Federal Procurement 

Data Center, Workplace Initiatives, Regulatory Information Service 

Center, the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, and the Committee Management Secretariat. The Office of Government-wide 

Policy, working cooperatively with other agencies, provides the 

leadership needed to develop and evaluate the implementation of 

policies designed to achieve the most cost-effective solutions for the 

delivery of administrative services and sound workplace practices, 

while reducing regulations and empowering employees. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $52,550,000 for 

Government-wide Policy. This amount is the same as the Presi-
206 

dent’s budget request and is a reduction of $246,000 below the fiscal year 2006 level. 

Environmental Training Program.—The Committee is pleased 

with the significant cost savings recently demonstrated in the environmental analysis efforts undertaken by GSA in the National 

Capital Region. The Committee recommends that GSA extend this 

environmental training and analysis program currently underway 

to other GSA regions. The Committee urges GSA to work with its 

existing partner to preserve continuity when expanding this program to the eight other GSA regions. The Committee also encourages the utilization of leased employees to implement these cost 

savings programs in other GSA regions whenever possible. 

OPERATING EXPENSES

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $99,890,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 83,032,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 80,032,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 83,032,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Operating Expenses provides funding for Government-wide activities associated with the utilization and donation of surplus personal property; disposal of real property; telecommunications, information technology management, and related technology activities; 

agency-wide policy direction and management; ancillary accounting, records management, and other support services; services as 

authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; and other related operational expenses. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $83,032,000 for 

the Operating Expenses. This amount is the same as the administration’s request and $16,858,000 below the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $43,410,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 44,312,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 44,312,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 44,312,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation provides agency-wide audit and investigative 

functions to identify and correct management and administrative 

deficiencies within the General Services Administration [GSA], creating conditions for existing or potential instances of fraud, waste 

and mismanagement. This audit function provides internal audit 

and contract audit services. Contract audits provide professional 

advice to GSA contracting officials on accounting and financial 

matters relative to the negotiation, award, administration, repricing, and settlement of contracts. Internal audits review and evaluate all facets of GSA operations and programs, test internal control 

systems, and develop information to improve operating efficiencies 
207 

and enhance customer services. The investigative function provides 

for the detection and investigation of improper and illegal activities 

involving GSA programs, personnel, and operations. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $44,312,000 for 

the Office of Inspector General. This amount is the same as the 

President’s budget request and $902,000 above the fiscal year 2006 

enacted level. 

ELECTRONIC GOVERNMENT [E-GOV] FUND

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $3,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 5,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 3,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 5,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This program supports interagency ‘‘electronic government’’ or ‘‘egov’’ initiatives, i.e., projects that use the Internet or other electronic methods to provide individuals, businesses, and other government agencies with simpler and more timely access to Federal 

information, benefits, services, and business opportunities. 

Proposals for funding must meet capital planning guidelines and 

include adequate documentation to demonstrate a sound business 

case, attention to security and privacy, and a way to measure performance against planned results. In addition, a small portion of 

the money could be used for awards to those project management 

teams that delivered the best product to meet customer needs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,000,000 for 

the Electronic Government Fund. This amount is the same as the 

President’s request. The Committee supports the use of funding 

under this account for the continued development of an eTravel 

System, which is designed to centralize a travel system for the Federal Government through a self-service electronic system. The 

eTravel system when completed will eliminate the hardcopy travel 

documentation. This program will ultimately automate the entire 

travel process. Nevertheless, the Committee believes that the 

eTravel system should be designed to ensure the participation of 

small business subcontracting and directs GSA to establish benchmarks to ensure the participation and growth of small business 

participation. These benchmarks shall be no less than 23 percent 

of all contracted dollars. 

ALLOWANCES AND OFFICE STAFF FOR FORMER PRESIDENTS

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $2,952,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 3,030,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 3,030,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,030,000 
208 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation provides support consisting of pensions, office 

staffs, and related expenses for former Presidents Gerald R. Ford, 

Jimmy Carter, George Bush, and Bill Clinton, a pension for the 

widow of former President Lyndon B. Johnson, and postal franking 

privileges for the widows of former Presidents Lyndon B. Johnson 

and Ronald Reagan. Also, this appropriation is authorized to provide funding for security and travel related expenses for each 

former President and the spouse of a former President pursuant to 

Section 531 of Public Law 103–329. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $3,030,000 for allowances and office 

staff for former Presidents. 

Below is listed a detailed analysis of the Committee’s recommendation for fiscal year 2007 funding: 

FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET ALLOWANCES AND OFFICE STAFF FOR FORMER PRESIDENTS 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Ford Carter Bush Clinton Widows Total 

Personnel Compensation .................................... 96 96 96 96 ................ 384 

Personnel Benefits .............................................. 24 2 63 64 ................ 153 

Benefits for Former Presidents .......................... 188 188 188 197 20 781 

Travel .................................................................. 46 2 55 64 ................ 167 

Rental Payments to GSA .................................... 105 102 175 498 ................ 880 

Communications, Utilities and Miscellaneous 

charges: 

Telephone ................................................... 16 10 16 77 ................ 119 

Postage ...................................................... 9 15 13 15 8 60 

Printing ............................................................... 5 5 14 9 ................ 33 

Other Services .................................................... 37 82 65 113 ................ 297 

Supplies and Materials ...................................... 18 5 15 16 ................ 54 

Equipment .......................................................... 6 7 48 11 ................ 72 

Total Obligations ................................... 550 514 748 1,160 28 3,000 

Infrastructure Contingency Planning ................. ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ 30 

Total Obligations ................................... 550 514 748 1,160 28 3,030 

FEDERAL CITIZEN INFORMATION CENTER FUND

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $15,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 16,866,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 16,866,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 16,866,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal Citizen Information Center [FCIC] brings together 

an array of U.S. Government information and services and makes 

them accessible to the public. This information is made available 

on the web, via e-mail, in print, or over the telephone. 

Originally established within the General Services Administration [GSA] by Executive order on October 26, 1970, to help Federal 

departments and agencies promote and distribute printed consumer information, FCIC has evolved and consolidated a variety of 
209 

complementary functions to augment the original print and media 

channels through which it informed the public. 

On January 28, 2000, the FCIC assumed responsibility for the 

operations of the Federal Information Center [FIC] program. The 

FIC program was established within the General Services Administration in 1966, and was formalized by Public Law 95–491 in 1980. 

The program’s purpose is to provide the public with direct information about all aspects of Federal programs, regulations, and services. To accomplish this mission, contractual services are used to 

respond to public inquiries via the nationwide toll-free National 

Contact Center. 

On June 30, 2002, FCIC assumed operational control of the 

FirstGov.gov website, the official portal of the U.S. Government, 

and became a critical part of GSA’s newly established Office of Citizen Services and Communications. This Office brings together all 

of GSA’s citizen-centered programs. The new Office serves as a central Federal gateway for citizens, businesses, other governments, 

and the media to easily obtain information and services from the 

Government. On March 31, 2003, FCIC began accepting e-mail and 

fax inquiries from the public through the FirstGov.gov website and 

responds to them at its National Contact Center. 

Public Law 98–63, enacted July 30, 1983, established a revolving 

fund for the FCIC. Under this fund, FCIC activities are financed 

from the following: annual appropriations from the general funds 

of the Treasury, reimbursements from agencies for distribution of 

publications and contact center services, user fees collected from 

the public, and any other income incident to FCIC activities. All 

are available as authorized in appropriation acts without regard to 

fiscal year limitations. 

The Committee recognizes the need for the General Services Administration [GSA] to work with the Federal Protective Service 

[FPS] of the Department of Homeland Security [DHS] to implement the newly developed FSRM methodology. Implementing the 

new methodology will facilitate the performance of risk assessments to support new construction, major modernizations and/or 

pre-lease projects. The Committee remains concerned that a cooperative effort between FPS and GSA is required to fully implement 

Interagency Security Committee [ISC] Security Design Criteria and 

the ISC Security Criteria for Leased Space. The GSA will work 

with DHS to provide engineering expertise to support the structural aspects of the project’s specific risk assessments. Therefore, 

the GSA Public Building Service [PBS] (Office of the Chief Architect and Office of Real Property Asset Management) is directed to 

continue to work with the private sector to implement the new Federal Security Risk Management methodology to facilitate the application of the process and the software throughout the GSA regions 

and in consultation with the Department of Homeland Security’s 

Federal Protective Service. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $16,866,000 for the Federal Citizen 

Information Center, an increase of $1,866,000 above the fiscal year 

2006 enacted level and equal to the budget request. 
210 

The appropriation will be augmented by reimbursements from 

Federal agencies for distribution of consumer publications, user 

fees from the public, and other income. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Section 601 authorizes GSA to credit accounts with certain funds 

received from Government corporations. 

Section 602 authorizes GSA to use funds for the hire of passenger motor vehicles. 

Section 603 authorizes GSA to transfer funds within the Federal 

buildings fund for meeting program requirements. 

Section 604 limits funding for courthouse construction which 

does not meet certain standards of a capital improvement plan. 

Section 605 provides that no funds may be used to increase the 

amount of occupiable square feet, provide cleaning services, security enhancements, or any other service usually provided, to any 

agency which does not pay the requested rate. 

Section 606 continues the provision that permits GSA to pay 

small claims (up to $250,000) made against the Government. 

Section 607 prohibits the use of funds by GSA to reorganize its 

organizational structure except through an operating plan change. 

Section 608 includes a new provision as proposed by the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs to merge 

the General Supply Fund and Information Technology Fund into a 

new Acquisition Services Fund. 

Section 609 includes a new provision naming the future Federal 

courthouse in Nashville, Tennessee. 

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $35,244,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 36,531,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 36,531,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 36,550,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Merit System Protection Board [MSPB] was established by 

the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. MSPB is an independent 

quasi-judicial agency manifested to protect Federal merits systems 

against partisan political and other prohibited personnel practices 

and to ensure adequate protection for employees against abuses by 

agency management. 

MSPB assists Federal agencies in running a merit-based civil 

service system. This is accomplished on a case-by-case basis 

through hearing and deciding employee appeals, and on a systemic 

basis by reviewing significant actions and regulations of the Office 

of Personnel Management [OPM] and conducting studies of the 

civil service and other merit systems. The intended results of 

MSPB’s efforts are to assure that personnel actions taken against 

employees are processed within the law, and that actions taken by 
211 

OPM and other agencies support and enhance Federal merit principles. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $36,550,000 for 

the Merit Systems Protection Board, this is an increase of 

$1,326,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level and $19,000 

above the President’s request. The Committee makes available no 

more than $2,605,000 for adjudicated appeals through an appropriation from the trust fund consistent with past practice, allowing 

for appropriate funding for MSPB to continue as arbitrator for the 

additional appeals cases from the Department of Defense and the 

Department of Homeland Security. 

MORRIS K. UDALL SCHOLARSHIP AND EXCELLENCE IN NATIONAL

ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY FOUNDATION

FEDERAL PAYMENT TO MORRIS K. UDALL SCHOLARSHIP AND

EXCELLENCE IN NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY FOUNDATION

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $1,980,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... ........................... 

House allowance .................................................................................... 2,000,000 

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

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Public Law 106–568 authorized the Morris K. Udall Foundation 

to establish training programs for professionals in health care policy and public policy, such as the Native Nations Institute [NNI]. 

NNI, based at the University of Arizona, will provide Native Americans with leadership and management training and analyze policies relevant to tribes. 

The General Fund payment to the Morris K. Udall Fund is invested in Treasury securities with maturities suitable to the needs 

of the Fund. Interest earnings from the investments are used to 

carry out the activities of the Morris K. Udall Foundation. The 

Foundation awards scholarships, fellowships and grants, and funds 

activities of the Udall Center. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

the Morris K. Udall Foundation. The Committee includes language 

to allow up to 60 percent of the appropriation to be used for the 

expenses of the Native Nations Institute. The Committee also includes language requiring the Foundation to report to the House 

and Senate Committees on Appropriations on the amount of funding, if any, transferred from the Trust Fund for the Native Nations 

Institute and justification for such transfers. 

ENVIRONMENTAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION FUND

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $1,881,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 693,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 2,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,000,000 
212 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution is a 

Federal program established by Public Law 105–156 to assist parties in resolving environmental, natural resource, and public lands 

conflicts. The Institute is part of the Morris K. Udall Foundation, 

and serves as an impartial, non-partisan institution providing professional expertise, services, and resources to all parties involved in 

such disputes. The Institute helps parties determine whether collaborative problem solving is appropriate for specific environmental 

conflicts, how and when to bring all the parties together for discussion, and whether a third-party facilitator or mediator might be 

helpful in assisting the parties in their efforts to each consensus or 

to resolve the conflict. In addition, the Institute maintains a roster 

of qualified facilitators and mediators with substantial experience 

in environmental conflict resolution, and can help parties in selecting an appropriate neutral. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

the Morris K. Udall Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund. This 

amount is the fiscal year 2006 enacted level and $1,307,000 above 

the administration’s request. 

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION

The National Archives and Records Administration [NARA] is 

the national recordkeeper. NARA is an independent agency created 

by statute in 1934 to safeguard the records of all three branches 

of the Federal Government. NARA administers the Information Security Oversight Office [ISOO], is the publisher of the Federal Register and makes grants for historical documentation through the 

National Historical Publications and Records Commission 

[NHPRC]. 

OPERATING EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $280,215,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 289,605,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 281,605,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 285,915,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides for basic operations dealing with management of the Federal Government’s archives and records, operation 

of Presidential Libraries, and for the review for declassification of 

classified security information. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $285,915,000 for operating expenses 

of the National Archives and Records Administration for fiscal year 

2007. This amount is $3,690,000 below the budget request and 

$5,700,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

The Committee’s recommendation includes additional funds to 

maintain current service levels, to support the Public Interest Declassification Board, to prepare for the new George W. Bush Presi-
213 

dential Library, and to relocate the Southwest and Central Plains 

Regional Archives facilities. The Committee has denied additional 

operating expense funds for the Nixon Presidential Library due to 

other higher priorities and budget constraints. 

ELECTRONIC RECORDS ARCHIVES

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $37,535,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 45,455,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 45,455,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 48,810,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

National Archives and Records Administration [NARA] is developing an Electronic Records Archives [ERA] that will ensure the 

preservation of and access to Government electronic records. With 

the rapid changes in technology today, the formats in which 

records are stored become obsolete within a few years, making 

records inaccessible even if they are preserved intact with the most 

modern technology. ERA will preserve electronic records generated 

in a manner that enables requesters to access them on computer 

systems now and in the future. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $48,810,000 for the Electronics 

Records Archives project. This amount is an increase of $3,355,000 

above the budget request and $11,275,000 above the fiscal year 

2006 enacted level. Bill language is included requiring NARA to 

submit a spend plan for these funds. The Committee has included 

an additional $3,355,000 to support NARA’s work with the Naval 

Oceanographic Office at the National Center for Critical Information Processing and Storage at the Stennis Space Center in Mississippi. 

The Committee strongly supports the Electronic Record Archives 

[ERA] program at the National Archives Records Administration. 

The Committee is concerned that the amount requested in the 

President’s budget may not be adequate to meet current program 

requirements for the development of systems to interface with 

agencies, receive all documents, and conduct all necessary training 

programs, and that some of these activities may be delayed. The 

Committee is committed to working next year to ensure that this 

program is adequately funded on an expedited basis so ERA can 

preserve the nation’s important records at the earliest feasible 

date. 

REPAIRS AND RESTORATION

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $9,585,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 13,020,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 13,020,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 18,790,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides for the repair, alteration, and improvement 

of Archives facilities and Presidential Libraries nationwide, and 

provides adequate storage for holdings. It will better enable NARA 
214 

to maintain its facilities in proper condition for public visitors, researchers, and NARA employees, and also maintain the structural 

integrity of the buildings. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $18,790,000 for the repairs and res- toration account. This amount is $9,205,000 above the fiscal year 

2006 enacted level and $5,770,000 above the budget request. 

The Committee recommends funds to be distributed as follows: 

Committee 

recommendation 

Ongoing repairs and restoration .......................................................................................................................... $6,120,000 

LBJ Presidential Library ....................................................................................................................................... 3,760,000 

Alaska Regional Archives and Records Center ................................................................................................... 2,500,000 

JFK Presidential Library ........................................................................................................................................ 6,410,000 

Total ........................................................................................................................................................ 18,790,000 

The Committee has prioritized funding under this account to 

projects that have already begun construction. The most notable 

project is the Lyndon Baines Johnson [LBJ] Presidential Library 

project that is currently undergoing construction but currently 

needs $3,760,000 to complete the project. Accordingly, the Committee has given top priority to the LBJ project by providing 

$3,760,000. Further, the Committee recognizes that construction 

funds have already been provided to the new Alaska regional archives and records center. This project has completed its planning 

and design and site selection phases and is prepared for construction. Therefore, the Committee also has made this a priority and 

appropriated $2,500,000 for this project. Last, since the JFK Presidential Library will complete the design phase by the end of fiscal 

year 2006, the Committee also directs NARA to provide $6,410,000 

to the JFK Presidential Library. 

NATIONAL HISTORICAL PUBLICATIONS AND RECORDS COMMISSION

GRANTS PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $7,425,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... ........................... 

House allowance .................................................................................... 7,500,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 5,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The National Historical Publications and Records Commission 

[NHPRC] provides grants nationwide to preserve and publish 

records that document American history. Administered within the 

National Archives, which preserves Federal records, NHPRC helps 

State, local, and private institutions preserve non-Federal records, 

helps publish the papers of major figures in American history, and 

helps archivists and records managers improve their techniques, 

training, and ability to serve a range of information users. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for the National Historical Publications and Records Commission [NHPRC]. This amount 
215 

is $2,425,000 below the fiscal year 2006 enacted level and 

$5,000,000 above the budget request. 

The Committee strongly supports the NHPRC program and has 

provided funding to continue this important program. This program 

has played a central role in the preservation and dissemination of 

the Nation’s documentary heritage. Further, the program has been 

successful in leveraging private sector contributions. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION

The Committee has included a new provision requiring NARA to 

develop a comprehensive capital needs assessment [CNA] for its 

entire infrastructure of Presidential libraries and records facilities. 

The provision requires NARA to submit the CNA as part of its fiscal year 2008 budget submission. The Committee strongly believes 

that a rationale approach through a CNA is needed for NARA due 

to the uneven funding priorities submitted by the administration. 

The Committee believes that NARA can benefit from this approach, 

which has been used by other Federal agencies such as the Department of Veterans Affairs and the National Science Foundation. 

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION

CENTRAL LIQUIDITY FACILITY

Direct loan limitation Administrative 

expenses 

Appropriations, 2006 .................................................................................................. ($1,500,000,000) ($323,000) 

Budget estimate, 2007 ............................................................................................... (1,500,000,000) (331,000) 

House allowance ......................................................................................................... (1,500,000,000) (331,000) 

Committee recommendation ....................................................................................... (1,500,000,000) (331,000) 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The National Credit Union Administration [NCUA] Central Liquidity Facility [CLF] was created by the National Credit Union 

Central Liquidity Facility Act (Public Law 95–630). The CLF is a 

mixed-ownership Government corporation managed by the National Credit Union Administration Board and owned by its member credit unions. 

The purpose of the CLF is to improve the general financial stability of credit unions by meeting their seasonal and emergency liquidity needs and thereby encourage savings, support consumer 

and mortgage lending, and provide basic financial resources to all 

segments of the economy. To become eligible for CLF services, credit unions invest in the capital stock of the CLF, and the facility 

uses the proceeds of such investments and the proceeds of borrowed funds to meet the liquidity needs of credit unions. The primary sources of funds for the CLF are stock subscriptions from 

credit unions and borrowings. 

The CLF may borrow funds from any source, with the amount 

of borrowing limited to 12 times the amount of subscribed capital 

stock and surplus. 

Loans are available to meet short-term requirements for funds 

attributable to emergency outflows from managerial difficulties or 

local economic downturns. Seasonal credit is also provided to ac-
216 

commodate fluctuations caused by cyclical changes in such areas as 

agriculture, education, and retail business. Loans can also be made 

to offset protracted credit problems caused by factors such as regional economic decline. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends the budget request of limiting administrative expenses for the Central Liquidity Fund [CLF] to 

$331,000 in fiscal year 2007. The Committee recommends a limitation of $1,500,000,000 for the principal amount of new direct loans 

to member credit unions. These amounts are the same as the budget request. 

The Committee directs the National Credit Union Administration 

[NCUA] to continue to provide reports on the lending activities 

under CLF. This information should be provided to the Committee 

on a quarterly basis through September 2007. 

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REVOLVING LOAN FUND

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $941,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 941,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 941,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 941,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Community Development Revolving Loan Fund Program 

[CDRLF] was established in 1979 to assist officially designated 

‘‘low-income’’ credit unions in providing basic financial services to 

low-income communities. Low-interest loans and deposits are made 

available to assist these credit unions. Loans or deposits are normally repaid in 5 years, although shorter repayment periods may 

be considered. Technical assistance grants [TAGs] are also available to low-income credit unions. Until fiscal year 2001, only earnings generated from the CDRLF were available to fund TAGs. 

Grants are available for improving operations as well as addressing 

safety and soundness issues. In fiscal year 2004, NCUA designated 

funds for specific programs, including taxpayer assistance, financial 

education, home ownership initiatives, remittance services, individual development accounts [IDAs], and training assistance. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $941,000 for technical assistance 

grants to community development credit unions. This funding level 

is equal to the budget request and is the same as the fiscal year 

2006 enacted level. The Committee expects the CDRLF to continue 

making loans from their available funds derived from repaid loans 

and interest earned on previous loans to designated credit unions. 

The Committee supports NCUA’s outreach efforts to undeserved 

rural and urban communities across America through technical assistance grants provided within CDRLF. The Committee encourages NCUA to continue their efforts in providing an alternative to 

predatory lending services through their targeted technical assistance grants and support. 
217 

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $75,933,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 79,594,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 81,594,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 79,594,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Initially established along with the Department of Transportation [DOT], the National Transportation Safety Board [NTSB] 

commenced operations on April 1, 1967, as an independent Federal 

agency charged by Congress with investigating every civil aviation 

accident in the United States as well as significant accidents in the 

other modes of transportation—railroad, highway, marine and 

pipeline—and issuing safety recommendations aimed at preventing 

future accidents. Although it has always operated independently, 

NTSB relied on DOT for funding and administrative support until 

the Independent Safety Board Act of 1974 (Public Law 93–633) severed all ties between the two organizations starting in 1975. 

In addition to its investigatory duties, NTSB is responsible for 

maintaining the Government’s database of civil aviation accidents 

and also conducts special studies of transportation safety issues of 

national significance. Furthermore, in accordance with the provisions of international treaties, NTSB supplies investigators to serve 

as U.S. Accredited Representatives for aviation accidents overseas 

involving U.S-registered aircraft, or involving aircraft or major 

components of U.S. manufacture. NTSB also serves as the ‘‘court 

of appeals’’ for any airman, mechanic or mariner whenever certificate action is taken by the Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] 

or the U.S. Coast Guard Commandant, or when civil penalties are 

assessed by FAA. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $79,594,000 for the National Transportation Safety Board, which is the same as the budget request 

and is $3,661,000 more than the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

The Committee notes the NTSB’s efforts to return its focus on 

the agency’s core mission of investigating and identifying the probable causes of transportation crashes and incidents. The Committee 

hopes that the NTSB will continue this trend in order to improve 

its performance on completing accident investigations and reports 

in a timely manner. The Committee also notes recent steps the 

NTSB has taken to manage its resources more effectively, such as 

targeting its Academy on training the NTSB’s own staff and renting out the Academy’s building when it is not otherwise being used. 

The Committee, however, believes that more can be done to ensure 

that revenue generated by the Academy will cover its costs instead 

of diverting resources from the core mission of the NTSB. 
218 

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

(RESCISSION)

Rescission, 2006 ..................................................................................... ¥$1,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... ¥1,664,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... ¥1,664,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ¥1,664,000 

The fiscal year 2004 Supplemental Appropriations bill (Public 

Law 106–246) provided NTSB with emergency expenses associated 

with its investigation of the Egypt Air Flight 990 and Alaska Air 

Flight 261 accidents. These funds were used for wreckage location 

and recovery facilities, technical support, testing, and wreckage 

mock-up. All of these activities have been completed and an unobligated balance of $1,664,000 remains. The Committee recommends 

the requested rescission of this amount. 

NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT CORPORATION

PAYMENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT CORPORATION

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $116,820,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 119,790,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 119,790,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 119,790,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation was created by the 

Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation Act (title VI of the Housing and Community Development Amendments of 1978, Public Law 

95–557, October 31, 1978). Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation now operates under the trade name ‘‘NeighborWorks America.’’ 

NeighborWorks America helps local communities establish efficient 

and effective partnerships between residents and representatives of 

the public and private sectors. These partnership-based organizations are independent, tax-exempt, nonprofit entities and are frequently known as Neighborhood Housing Services [NHS] or mutual 

housing associations. 

Collectively, these organizations are known as the 

NeighborWorks® network. Nationally, 235 NeighborWorks® organizations serve nearly 3,000 urban, suburban and rural communities in 49 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $119,790,000 for the Neighborhood 

Reinvestment Corporation for fiscal year 2007. This amount is the 

same as the budget request and $2,970,000 above the fiscal year 

2006 enacted level. 

The Committee has included a set-aside of $5,000,000 for the 

multifamily rental housing initiative. This program has been successful in developing innovative approaches to producing mixed-income affordable housing throughout the Nation. The Committee 

strongly supports this initiative and commends Neighborhood Reinvestment for their efforts in attracting additional private sector investments for this initiative. The Committee directs NRC to pro-
219 

vide a status report on this initiative in its fiscal year 2007 budget 

justifications. 

The Committee continues its support of Neighborhood Reinvestment efforts in building capacity in rural areas. The Committee 

urges the Corporation to continue its efforts in addressing the 

needs of rural communities. 

OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT ETHICS

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $11,037,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 11,489,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 11,489,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 11,489,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Government Ethics [OGE], a separate agency within the executive branch, was established by the Ethics of Government Act of 1978. OGE is charged by law to provide overall direction of executive branch policies designed to prevent conflicts of interest and ensure high ethical standards. OGE carries out these responsibilities by developing regulations pertaining to conflicts of interest, postemployment restrictions, standards of conduct, and public and confidential financial disclosure in the executive branch; by 

monitoring compliance with financial disclosure requirements by 

recommending appropriate corrective action when necessary; by 

evaluating the effectiveness of applicable laws; and by preparing 

advisor opinions and policy of memoranda interpreting requirements regarding conflicts of interest, post employment, standards 

of conduct, and financial disclosure. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $11,489,000 for 

salaries and expenses of the Office of Government Ethics in fiscal 

year 2007. This amount is the same as the President’s budget request and $452,000 above the fiscal year 2006 level. 

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $121,296,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 111,095,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 111,095,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 111,095,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Personnel Management [OPM] was established by 

Public Law 95–454, the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, enacted 

on October 13, 1978. In that act, the Office of Personnel Management was established in section 1101 of title 5, United States Code. 

Subsequent sections of chapter 11 provide for the principal officials 

of the agency and the functions of the Director, which are really 

the functions of the Agency, as well as providing for the delegation 

of authority for personnel management from the President and, 

subsequently, by the Director. 
220 

OPM is the Federal Government agency responsible for management of Federal human resources policy and oversight of the merit 

civil service system. Although individual agencies are increasingly 

responsible for personnel operations, OPM provides a Governmentwide policy framework for personnel matters, advises and assists 

agencies (often on a reimbursable basis), and ensures that agency 

operations are consistent with requirements of law on issues such 

as veterans preference. OPM oversees examining of applicants for 

employment, issues regulations and policies on hiring, classification 

and pay, training, investigations, other aspects of personnel management, and operates a reimbursable training program for the 

Federal Government’s managers and executives. OPM is also responsible for administering the retirement, health benefits and life 

insurance programs affecting most Federal employees, retired Federal employees, and their survivors. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $111,095,000 for 

the salaries and expenses of the Office of Personnel Management, 

which is the same as the budget request and $10,201,000 less than 

the fiscal year 2006 level. Of the amount provided no more than 

$8,349,000 is to be used for e-Government projects. This amount is 

the same as the President’s request. 

The Committee is very concerned with the practices of the Office 

of Personnel Management regarding its approach to human resources products and services. Federal agencies need to have the 

flexibility to contract as they see fit, including contracting with private companies to provide online employment applications and 

processing services, as well as choice in selecting service providers 

and human resource systems. While the Committee understands 

the need for human resource standards in public and private contracts, the Committee expects OPM to allow Federal agencies to 

have choices in such decisions. The Committee directs OPM to report to the Committee within 120 days of enactment of this act on 

their human resources products and services, including actions 

taken in response to these concerns. 

Child Care.—OPM and GSA, with technical assistance from 

GAO, are conducting a survey of the child care needs of executive, 

legislative and judicial branch employees. Within 45 days of the 

completion and reporting of this survey, GAO should provide relevant recommendations for further action to the Committee. The 

Committee directs OPM to report on progress made in implementing any recommendations within 6 months after the release of 

the report mentioned above. OPM should include further measures 

that may be taken to address Federal child care needs. 

The Committee directs OPM to continue its efforts to provide information and education to agencies and employees on promotion 

of the subsidy for child care expenses for lower income employees. 

Retirement Systems Modernization.—The Committee supports 

the Retirement Systems Modernization project [RSM], an effort initiated in 1997 to automate and streamline the manual paper-intensive business processes used to administer the Federal employee 

retirement program. Within 10 years, 60 percent of the Federal 

workforce is eligible for retirement, thus it is crucial that an effi-
221 

cient and effective system be in place for current and future retirees. Knowing the pitfalls that have occurred in other IT projects, 

the Committee is pleased with the personal attention and commitment of the Director to the success of this project. The Committee 

recognizes that the RSM has benefited from the involvement and 

expertise of the Government Accountability Office, as have other IT 

projects. The Committee continues to be concerned about difficulties OPM has encountered in this modernization effort in the past, 

and requests that GAO comprehensively review the progress, costs, 

and risks of the program. The Committee notes the importance of 

the recommendations made by GAO and urges the Director to continue to give them careful consideration and to maintain close consultation with GAO in the future. 

LIMITATION

(TRANSFER OF TRUST FUNDS)

Limitation, 2006 ..................................................................................... $99,017,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 126,908,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 100,178,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 126,908,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

These funds will be transferred from the appropriate trust funds 

of the Office of Personnel Management to cover administrative expenses for the retirement and insurance programs, including the 

cost of automating the retirement recording systems. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation of $126,908,000 which 

is $28,161,000 more than the fiscal year 2006 level. This amount 

is the same as the President’s request and includes requested funds 

for the cost of automating the retirement recordkeeping systems. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $2,050,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 1,598,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 1,598,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,598,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Inspector General is charged with establishing policies for conducting and coordinating efforts which promote economy, efficiency, and integrity in the Office of Personnel Management’s activities which prevent and detect fraud, waste, and mismanagement in the agency’s programs. Contract audits provide 

professional advice to agency contracting officials on accounting 

and financial matters regarding the negotiation, award, administration, repricing, and settlement of contracts. Internal agency audits review and evaluate all facets of agency operations, including 

financial statements. Evaluation and inspection services provide 

detailed technical evaluations of agency operations. Insurance audits review the operations of health and life insurance carriers, 
222 

health care providers, and insurance subscribers. The investigative 

function provides for the detection and investigation of improper 

and illegal activities involving programs, personnel, and operations. 

Administrative sanctions debar from participation in the health insurance program those health care providers whose conduct may 

pose a threat to the financial integrity of the program itself or to 

the well-being of insurance program enrollees. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,598,000 for 

salaries and expenses of the Office of Inspector General in fiscal 

year 2007. This amount is the same as the President’s request and 

$452,000 less than the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

(LIMITATION ON TRANSFER FROM TRUST FUNDS)

Limitation, 2006 ..................................................................................... $16,166,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 16,166,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 16,166,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 16,166,000 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation on transfers from the 

trust funds in support of the Office of Inspector General activities 

totaling $16,166,000 for fiscal year 2007. This amount is $452,000 

more than the fiscal year 2006 enacted level, and the same as the 

President’s request. 

GOVERNMENT PAYMENT FOR ANNUITANTS, EMPLOYEES HEALTH

BENEFITS

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $8,393,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 8,780,260,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 8,780,260,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 8,780,260,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation covers the Government’s share of the cost of 

health insurance for annuitants covered by the Federal Employees 

Health Benefits Program and the Retired Federal Employees 

Health Benefits Act of 1960, as well as administrative expenses incurred by OPM for these programs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $8,780,260,000 

for Government payments for annuitants, employees health benefits. 

GOVERNMENT PAYMENT FOR ANNUITANTS, EMPLOYEE LIFE

INSURANCE

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $36,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 39,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 39,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 39,000,000 
223 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Public Law 96–427, the Federal Employees’ Group Life Insurance 

Act of 1980 requires that all employees under the age of 65 who 

separate from the Federal Government for purposes of retirement 

on or after January 1, 1990, continue to make contributions toward 

their basic life insurance coverage after retirement until they reach 

the age of 65. These retirees will contribute two-thirds of the cost 

of the basic life insurance premium, identical to the amount contributed by active Federal employees for basic life insurance coverage. As with the active Federal employees, the Government is required to contribute one-third of the cost of the premium for basic 

coverage. OPM, acting as the payroll office on behalf of Federal retirees, has requested, and the Committee has provided, the funding 

necessary to make the required Government contribution associated with annuitants’ postretirement life insurance coverage. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $39,000,000 for 

the Government payment for annuitants, employee life insurance. 

This amount equals the budget request. 

PAYMENT TO CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY FUND

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $10,072,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 10,532,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 10,532,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 10,532,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The civil service retirement and disability fund was established 

in 1920 to administer the financing and payment of annuities to retired Federal employees and their survivors. The fund covers the 

operation of the Civil Service Retirement System and the Federal 

Employees’ Retirement System. 

This appropriation provides for the Government’s share of retirement costs, transfers of interest on the unfunded liability and annuity disbursements attributable to military service, and survivor 

annuities to eligible former spouses of some annuitants who did not 

elect survivor coverage. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $10,532,000,000 

for payment to the civil service retirement and disability fund. The 

Committee recommendation equals the budget estimate. 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $15,172,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 15,937,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 15,937,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 16,000,000 
224 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The U.S. Office of Special Counsel [OSC] was first established on 

January 1, 1979. From 1979 until 1989, it operated as an autonomous investigative and prosecutorial arm of the Merit Systems 

Protection Board (the Board). In 1989, Congress enacted the Whistleblower Protection Act, which made OSC an independent agency 

within the Executive Branch. In 1994, the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act became law. It defined 

employment-related rights of persons in connection with military 

service, prohibited discrimination against them because of that 

service, and gave OSC new authority to pursue remedies for violations by Federal agencies. 

OSC investigates Federal employee allegations of prohibited personnel practices and, when appropriate, prosecutes cases before the 

Merit Systems Protection Board and enforces the Hatch Act. OSC 

also provides a channel for whistleblowing by Federal employees, 

and may transmit whistleblowing allegations to the agency head 

concerned and require an agency investigation and a report to Congress and the President when appropriate. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $16,000,000 for 

the Office of Special Counsel. This amount is $63,000 above President’s budget request and is $828,000 above the fiscal year 2006 

enacted level. 

In the past, the Committee has been disappointed with the level 

of communication from OSC. The Committee is encouraged, however, by the recent level of communication and responsiveness from 

OSC. The Committee directs the Office of Special Counsel to submit its fiscal year 2008 budget justification on the first Monday in 

February, concurrent with the official submission of the President’s 

budget to Congress. The justification should include highly detailed 

data and explanatory statements to support the appropriations requests, including tables that detail OSC’s programs, activities and 

staffing levels for fiscal years 2007 and 2008. The Committee expects that OSC will coordinate with the Committee on Appropriations well in advance on its planned budget submission in support 

of the fiscal year 2008 budget request. 

The Committee reiterates the recommendation that the Government Accountability Office [GAO] made in its March 2004 report 

(GAO–04–36) and directs that OSC submit to Congress a comprehensive strategy addressing capital needs and case processing 

in order to prevent any future backlog of cases when submitting 

their fiscal year 2008 budget request. The Committee directs OSC 

to provide quarterly staffing reports from the Special Counsel to 

Congress. 

While the Committee has not included the breakdown of OSC 

funds by field office as contained in the fiscal year 2007 budget justification, the Committee expects OSC to adhere to this structure. 

The Committee further directs OSC to communicate with the Committee 45 days in advance of any organizational change, if such a 

change would cause the geographic staffing numbers to vary above 

or below the following levels; Office of Special Counsel head-
225 

quarters: 70 to 75 FTEs, the Detroit office: 6 to 8 FTEs, the Dallas 

office: 9 to 11 FTEs, the Bay Area office: 8 to 10 FTEs, and the 

District of Columbia field office: 9 to 12 FTEs. Thus the total number of FTEs for the Office of Special Counsel should not be below 

102 or above 116. 

SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $24,750,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 24,225,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 24,255,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 24,255,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Selective Service System [SSS] was reestablished by the Selective Service Act of 1948. The basic mission of the System is to 

be prepared to supply manpower to the Armed Forces adequate to 

ensure the security of the United States during a time of national 

emergency. Since 1973, the Armed Forces have relied on volunteers 

to fill military manpower requirements. However, the Selective 

Service System remains the primary vehicle by which personnel 

will be brought into the military if Congress and the President 

should authorize a return to the draft. 

In December 1987, Selective Service was tasked by law (Public 

Law 100–180, sec. 715) to develop plans for a postmobilizationhealth-care-personnel-delivery system capable of providing the necessary critically skilled health-care personnel to the Armed Forces 

in time of emergency. An automated system capable of handling 

mass registration and inductions is now complete, together with 

necessary draft legislation, a draft Presidential proclamation, prototype forms and letters, et cetera. These products will be available 

should the need arise. The development of supplemental standby 

products, such as a compliance system for health care personnel, 

continues using very limited existing resources. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $24,255,000 for 

the Selective Service System. This amount is the same as the budget request and $495,000 below the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

The Committee also prohibits the use of any funds to support the 

Corporation for National and Community Service. 

UNITED STATES INTERAGENCY COUNCIL ON HOMELESSNESS

OPERATING EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $1,782,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 2,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 2,000,000 

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

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The United States Interagency Council on Homelessness is an 

independent agency created by the McKinney-Vento Homeless As-
226 

sistance Act of 1987 to coordinate and direct the multiple efforts of 

Federal agencies and other designated groups. The Council was authorized to review Federal programs that assist homeless persons 

and to take necessary actions to reduce duplication. The Council 

can recommend improvements in programs and activities conducted by Federal, State and local government as well as local volunteer organizations. The Council consists of the heads of 18 Federal agencies such as the Departments of Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Labor, and Transportation; 

and other entities as deemed appropriate. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $2,000,000 for the United States 

Interagency Council on Homelessness [ICH], the same level as the 

budget request and $218,000 more than the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. These funds are for carrying out the functions authorized under section 203 of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance 

Act. Bill language is included that extends the reauthorization for 

the ICH until October 1, 2007. 

The Committee continues to support strongly the mission of ICH 

and its efforts in ending homelessness. The Committee continues to 

believe that a comprehensive and coordinated strategy must be 

made by the Federal, State, and local governments to end and prevent homelessness in this Nation. ICH has been successful working 

with State and local officials in developing 10-year plans to end 

homelessness, however, it is unclear whether all Federal agencies 

are fully participating in this effort. Accordingly, the Committee directs the ICH to submit a report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on the efforts of every Federal agency member of the ICH in ending and preventing homelessness. This report 

should be submitted by no later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this act. 

The Committee commends the Council’s efforts in engaging communities on the issue of homelessness. These efforts have led to the 

establishment of 10-year plans to end homelessness throughout the 

Nation. While the Committee understands that engaging local and 

State communities are a critical part of ending homelessness, coordination and commitment among the relevant Federal agencies 

must be made. As required under the McKinney-Vento Homelessness Act, the ICH convenes workshops on various aspects of homelessness. One of those areas of interest to the Committee is homelessness among children, youth, and families. Accordingly, the 

Committee directs the ICH to convene one of its workshops on this 

issue. This workshop should include representatives from those 

Federal agencies and programs serving homeless children, youth, 

and families. The workshop should focus on: (1) identifying how 

such agencies and programs may improve coordination; (2) developing promising practices in service delivery, program development, and leveraging resources in urban, suburban, and rural 

areas; and (3) collecting information on the nature, extent, and impact of homelessness on children, youth, and families, and the Federal efforts to serve and meet their needs. The Council is further 

directed to report to the Committee on a quarterly basis on steps 
227 

being taken by the agencies and the Council as a result of the 

workshop. 

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE

PAYMENT TO THE POSTAL SERVICE FUND

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $115,917,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 79,915,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 108,915,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 108,915,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Post Office dates back to 1775. It became the Postal Service 

in 1971 as an independent establishment of the executive branch 

of the United States Government. The Postal Service basic function 

and obligation is to provide postal services to bind the Nation together through the personal, educational, literary, and business 

correspondence of the people. It shall provide prompt, reliable and 

efficient services to patrons in all areas and shall render postal 

services to all communities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total of $108,915,000 in fiscal year 

2007 funding and advanced appropriations for payments to the 

Postal Service Fund. The increase of $29,000,000 above the President’s request is to provide funds for overseas voting for prior 

years’ liability under the Revenue Forgone Reform Act of 1993. This amount includes: $60,725,000 requested for free mail for the blind and overseas voting; $19,190,000 as a reconciliation adjustment for 2004 actual mail volume of free mail for the blind and 

overseas voting; and $29,000,000 for prior years’ liability under the 

Revenue Forgone Reform Act of 1993. In addition to these funds, 

$73,000,000 (an advance appropriation from 2005 for the 2005 

costs and the 2002 reconciliation adjustment for free mail for the 

blind and overseas voting) will become available to the U.S. Postal 

Service in fiscal year 2006. 

Revenue forgone on free and reduced-rate mail enables postage 

rates to be set at levels below the unsubsidized rates for certain 

categories of mail as authorized by subsections (c) and (d) of section 

2401 of title 39, United States Code. Free mail for the blind and 

overseas voters will continue to be provided at the funding level 

recommended by the Committee. 

The Committee includes provisions in the bill that would assure 

that mail for overseas voting and mail for the blind shall continue 

to be free; that 6-day delivery and rural delivery of mail shall continue without reduction; and that none of the funds provided be 

used to consolidate or close small rural and other small post offices 

in fiscal year 2007. These are services that must be maintained in 

fiscal year 2007 and beyond. 

The Committee believes that 6-day mail delivery is one of the 

most important services provided by the Federal Government to its 

citizens. Especially in rural and small town America, this critical 

postal service is the linchpin that serves to bind the Nation together. 
228 

Emergency Preparedness.—The Committee remains interested 

and concerned about the progress of the Postal Service’s biohazardous detection system, particularly the ability to detect more 

than one agent. The Postal Service shall continue to update the 

Committee on the progress of this effort as well as the effort to construct the Washington, DC mail irradiation facility. 

Consolidation of Mail Processing Facilities.—The Postal Service 

is developing and implementing a major realignment of its postal 

facilities and streamlining its transportation networks to achieve 

greater efficiencies, reduce redundancies, and achieve cost savings. 

To date, the Service has announced that it is studying the feasibility of consolidating about 50 of its over 400 mail processing facilities. The Service expects to continue its consolidation feasibility 

study and review processes through 2007 and beyond. Many questions remain about how the Service plans to realign its postal networks and workforce. These include how many facilities will be 

needed, which facilities will be closed, and what roles various facilities will serve. Additionally, it is uncertain how the postal workforce, mailers, and communities will be impacted by the Service’s 

realignment decisions. Finally, it is unknown how long it will take 

to complete the realignment. These questions should be answered 

prior to the continuation of these efforts. 

In April 2005, GAO issued a report entitled, U.S. Postal Service: 

The Service’s Strategy for Realigning Its Mail Processing Infrastructure Lacks Clarity, Criteria, and Accountability (GAO–05– 

261). The report concluded that the Service’s realignment strategy 

lacked sufficient transparency and accountability as well as criteria 

to ensure that the decisions made are clear, consistent, and fair. 

The decisions also excluded stakeholder input and lacked performance measures to evaluate the results and provide accountability 

for realignment decisions. GAO’s report recommended that the 

Service take actions to address these deficiencies by establishing a 

set of criteria to be used for making realignment decisions, developing a mechanism for communicating with stakeholders regarding 

realignment proposals and decisions. The report further suggested 

the development of a process for measuring and evaluating the results in areas such as cost savings, achieved efficiency, and impact 

on postal services. GAO has received several congressional requests 

to follow up on its recommendations, determining what progress 

the Service has made. A review in this area has recently been initiated. 

The Committee directs that consolidation decisions pertaining to 

Sioux City, Iowa, Aberdeen, South Dakota, and Yakima, Washington, will not be implemented until the Postal Service receives 

the GAO’s follow-up report to its April 2005 study, which is underway. The Postal Service shall establish detailed criteria for the decisionmaking process prior to the implementation of any contested 

consolidations. The Postal Service shall keep the Committee informed of its consolidation plans and further directs GAO to continue the monitoring these efforts. 

Forever Stamp.—The Committee commends the Postal Service on 

its plan to create a ‘‘Forever Stamp,’’ which would remain valid for 

letter postage even after future rate changes. This innovation 

would make postal rate changes far easier for household mailers, 
229 

who are the main users of adhesive postage stamps. Consumers 

would avoid both the inconvenience of obsolete, leftover stamps and 

the need for last-minute trips to the post office to buy makeup 

stamps. The Committee commends the Postal Service for its efforts 

to develop innovative proposals such as the ‘‘Forever Stamp,’’ and 

trusts that the Postal Service will continue to find new ways to 

make the mail a more attractive and user-friendly communications 

medium for the American household. 

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $47,518,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 47,110,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 47,110,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 47,110,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The U.S. Tax Court is an independent judicial body in the legislative branch established under article I of the Constitution of the 

United States. The court is composed of a chief judge and 18 

judges. Decisions by the court are reviewable by the U.S. Courts of 

Appeals and, if certiorari is granted, by the Supreme Court. 

In their judicial duties the judges are assisted by senior judges, 

who participate in the adjudication of regular cases, and by special 

trial judges, who hear small tax cases and certain regular cases assigned to them by the chief judge. 

The court conducts trial sessions throughout the United States, 

including Hawaii and Alaska. The matters over which the Court 

has jurisdiction are set forth in various sections of title 26 of the 

United States Code. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $47,110,000 for 

the U.S. Tax Court. 

STATEMENT CONCERNING GENERAL PROVISIONS 

The Transportation, Treasury, the Judiciary, Housing and Urban 

Development, and Related Agencies appropriation bill includes general provisions which govern both the activities of the agencies covered by the bill, and, in some cases, activities of agencies, programs, and general government activities that are not covered by 

the bill. General provisions that are governmentwide in scope are 

contained in title VIII of this bill. 

The bill contains a number of general provisions that have been 

carried in this bill for years and which are routine in nature and 

scope. General provisions in the bill are explained under this section of the report. Those general provisions that deal with a single 

agency only are shown immediately following that particular agency’s or department’s appropriation accounts in the bill. Those provisions that address activities or directives affecting all of the agencies covered in this bill are contained in title VII. 
(230) 

TITLE VII 

GENERAL PROVISIONS THIS ACT 

Section 701 requires pay raises to be absorbed within appropriated levels in this act or previous appropriations acts. 

Section 702 prohibits pay and other expenses for non-Federal 

parties in regulatory or adjudicatory proceedings funded in this act. 

Section 703 prohibits obligations beyond the current fiscal year 

and prohibits transfers of funds unless expressly so provided herein. 

Section 704 limits expenditures for consulting service through 

procurement contracts where such expenditures are a matter of 

public record and available for public inspection. 

Section 705 prohibits funds in this act to be transferred without 

express authority. 

Section 706 prohibits the use of funds to engage in activities that 

would prohibit the enforcement of section 307 of the 1930 Tariff 

Act (46 Stat. 590). 

Section 707 protects employment rights of Federal employees 

who return to their civilian jobs after assignment with the Armed 

Forces. 

Section 708 prohibits the use of funds in compliance with the 

Buy American Act. 

Section 709 prohibits funding for any person or entity convicted 

of violating the Buy American Act. 

Section 710 authorizes the reprogramming of funds and specifies 

the reprogramming procedures for agencies funded by this act. 

Section 711 ensures that 50 percent of unobligated balances may 

remain available for certain purposes. 

Section 712 restricts the use of funds for the White House to request official background reports without the written consent of the 

individual who is the subject of the report. 

Section 713 ensures that the cost accounting standard shall not 

apply with respect to a contract under the Federal Employees 

Health Benefits Program. 

Section 714 references non-foreign area cost of living allowances. 

Section 715 waives restrictions on the purchase of non-domestic 

articles, materials, and supplies in the case of acquisition by the 

Federal Government of information technology. 

Section 716 prohibits the use of funds for a proposed rule related 

to the determination that real estate brokerage activities are financial activities. 

Section 717 requires departments and agencies under this act to 

disclose information regarding all sole source contracts. 

Section 718 continues the provision prohibiting the use of funds 

for eminent domain unless such taking is employed for public use 
231 

but does not repeat the requirement for a study by the Government 

Accountability Office. 

Sectio 719 provides flexibility to the Inspector Generals who are 

required to conduct an independent, third-party review of each 

agency’s implementation of section 522 and allows the Inspector 

Generals to conduct the review either in-house or by contract. 
(232) 

TITLE VIII 

GENERAL PROVISIONS GOVERNMENT-WIDE, 

DEPARTMENTS, AGENCIES, AND CORPORATIONS 

Section 801 authorizes agencies to pay travel costs of the families 

of Federal employees on foreign duty to return to the United States 

in the event of death or a life threatening illness of an employee. 

Section 802 requires agencies to administer a policy designed to 

ensure that all of its workplaces are free from the illegal use of controlled substances. 

Section 803 continues the provision regarding price limitations 

on vehicles purchased by the Federal Government. 

Section 804 allows funds made available to agencies for travel to 

also be used for quarters allowances and cost-of-living allowances. 

Section 805 prohibits the Government, with certain specified exceptions, from employing non-U.S. citizens whose posts of duty 

would be in the continental United States. 

Section 806 ensures that agencies will have authority to pay the 

General Services Administration bills for space renovation and 

other services. 

Section 807 allows agencies to finance the costs of recycling and 

waste prevention programs with proceeds from the sale of materials recovered through such programs. 

Section 808 provides that funds may be used to pay rent and 

other service costs in the District of Columbia. 

Section 809 prohibits the use of appropriated funds to pay the 

salary of any nominee after the Senate voted not to approve the 

nomination. 

Section 810 precludes interagency financing of groups absent 

prior statutory approval. 

Section 811 authorizes the Postal Service to employ guards. 

Section 812 prohibits the use of appropriated funds for enforcing 

regulations disapproved in accordance with the applicable law of 

the United States. 

Section 813 limits the pay increases of certain prevailing rate 

employees. 

Section 814 limits the amount that can be used for redecoration 

of offices under certain circumstances. 

Section 815 permits interagency funding of national security and 

emergency preparedness telecommunications initiatives, which benefit multiple Federal departments, agencies, and entities. 

Section 816 requires agencies to certify that a schedule C appointment was not created solely or primarily to detail the employee to the White House. 

Section 817 requires agencies to administer a policy designed to 

ensure that all of its workplaces are free from discrimination and 

sexual harassment. 
233 

Section 818 prohibits the use of funds to prevent Federal employees from communicating with Congress or to take disciplinary or 

personnel actions against employees for such communication. 

Section 819 prohibits training not directly related to the performance of official duties. 

Section 820 prohibits the expenditure of funds for the implementation of agreements in certain nondisclosure policies unless certain 

provisions are included in the policies. 

Section 821 prohibits use of appropriated funds for publicity or 

propaganda designed to support or defeat legislation pending before Congress. 

Section 822 prohibits use of appropriated funds by an agency to 

provide Federal employees home address to labor organizations. 

Section 823 prohibits the use of appropriated funds to provide 

nonpublic information such as mailing or telephone lists to any 

person or organization outside of the Government. 

Section 824 prohibits the use of appropriated funds for publicity 

or propaganda purposes within the United States not authorized by 

Congress. 

Section 825 directs agencies employees to use official time in an 

honest effort to perform official duties. 

Section 826 authorizes the use of current fiscal year funds to finance an appropriate share of the Federal Accounting Standards 

Advisory Board. 

Section 827 authorizes agencies to transfer funds to or reimburse 

the Government-wide Policy account of GSA to finance an appropriate share of various government-wide boards and councils. 

Section 828 authorizes breastfeeding at any location in a Federal 

building or on Federal property. 

Section 829 permits interagency funding of the National Science 

and Technology Council. 

Section 830 requires identification of the Federal agencies providing Federal funds and the amount provided for all proposals, solicitations, grant applications, forms, notifications, press releases, 

or other publications related to the distribution of funding to a 

State. 

Section 831 continues a provision which extends the authorization for franchise fund pilots for 1 year with modification. 

Section 832 continues a provision prohibiting the use of funds to 

monitor personal information relating to the use of Federal internet sites. 

Section 833 continues a provision regarding contraceptive coverage under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan. 

Section 834 recognizes the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency as the official anti-doping agency for Olympic, Pan American, and 

Paralympic sports in the United States. 

Section 835 allows departments and agencies to participate in 

the fractional aircraft ownership pilot programs. 

Section 836 places certain limitations on the Coast Guard Congressional Fellowship program. 

Section 837 prohibits the expenditure of funds for the acquisition 

of certain additional Federal Law Enforcement Training facilities. 

Section 838 provides funding for the Midway Atoll Airfield. 
234 

Section 839 concerns the use of funds for the ‘‘e-Gov’’ initiative 

that were not appropriated specifically for that purpose. 

Section 840 establishes a set of outsourcing contracting requirements that provide an even playing field for the private and public 

sector. 

Section 841 provides for a 2.7 percent increase in the basic pay 

of Federal civilian employees. 

Section 842 provides requirements for prepackaged news stories 

that are prepared or funded by that executive branch agency. 

Section 843 continues the provision prohibiting funds used in 

contravention of section 552a of title 5, United States Code or section 522.224 of title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations. 

Section 844 requires each Department and Agency to evaluate 

the creditworthiness of an individual before issuing the individual 

a government purchase charge card or travel card. 

Section 845 requires Federal agencies to report to Congress on 

the amount of acquisitions they make from entities that manufacture articles, materials, or supplies outside of the United States in 

that fiscal year. 

Section 846 prohibits the use of funds to enforce a provision of 

the Cuban Assets Control Regulations that impedes sales to Cuba. 
(235) 

TITLE IX 

AIR TRANSPORTATION TO AND FROM LOVE FIELD 

Section 901. This section provides modifications to allow air carriers to offer for sale and provide through service and ticketing to 

or from Love Field, Texas through any point within Texas, New 

Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Alabama. 

Section 902. This section prohibits air transportation between 

Love Field and any point or points outside the United States on a 

non-stop basis. 

Section 903. This section limits the use of charter flights, among 

other things, to within the 50 States. 

Section 904. This section sets a number of requirements for any 

changes to this legislation. 

Section 905. This section provides initial jurisdiction to the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Texas 

for any claims arising under this title. 

Section 906. This section limits the provisions of this title to actions taken at Love Field, Texas with the FAA provided authority 

to determine within 30 days as to whether this agreement can be 

accommodated in compliance with FAA safety standards. 
(236) 

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7, RULE XVI, OF THE 

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE 

Paragraph 7 of rule XVI requires that Committee reports on general appropriations bills identify each Committee amendment to 

the House bill ‘‘which proposes an item of appropriation which is 

not made to carry out the provisions of an existing law, a treaty 

stipulation, or an act or resolution previously passed by the Senate 

during that session.’’ 

The Committee recommends the following appropriations which 

lack authorization: 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary of Transportation: Payments to air carriers 

Federal Railroad Administration: 

Safety and operations 

Alaska railroad rehabilitation 

Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation 

Surface Transportation Board 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Departmental Offices: 

Salaries and expenses 

Department-wide Systems and Capital Investments Program 

Air Transportation Stabilization Program 

Treasury Building and annex, repair and restoration 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Rural Housing and Economic Development 

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

The White House Office, salaries and expenses 

Executive Residence at the White House, operating expenses 

Special Assistance to the President, salaries and expenses 

Council of Economic Advisers 

National Security Council 

Office of Administration 

Office of Management and Budget 

Office of National Drug Control Policy: 

Salaries and expenses 

Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center 

High-intensity drug trafficking areas 

Other Federal Drug Control (except Drug-Free Communities) 

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

General Services Administration: 
237 

Federal buildings fund 

Repairs and Alterations Construction and Acquisition of Facilities 

National Transportation Safety Board 

Office of Government Ethics, salaries and expenses 

Office of Personnel Management, Human Capital Performance 

Fund 

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7(C), RULE XXVI, OF THE 

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE 

Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on July 20, 2006, the 

Committee ordered reported, en bloc: H.R. 5631, making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes, with an amendment in 

the nature of a substitute; S. 3708, an original bill making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 

September 30, 2007, and for other purposes; H.R. 5576, making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, Treasury, and 

Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, District of Columbia, and independent agencies for the fiscal year ending September 

30, 2007, and for other purposes, with an amendment in the nature 

of a substitute; and H.R. 5385, making appropriations for Military 

Construction and Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes, with 

an amendment in the nature of a substitute and an amendment to 

the title; with each bill subject to further amendment and each 

subject to the budget allocation, by a recorded vote of 28–0, a 

quorum being present. The vote was as follows: 

Yeas Nays 

Chairman Cochran 

Mr. Stevens 

Mr. Specter 

Mr. Domenici 

Mr. Bond 

Mr. McConnell 

Mr. Burns 

Mr. Shelby 

Mr. Gregg 

Mr. Bennett 

Mr. Craig 

Mrs. Hutchison 

Mr. DeWine 

Mr. Brownback 

Mr. Allard 

Mr. Byrd 

Mr. Inouye 

Mr. Leahy 

Mr. Harkin 

Ms. Mikulski 

Mr. Reid 

Mr. Kohl 

Mrs. Murray 
238 

Mr. Dorgan 

Mrs. Feinstein 

Mr. Durbin 

Mr. Johnson 

Ms. Landrieu 

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 12, RULE XXVI OF THE 

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE 

Paragraph 12 of rule XXVI requires that Committee reports on 

a bill or joint resolution repealing or amending any statute or part 

of any statute include ‘‘(a) the text of the statute or part thereof 

which is proposed to be repealed; and (b) a comparative print of 

that part of the bill or joint resolution making the amendment and 

of the statute or part thereof proposed to be amended, showing by 

stricken-through type and italics, parallel columns, or other appropriate typographical devices the omissions and insertions which 

would be made by the bill or joint resolution if enacted in the form 

recommended by the committee.’’ 

In compliance with this rule, the following changes in existing 

law proposed to be made by the bill are shown as follows: existing 

law to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets; new matter is 

printed in italic; and existing law in which no change is proposed 

is shown in roman. 

TITLE 40—PUBLIC BUILDINGS, PROPERTY, AND WORKS 

* * * * * * * 

SUBTITLE II—PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND WORKS 

PART A—GENERAL 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 33—ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, AND 

ALTERATION 

* * * * * * * 

§ 3313. Delegation 

(a) WHEN ALLOWED.—Except for the authority contained in 

section 3305(b) of this title, the carrying out of the duties and powers of the Administrator of General Services under this chapter, in 

accordance with standards the Administrator prescribes— 

(1) shall be delegated on request to the appropriate øexecutive¿ federal agency when the estimated cost of the project 

does not exceed $100,000; and 

(2) may be delegated to the appropriate øexecutive¿ federal 

agency when the Administrator determines that delegation will 

promote efficiency and economy. 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE 42—THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE 

* * * * * * * 
239 

CHAPTER 8—LOW-INCOME HOUSING 

* * * * * * * 

SUBCHAPTER I—GENERAL PROGRAM OF ASSISTED 

HOUSING 

* * * * * * * 

§ 1437f. Low-income housing assistance 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(o) Voucher program 

* * * * * * * 

(13) PHA project-based assistance 

(A) In general 

* * * * * * * 

(H) Rent calculation 

A housing assistance payment contract pursuant to 

this paragraph shall establish rents for each unit assisted 

in an amount that does not exceed 110 percent of the applicable fair market rental (or any exception payment 

standard approved by the Secretary pursuant to paragraph 

(1)(D)), except that if a contract covers a dwelling unit that 

has been allocated low-income housing tax credits pursuant to section 42 of title 26 and is not located in a qualified 

census tract (as such term is defined in subsection (d) of 

such section 42), the rent for such unit may be established 

at any level that does not exceed the rent charged for comparable units in the building that also receive the low-income housing tax credit but do not have additional rental 

assistance, except that in the case of a contract unit that 

has been allocated low-income housing tax credits and for 

which the rent limitation pursuant to such section 42 is 

less than the amount that would otherwise be permitted 

under this subparagraph, the rent for such unit may, in the 

sole discretion of a public housing agency, be established at 

the higher section 8 rent, subject only to paragraph (10)(A). 

The rents established by housing assistance payment contracts pursuant to this paragraph may vary from the payment standards established by the public housing agency 

pursuant to paragraph (1)(B), but shall be subject to paragraph (10)(A). 

(I) Rent adjustments 

A housing assistance payments contract pursuant to 

this paragraph shall provide for rent adjustments, except 

that— 

(i) the adjusted rent for any unit assisted shall be 

reasonable in comparison with rents charged for comparable dwelling units in the private, unassisted, local 

market and may not exceed the maximum rent permitted under subparagraph (H), except that the con-
240 

tract may provide that the maximum rent permitted for 

a dwelling unit shall not be less than the initial rent 

for the dwelling unit under the initial housing assistance payments contract covering the unit; and 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE 49, UNITED STATES CODE 

* * * * * * * 

SUBTITLE IV—INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION 

* * * * * * * 

PART B—MOTOR CARRIERS, WATER 

CARRIERS, BROKERS, AND FREIGHT 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 131—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

§ 13102. Definitions 

In this part, the following definitions shall apply: 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(6) FOREIGN MOTOR CARRIER.—The term ‘‘foreign motor 

carrier’’ means a person (including a motor carrier of property 

but excluding a motor private carrier)— 

(A)(i) that is domiciled in a contiguous foreign country; 

or 

(ii) that is owned or controlled by persons of a contiguous foreign country; and 

(B) in the case of a person that is not a motor carrier 

of property, that provides interstate transportation of property by øcommercial motor vehicle (as defined in section 

31132)¿ motor vehicle under an agreement or contract entered into with a motor carrier of property (other than a 

motor private carrier or a motor carrier of property described in subparagraph (A)). 

(7) FOREIGN MOTOR PRIVATE CARRIER.—The term ‘‘foreign 

motor private carrier’’ means a person (including a motor private carrier but excluding a motor carrier of property)— 

(A)(i) that is domiciled in a contiguous foreign country; 

or 

(ii) that is owned or controlled by persons of a contiguous foreign country; and 

(B) in the case of a person that is not a motor private 

carrier, that provides interstate transportation of property 

by øcommercial motor vehicle (as defined in section 

31132)¿ motor vehicle under an agreement or contract entered into with a person (other than a motor carrier of 
241 

property or a motor private carrier described in subparagraph (A)). 

* * * * * * * 

(14) MOTOR CARRIER.—The term ‘‘motor carrier’’ means a 

person providing øcommercial motor vehicle (as defined in section 31132)¿ motor vehicle transportation for compensation. 

(15) MOTOR PRIVATE CARRIER.—The term ‘‘motor private 

carrier’’ means a person, other than a motor carrier, transporting property by øcommercial motor vehicle (as defined in 

section 31132)¿ motor vehicle when— 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 139—REGISTRATION 

* * * * * * * 

§ 13903. Registration of freight forwarders 

ø(a) IN GENERAL.—¿ 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall register a person to provide service subject to jurisdiction under subchapter III of chapter 

135 as a freight forwarder if the Secretary finds that the person is 

fit, willing, and able to provide the service and to comply with this 

part and applicable regulations of the Secretary and the Board. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 13904. Registration of brokers 

ø(a) IN GENERAL.—¿ 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall register, subject to section 

13906(b), a person to be a broker for transportation of property subject to jurisdiction under subchapter I of chapter 135, if the Secretary finds that the person is fit, willing, and able to be a broker 

for transportation and to comply with this part and applicable regulations of the Secretary. 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 147—ENFORCEMENT; INVESTIGATIONS; 

RIGHTS; REMEDIES 

§ 14710. Enforcement of Federal laws and regulations with 

respect to transportation of household goods 

(a) ENFORCEMENT BY STATES.—Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, øa State authority may¿ a State authority other 

than the attorney general of the state may, as parens patriae, enforce the consumer protection provisions of this title that apply to 

individual shippers, as determined by the Secretary, and are related to the delivery and transportation of household goods in 

interstate commerce. Any civil action for injunctive relief to enjoin 

such delivery or transportation or to compel a person to pay a fine 

or penalty assessed under chapter 149 shall be brought in an appropriate district court of the United States. Any fine or penalty imposed on a carrier in a proceeding under this subsection shall be 

paid, notwithstanding any other provision of law, to and retained 

by the State. 
242 

øNOTICE.—The State shall serve written notice to the Secretary or the Board, as the case may be, of any civil action under 

subsection (a) prior to initiating such civil action. The notice shall 

include a copy of the complaint to be filed to initiate such civil action, except that if it is not feasible for the State to provide such 

prior notice, the State shall provide the notice immediately upon 

instituting such civil action.¿ 

(b) EXERCISE OF ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY.—The authority of 

this section shall be exercised subject to the requirements of sections 

14711(b)–(f) of this title. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 14711. Enforcement by State attorneys general 

(a) * * * 

(b) NOTICE AND CONSENT.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The State shall serve written notice to 

the Secretary or the Board, as the case may be, of any civil action under subsection (a) prior to initiating such civil action. 

The notice shall include a copy of the complaint to be filed to 

initiate such civil action. The State may initiate a civil action 

under subsection (a) if it is reviewable under subsection (b)(2). 

* * * * * * * 

(4) 60-DAY DEADLINE.—The Secretary or the Board shall be 

considered to have consented to any civil action of a State 

under this section that is subject to review under subsection 

(b)(2) if the Secretary or the Board has taken no action with 

respect to the notice within 60 calendar days after the date on 

which the Secretary or the Board received notice under paragraph (1). 

* * * * * * * 

SUBTITLE VI—MOTOR VEHICLE AND DRIVER 

PROGRAMS 

* * * * * * * 

PART B—COMMERCIAL 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 311—COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY 

* * * * * * * 

SUBCHAPTER III—SAFETY REGULATION 

* * * * * * * 

§ 31138. Minimum financial responsibility for transporting 

passengers 

(a) GENERAL REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary of Transportation 

shall prescribe regulations to require minimum levels of financial 

responsibility sufficient to satisfy liability amounts established by 

the Secretary covering public liability and property damage for the 

motor vehicle transportation of passengers for compensation øby 
243 

commercial motor vehicle¿ by a for-hire motor carrier or private 

motor carrier (as such terms are defined in section 390.5 of title 49, 

Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on the date of enactment 

of this parenthetical phrase) in the United States between a place 

in a State and— 

* * * * * * * 

§ 31139. Minimum financial responsibility for transporting 

property 

* * * * * * * 

(b) GENERAL REQUIREMENT AND MINIMUM AMOUNT.—(1) The 

Secretary of Transportation shall prescribe regulations to require 

minimum levels of financial responsibility sufficient to satisfy liability amounts established by the Secretary covering public liability, property damage, and environmental restoration for the motor 

vehicle transportation of property for compensation øby commercial 

motor vehicle¿ by a for-hire motor carrier or private motor carrier 

(as such terms are defined in section 390.5 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on the date of enactment of this parenthetical phrase)in the United States between a place in a State 

and— 

* * * * * * * 

SUBTITLE VII—AVIATION PROGRAMS 

* * * * * * * 

PART A—AIR COMMERCE AND SAFETY 

* * * * * * * 

SUBPART III—SAFETY 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 443—INSURANCE 

* * * * * * * 

§ 44302. General authority 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(f) EXTENSION OF POLICIES.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall extend through August 

31, ø2006,¿ 2007, and may extend through December 31, 

ø2006,¿ 2007, the termination date of any insurance policy 

that the Department of Transportation issued to an air carrier 

under subsection (a) and that is in effect on the date of enactment of this subsection on no less favorable terms to the air 

carrier than existed on June 19, 2002; except that the Secretary shall amend the insurance policy, subject to such terms 

and conditions as the Secretary may prescribe, to add coverage 

for losses or injuries to aircraft hulls, passengers, and crew at 

the limits carried by air carriers for such losses and injuries 

as of such date of enactment and at an additional premium 
244 

comparable to the premium charged for third-party casualty 

coverage under such policy. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 44303. Coverage 

(a) * * * 

(b) AIR CARRIER LIABILITY FOR THIRD PARTY CLAIMS ARISING

OUT OF ACTS OF TERRORISM.—For acts of terrorism committed on 

or to an air carrier during the period beginning on September 22, 

2001, and ending on December 31, ø2006,¿ 2007, the Secretary 

may certify that the air carrier was a victim of an act of terrorism 

and in the Secretary’s judgment, based on the Secretary’s analysis 

and conclusions regarding the facts and circumstances of each case, 

shall not be responsible for losses suffered by third parties (as referred to in section 205.5(b)(1) of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations) that exceed $100,000,000, in the aggregate, for all claims by 

such parties arising out of such act. If the Secretary so certifies, 

the air carrier shall not be liable for an amount that exceeds 

$100,000,000, in the aggregate, for all claims by such parties arising out of such act, and the Government shall be responsible for 

any liability above such amount. No punitive damages may be 

awarded against an air carrier (or the Government taking responsibility for an air carrier under this subsection) under a cause of action arising out of such act. The Secretary may extend the provisions of this subsection to an aircraft manufacturer (as defined in 

section 44301) of the aircraft of the air carrier involved. 

* * * * * * * 

NATIONAL HOUSING ACT 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE II—MORTGAGE INSURANCE 

* * * * * * * 

INSURANCE OF HOME EQUITY CONVERSION MORTGAGES FOR ELDERLY

HOMEOWNERS

SEC. 255. (a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(g) LIMITATION ON INSURANCE AUTHORITY.—øThe aggregate number of mortgages insured under this section may not exceed 

250,000.¿ In no case may the benefits of insurance under this section exceed the maximum dollar amount established under section 

203(b)(2) for 1-family residences in the area in which the dwelling 

subject to the mortgage under this section is located. To minimize 

the risk to the General Insurance Fund, prior to insuring a mortgage under this section, the Secretary shall consider the number of 

mortgages already insured under this section in that geographic region. 

* * * * * * * 
245 

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¿ 2007. 

* * * * * * * 

UNITED STATES HOUSING ACT OF 1937 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 24. * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(m) FUNDING.— (1) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated for grants under this section 

$600,000,000 for fiscal year 1999 and such sums as may be 

necessary for each of fiscal years 2000 øthrough 2006¿ 2007. 

* * * * * * * 

(n) SUNSET.—No assistance may be provided under this section 

after øSeptember 30, 2006¿ September 30, 2007. 

* * * * * * * 

INTERNATIONAL AIR TRANSPORTATION COMPETITION 

ACT OF 1979, PUBLIC LAW 96–192 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 29. (a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(c) Subsections (a) and (b) shall not apply with respect to, and 

it is found consistent with the public convenience and necessity to 

authorize, transportation of individuals, by air, on a flight between 

Love Field, Texas, and one or more points within the States of Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Texas by an air 

øcarrier, if (1) such air carrier does not offer or provide any 

through service or ticketing with another air carrier or foreign air 

carrier, and (2) such air carrier does not offer for sale transportation to or from, and the flight or aircraft does not serve, any 

point which is outside any such State. Nothing in this subsection 

shall be construed to give authority not otherwise provided by law 

to the Secretary of Transportation, the Civil Aeronautics Board, 

any other officer or employee of the United States, or any other 

person.¿ carrier. Air carriers and, with regard to foreign air transportation, foreign air carriers, may offer for sale and provide 

through service and ticketing to or from Love Field, Texas, and any 

domestic or foreign destination through any point within Texas, 
246 

New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, 

Missouri, and Alabama. 

* * * * * * * 

GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT REFORM ACT OF 1994, 

PUBLIC LAW 103–356 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE IV—FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 403. FRANCHISE FUND PILOT PROGRAMS. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(f) TERMINATION.—The provisions of this section shall expire on 

øOctober 1, 2006¿ October 1, 2007. 

* * * * * * * 

DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING 

AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT 

AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998, PUBLIC LAW 

105–65 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE V—HUD MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REFORM 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 579. TERMINATION. 

‘‘(a) REPEALS.— ‘‘(1) MARK-TO-MARKET PROGRAM.—Subtitle A (except for 

section 524) is repealed effective øOctober 1, 2006¿ October 1, 

2011. 

‘‘(2) OMHAR.—Subtitle D (except for this section) is repealed effective October 1, 2004. 

‘‘(b) EXCEPTION.—Notwithstanding the repeal under subsection 

(a), the provisions of subtitle A (as in effect immediately before 

such repeal) shall apply with respect to projects and programs for 

which binding commitments have been entered into under this Act 

before øOctober 1, 2006¿ October 1, 2011. 

* * * * * * * 

DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, 

THE JUICIARY, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998, PUBLIC LAW 105–119 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 122. (a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(g)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law and subject to 

paragraph (2), the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to establish, for a period of ø8 years¿ 9 years from date of enactment of 

this provision, a personnel management demonstration project pro-
247 

viding for the compensation and performance management of not 

more than a combined total of 950 employees who fill critical scientific, technical, engineering, intelligence analyst, language translator, and medical positions in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and 

Firearms. 

* * * * * * * 

CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005, PUBLIC 

LAW 108–447 

* * * * * * * 

DIVISION H—TRANSPORTATION, TREASURY, INDEPENDENT 

AGENCIES, AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE V—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 522. (a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

ø(d) INDEPENDENT, THIRD-PARTY REVIEW.— ø(1) IN GENERAL.—At least every 2 years, each agency 

shall have performed an independent, third party review of the 

use of information in identifiable form as the privacy and data 

protection procedures of the agency to— 

ø(A) determine the accuracy of the description of the 

use of information in identifiable form; 

ø(B) determine the effectiveness of the privacy and 

data protection procedures; 

ø(C) ensure compliance with the stated privacy and 

data protection policies of the agency and applicable laws 

and regulations; and 

ø(D) ensure that all technologies used to collect, use, 

store, and disclose information in identifiable form allow 

for continuous auditing of compliance with stated privacy 

policies and practices governing the collection, use and distribution of information in the operation of the program. 

ø(2) PURPOSES.—The purposes of reviews under this subsection are to— 

ø(A) ensure the agency’s description of the use of information in an identifiable form is accurate and accounts for 

the agency’s current technology and its processing of information in an identifiable form; 

ø(B) measure actual privacy and data protection practices against the agency’s recorded privacy and data protection procedures; 

ø(C) ensure compliance and consistency with both online and offline stated privacy and data protection policies; 

and 

ø(D) provide agencies with ongoing awareness and recommendations regarding privacy and data protection procedures. 
248 

ø(3) REQUIREMENTS OF REVIEW.—The Inspector General of 

each agency shall contract with an independent, third party 

that is a recognized leader in privacy consulting, privacy technology, data collection and data use management, and global 

privacy issues, to— 

ø(A) evaluate the agency’s use of information in identifiable form; 

ø(B) evaluate the privacy and data protection procedures of the agency; and 

ø(C) recommend strategies and specific steps to improve privacy and data protection management. 

ø(4) CONTENT.—Each review under this subsection shall 

include— 

ø(A) a review of the agency’s technology, practices and 

procedures with regard to the collection, use, sharing, disclosure, transfer and storage of information in identifiable 

form; 

ø(B) a review of the agency’s stated privacy and data 

protection procedures with regard to the collection, use, 

sharing, disclosure, transfer, and security of personal information in identifiable form relating to agency employees 

and the public; 

ø(C) a detailed analysis of agency intranet, network 

and Websites for privacy vulnerabilities, including— 

ø(i) noncompliance with stated practices, procedures and policies; and 

ø(ii) risks for inadvertent release of information in 

an identifiable form from the website of the agency; 

and 

ø(D) a review of agency compliance with this Act.¿ 

(d) INSPECTOR GENERAL REVIEW.—The Inspector General of 

each agency shall periodically conduct a review of the agency’s implementation of this section and shall report the results of its review 

to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 

and the Senate, the House Committee on Government Reform, and 

the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. The report required by this review may be incorporated into 

a related report to Congress otherwise required by law including, 

but not limited to, 44 U.S.C. § 3545, the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002. The Inspector General may contract 

with an independent, third party organization to conduct the review. 

* * * * * * * 

SAFE, ACCOUNTABLE, FLEXIBLE, EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT: A LEGACY FOR USERS, PUBLIC LAW 109–59 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE IV—MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY 

* * * * * * * 
249 

Subtitle C—Unified Carrier Registration Act of 2005 

SEC. 4301. * * * 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 4305. REGISTRATION OF MOTOR CARRIERS BY STATES. 

(a) TERMINATION OF REGISTRATION PROVISIONS.— 

(1) Section 14504, and the item relating to such section in 

the analysis for chapter 145, of title 49, United States Code, 

are repealed effective on the first January 1st occurring more 

than ø12¿ 24 months after the date of enactment of this Act. 

(2) The Department of Transportation and the board of directors for the unified carrier registration plan shall conclude 

and complete any and all rulemakings, final rules, and administrative procedures to constitute final agency actions and implementation of all Federal obligations and requirements for 

the Uniform Carrier Registration system plan and agreement 

under this Act on the first April 1 occurring more than 12 

months after the date of enactment of this Act. 

(3) The Government Accountability Office shall provide 

quarterly reports to the Congress on the progress being made to 

meet the statutory requirements of this section. 

BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL 

PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 

308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93–344, AS AMENDED 

[In millions of dollars] 

Budget authority Outlays 

Committee 

allocation Amount of bill Committee allocation Amount of bill 

Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations 

to its subcommittees of budget totals for 2007: Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, the Judiciary, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies: 

Discretionary ........................................................................ 69,000 69,000 NA 1 130,172 

Mandatory ............................................................................ 19,927 19,927 NA 1 19,922 

Projection of outlays associated with the recommendation: 

2007 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 2 74,199 

2008 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 35,623 

2009 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 14,082 

2010 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 6,413 

2011 and future years ........................................................ .................... .................... .................... 6,887 

Financial assistance to State and local governments for 

2007 ......................................................................................... NA 27,264 NA 24,522 

1 Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

2 Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

NA: Not applicable. 
250 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2006 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee rec- ommendation Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 2006 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Office of the Secretary 

Salaries and expenses ............................................................................. 84,052 92,742 65,973 92,742 ∂8,690 ............................ ∂26,769 

Immediate Office of the Secretary .................................................. (2,176 ) ............................ (2,176 ) (2,255 ) (∂79 ) (∂2,255 ) (∂79 ) Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary ..................................... (691 ) ............................ (691 ) (717 ) (∂26 ) (∂717 ) (∂26 ) Office of the General Counsel ........................................................ (15,031 ) ............................ (15,031 ) (15,681 ) (∂650 ) (∂15,681 ) (∂650 ) Office of the Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy ............ (11,534 ) ............................ (11,534 ) (11,934 ) (∂400 ) (∂11,934 ) (∂400 ) Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs ......... (8,400 ) ............................ (8,400 ) (10,002 ) (∂1,602 ) (∂10,002 ) (∂1,602 ) Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs ........... (2,270 ) ............................ ............................ (2,319 ) (∂49 ) (∂2,319 ) (∂2,319 ) Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration ..................... (21,811 ) ............................ (19,111 ) (25,108 ) (∂3,297 ) (∂25,108 ) (∂5,997 ) Office of Public Affairs ................................................................... (1,891 ) ............................ ............................ (1,932 ) (∂41 ) (∂1,932 ) (∂1,932 ) Executive Secretariat ....................................................................... (1,428 ) ............................ ............................ (1,478 ) (∂50 ) (∂1,478 ) (∂1,478 ) Board of Contract Appeals ............................................................. (690 ) ............................ (707 ) (707 ) (∂17 ) (∂707 ) ............................Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization .............. (1,252 ) ............................ (1,286 ) (1,286 ) (∂34 ) (∂1,286 ) ............................Office of Intelligence and Security ................................................. (2,013 ) ............................ (2,722 ) ............................ (¥2,013 ) ............................ (¥2,722 ) Office of the Chief Information Officer .......................................... (11,776 ) ............................ ............................ (12,281 ) (∂505 ) (∂12,281 ) (∂12,281 ) Office of emergency transportation ................................................ (3,089 ) ............................ (4,386 ) ............................ (¥3,089 ) ............................ (¥4,386 ) Office of Intelligence Security and Emergency Response .............. ............................ ............................ (7,041 ) (7,042 ) (∂7,042 ) (∂7,042 ) (∂1 ) User fees ......................................................................................... (¥2,500 ) ............................ ............................ (¥2,500 ) ............................ (¥2,500 ) (¥2,500 ) Spending of user fees ..................................................................... (2,500 ) ............................ ............................ (2,500 ) ............................ (∂2,500 ) (∂2,500 ) 

Subtotal ...................................................................................... (84,052 ) (92,742 ) (65,973 ) (92,742 ) (∂8,690 ) ............................ (∂26,769 ) 

Office of Civil Rights ............................................................................... 8,465 8,821 8,821 8,821 ∂356 ............................ ............................Rescission of excess compensation for air carriers ................................ ............................ ¥50,000 ¥50,000 ¥50,000 ¥50,000 ............................ ............................Transportation planning, research, and development ............................. 14,850 8,910 4,910 9,334 ¥5,516 ∂424 ∂4,424 Working capital fund ............................................................................... (118,014 ) ............................ (120,000 ) (123,418 ) (∂5,404 ) (∂123,418 ) (∂3,418 ) Minority business resource center program ............................................ 891 891 891 1,287 ∂396 ∂396 ∂396 

(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ................................................... (18,367 ) (18,367 ) (18,367 ) (18,367 ) ............................ ............................ ............................

Minority business outreach ...................................................................... 2,970 2,970 2,970 2,970 ............................ ............................ ............................New headquarters building ...................................................................... 49,500 59,400 ............................ 59,400 ∂9,900 ............................ ∂59,400 Payments to air carriers (Airport & Airway Trust Fund) ......................... 59,400 ............................ 67,000 67,000 ∂7,600 ∂67,000 ............................
251 

General Aviation and Fixed Based Operator Reimbursement (sec. 

186) ..................................................................................................... 16,830 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥16,830 ............................ ............................

Total, Office of the Secretary ..................................................... 236,958 173,734 150,565 241,554 ∂4,596 ∂67,820 ∂90,989 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Operations ................................................................................................ 8,104,140 8,366,000 8,360,000 8,366,000 ∂261,860 ............................ ∂6,000 

Air traffic organization .................................................................... (6,562,700 ) ............................ (6,698,728 ) (6,690,108 ) (∂127,408 ) (∂6,690,108 ) (¥8,620 ) Aviation Safety ................................................................................ (948,957 ) ............................ (997,718 ) (997,718 ) (∂48,761 ) (∂997,718 ) ............................Commercial Space Transportation .................................................. (11,641 ) ............................ (11,985 ) (11,722 ) (∂81 ) (∂11,722 ) (¥263 ) Financial Services ........................................................................... (50,473 ) ............................ (92,227 ) (93,620 ) (∂43,147 ) (∂93,620 ) (∂1,393 ) Human Resource Management ....................................................... (69,244 ) ............................ (87,850 ) (87,850 ) (∂18,606 ) (∂87,850 ) ............................Region and Center Operations ........................................................ (149,237 ) ............................ (272,821 ) (272,821 ) (∂123,584 ) (∂272,821 ) ............................Staff Offices .................................................................................... (140,580 ) ............................ (175,392 ) (175,655 ) (∂35,075 ) (∂175,655 ) (∂263 ) Information Services ....................................................................... (35,751 ) ............................ (36,779 ) (36,506 ) (∂755 ) (∂36,506 ) (¥273 ) Flight Service Stations A–76 transition ......................................... (148,500 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (¥148,500 ) ............................ ............................Undistributed reduction .................................................................. ............................ ............................ (¥13,500 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (∂13,500 ) 

Subtotal ...................................................................................... 8,104,140 8,366,000 8,360,000 8,366,000 ∂261,860 ............................ ∂6,000 

Facilities & equipment (Airport & Airway Trust Fund) ............................ 2,514,600 2,503,000 3,110,000 2,549,510 ∂34,910 ∂46,510 ¥560,490 

Emergency appropriations (Public Law 109–148) ......................... 40,600 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥40,600 ............................ ............................

Research, engineering, and development (Airport and Airway Trust 

Fund) .................................................................................................... 136,620 130,000 134,000 135,500 ¥1,120 ∂5,500 ∂1,500 

Grants-in-aid for airports (Airport and Airway Trust Fund) (Liquidation 

of contract authorization) .................................................................... (3,399,000 ) (4,000,000 ) (4,171,000 ) (4,000,000 ) (∂601,000 ) ............................ (¥171,000 ) 

(Limitation on obligations) ............................................................. (3,514,500 ) (2,750,000 ) (3,700,000 ) (3,520,000 ) (∂5,500 ) (∂770,000 ) (¥180,000 ) Small community air service development program ...................... (9,900 ) ............................ (10,000 ) (10,000 ) (∂100 ) (∂10,000 ) ............................Airport Cooperative Research Program ........................................... (9,900 ) ............................ (10,000 ) (10,000 ) (∂100 ) (∂10,000 ) ............................2007 F&E Pop-up contract authority .............................................. 513,000 607,000 ............................ 560,490 ∂47,490 ¥46,510 ∂560,490 Rescission of contract authority (2006 F&E Pop-up) .................... ¥513,000 ¥607,000 ............................ ¥560,490 ¥47,490 ∂46,510 ¥560,490 Rescission of contract authority (2006 AIP) .................................. ¥50,000 ¥950,000 ............................ ¥180,000 ¥130,000 ∂770,000 ¥180,000 Rescission of contract authority (prior yr Pop-up) ......................... ¥469,000 ¥25,000 ¥25,000 ¥25,000 ∂444,000 ............................ ............................

Subtotal ...................................................................................... (2,995,500 ) (1,775,000 ) (3,675,000 ) (3,315,000 ) (∂319,500 ) (∂1,540,000 ) (¥360,000 ) 

War risk insurance program extension .................................................... ¥80,000 ............................ ¥125,000 ¥125,000 ¥45,000 ¥125,000 ............................

Total, Federal Aviation Administration ....................................... 11,228,960 11,606,000 11,479,000 11,486,500 ∂257,540 ¥119,500 ∂7,500 (Limitations on obligations) ....................................................... (3,514,500 ) (2,750,000 ) (3,700,000 ) (3,520,000 ) (∂5,500 ) (∂770,000 ) (¥180,000 ) 
252 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2006 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee rec- ommendation Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 2006 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 

Rescissions of contract authority ............................................... ¥1,032,000 ¥1,582,000 ¥25,000 ¥765,490 ∂266,510 ∂816,510 ¥740,490 

Total budgetary resources ...................................................... (13,711,460 ) (12,774,000 ) (15,154,000 ) (14,241,010 ) (∂529,550 ) (∂1,467,010 ) (¥912,990 ) 

Federal Highway Administration 

Limitation on administrative expenses .................................................... (360,992 ) (372,504 ) (372,504 ) (378,504 ) (∂17,512 ) (∂6,000 ) (∂6,000 ) Federal-aid highways (Highway Trust Fund): 

(Liquidation of contract authorization) ........................................... (36,032,344 ) (39,086,465 ) (39,086,465 ) (39,086,465 ) (∂3,054,121 ) ............................ ............................

(Limitation on obligations) .................................................... (35,672,021 ) (39,086,465 ) (39,086,465 ) (39,086,465 ) (∂3,414,444 ) ............................ ............................(Exempt contract authority) ................................................... (739,000 ) (739,000 ) (739,000 ) (739,000 ) ............................ ............................ ............................(Transfer to NHTSA) ............................................................... (¥121,232 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (∂121,232 ) ............................ ............................

Rescission of contract authority (Highway Trust Fund) .......................... ............................ ............................ ¥69,608 ............................ ............................ ............................ ∂69,608 Appalachian development highway system ............................................. 19,800 ............................ ............................ 20,000 ∂200 ∂20,000 ∂20,000 Delta Regional Authority .......................................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ 20,000 ∂20,000 ∂20,000 ∂20,000 Emergency relief programs (Highway Trust Fund): 

Emergency appropriations (Public Law 109–148) ......................... 2,750,000 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥2,750,000 ............................ ............................Emergency appropriations (Public Law 109–234) ......................... 702,363 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥702,363 ............................ ............................

Rescission of contract authority (Hwy Trust Fund) ................................. ¥1,999,999 ............................ ¥2,000,000 ¥1,500,983 ∂499,016 ¥1,500,983 ∂499,017 Rescission of contract authority (HTF) (Public Law 109–148) ............... ¥1,143,000 ............................ ............................ ............................ ∂1,143,000 ............................ ............................Rescission of contract authority (HTF) (Public Law 109–234) ............... ¥702,363 ............................ ............................ ............................ ∂702,363 ............................ ............................Additional contract authority (sec. 112) ................................................. 618,000 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥618,000 ............................ ............................TIFIA (rescission of contract authority) (sec. 125) .................................. ............................ ............................ ¥100,000 ............................ ............................ ............................ ∂100,000 Unobligated balances (rescission of contract authority) ........................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................Unobligated balances (rescission) ........................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................

Total, Federal Highway Administration ...................................... 244,801 ............................ ¥2,169,608 ¥1,460,983 ¥1,705,784 ¥1,460,983 ∂708,625 (Limitations on obligations) ....................................................... (35,672,021 ) (39,086,465 ) (39,086,465 ) (39,086,465 ) (∂3,414,444 ) ............................ ............................(Transfer out) .............................................................................. (¥121,232 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (∂121,232 ) ............................ ............................(Exempt contract authority) ........................................................ (739,000 ) (739,000 ) (739,000 ) (739,000 ) ............................ ............................ ............................Rescissions ................................................................................. ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................
253 

Rescissions of contract authority ............................................... ¥3,845,362 ............................ ¥2,169,608 ¥1,500,983 ∂2,344,379 ¥1,500,983 ∂668,625 

Total budgetary resources ...................................................... (32,444,427 ) (39,825,465 ) (37,655,857 ) (38,324,482 ) (∂5,880,055 ) (¥1,500,983 ) (∂668,625 ) 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 

Motor carrier safety (limitation on administrative expenses) (liquidation of contract authorization) ............................................................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................

(Limitation on obligations) ............................................................. ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................

Motor carrier safety operations and programs (Highway Trust Fund) 

(Liquidation of contract authorization) ............................................... (213,000 ) (223,000 ) (223,000 ) (223,000 ) (∂10,000 ) ............................ ............................

(Limitation on obligations) ............................................................. (210,870 ) (223,000 ) (223,000 ) (223,000 ) (∂12,130 ) ............................ ............................

National motor carrier safety program (Highway Trust Fund) (Liquidation of contract authorization) ............................................................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................

Rescission of contract authority (HTF) ........................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥3,420 ¥3,420 ¥3,420 ¥3,420 (Limitation on obligations) ............................................................. ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................

Motor carrier safety grants (Highway Trust Fund): 

Rescission of contract authority (HTF) ........................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥27,123 ¥27,123 ¥27,123 ¥27,123 (Liquidation of contract authorization) ........................................... (282,000 ) (294,000 ) (294,000 ) (294,000 ) (∂12,000 ) ............................ ............................(Limitation on obligations) ............................................................. (279,180 ) (294,000 ) (294,000 ) (294,000 ) (∂14,820 ) ............................ ............................

Total, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Admin ................................. ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................(Limitations on obligations) ....................................................... (490,050 ) (517,000 ) (517,000 ) (517,000 ) (∂26,950 ) ............................ ............................Rescissions of contract authority ............................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥30,543 ¥30,543 ¥30,543 ¥30,543 

Total budgetary resources ...................................................... (490,050 ) (517,000 ) (517,000 ) (517,000 ) (∂26,950 ) ............................ ............................

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

Operations and research (General fund) ................................................. ............................ ............................ 128,700 123,750 ∂123,750 ∂123,750 ¥4,950 Operations and research (Highway trust fund): 

(Liquidation of contract authorization) ........................................... (110,000 ) (227,250 ) (107,750 ) (107,750 ) (¥2,250 ) (¥119,500 ) ............................

(Limitation on obligations) .................................................... (108,900 ) (227,250 ) (107,750 ) (107,750 ) (¥1,150 ) (¥119,500 ) ............................(Transfer from FHWA) ............................................................. (121,232 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (¥121,232 ) ............................ ............................

Rescission of contract authority ................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥6,773 ¥6,773 ¥6,773 ¥6,773 

National Driver Register (Highway trust fund): 

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

(Limitation on obligations) .................................................... (3,960 ) (4,000 ) (4,000 ) (4,000 ) (∂40 ) ............................ ............................

Rescission of contract authority ................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥8 ¥8 ¥8 ¥8 

Highway traffic safety grants (Highway Trust Fund): 

(Liquidation of contract authorization) ........................................... (578,176 ) (583,750 ) (587,750 ) (583,750 ) (∂5,574 ) ............................ (¥4,000 ) 
254 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2006 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee rec- ommendation Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 2006 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 

(Limitation on obligations): 

Highway safety programs (Sec. 402) ........................... (214,830 ) (220,000 ) (220,000 ) (220,000 ) (∂5,170 ) ............................ ............................Formula grants (Sec. 402(k)) ....................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................Formula grants (Sec. 402(l)) ........................................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................Occupant protection incentive grants (Sec. 405) ........ (24,750 ) (25,000 ) (25,000 ) (25,000 ) (∂250 ) ............................ ............................Safety belt performance grants (Sec. 406) .................. (123,255 ) (124,500 ) (124,500 ) (124,500 ) (∂1,245 ) ............................ ............................Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures grants 

(Sec. 410) ................................................................. (118,800 ) (125,000 ) (125,000 ) (125,000 ) (∂6,200 ) ............................ ............................

Emergency medical services grants (Sec. 407) ........... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................State traffic safety information system improvement 

grants (Sec. 408) ..................................................... (34,155 ) (34,500 ) (34,500 ) (34,500 ) (∂345 ) ............................ ............................

High visibility enforcement ........................................... (28,710 ) (25,000 ) (29,000 ) (25,000 ) (¥3,710 ) ............................ (¥4,000 ) Child safety and booster seat grants .......................... (5,940 ) (6,000 ) (6,000 ) (6,000 ) (∂60 ) ............................ ............................Motorcyclist safety ........................................................ (5,940 ) (6,000 ) (6,000 ) (6,000 ) (∂60 ) ............................ ............................Grant administration ..................................................... (16,014 ) (17,750 ) (17,750 ) (17,750 ) (∂1,736 ) ............................ ............................Rescission of unobligated balances ............................. ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥5,647 ¥5,647 ¥5,647 ¥5,647 

Subtotal .................................................................... (572,394 ) (583,750 ) (587,750 ) (583,750 ) (∂11,356 ) ............................ (¥4,000 ) Total, National Highway Traffic Safety Admin ......... ............................ ............................ 128,700 111,322 ∂111,322 ∂111,322 ¥17,378 (Limitations on obligations) ..................................... (685,254 ) (815,000 ) (699,500 ) (695,500 ) (∂10,246 ) (¥119,500 ) (¥4,000 ) (By transfer) ............................................................. (121,232 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (¥121,232 ) ............................ ............................Rescissions ............................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥5,647 ¥5,647 ¥5,647 ¥5,647 Rescissions of contract authority ............................. ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥6,781 ¥6,781 ¥6,781 ¥6,781 

Total budgetary resources .................................... (806,486 ) (815,000 ) (828,200 ) (806,822 ) (∂336 ) (¥8,178 ) (¥21,378 ) 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Safety and operations .............................................................................. 144,490 150,578 150,153 150,578 ∂6,088 ............................ ∂425 Railroad research and development ........................................................ 54,524 34,650 ............................ 34,650 ¥19,874 ............................ ∂34,650 Railroad rehabilitation and improvement program ................................. ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................
255 

Next generation high-speed rail .............................................................. ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................Alaska Railroad rehabilitation ................................................................. 9,900 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥9,900 ............................ ............................

National Railroad Passenger Corporation 

Operating subsidy grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation ....................................................................................................... 490,050 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥490,050 ............................ ............................Capital grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation ............ 772,200 500,000 629,000 750,000 ¥22,200 ∂250,000 ∂121,000 

Rescission (Public Law 109–148) .................................................. ¥8,300 ............................ ............................ ............................ ∂8,300 ............................ ............................

Efficiency incentive grants to National Railroad Passenger Corporation ....................................................................................................... 39,600 400,000 485,000 650,000 ∂610,400 ∂250,000 ∂165,000 Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation ......................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................

Total, National Railroad Passenger Corporation ........................ 1,293,550 900,000 1,114,000 1,400,000 ∂106,450 ∂500,000 ∂286,000 Total, Federal Railroad Administration ...................................... 1,510,764 1,085,228 1,264,153 1,585,228 ∂74,464 ∂500,000 ∂321,075 

Federal Transit Administration 

Administrative expenses, general fund ................................................... 79,200 85,000 85,000 85,000 ∂5,800 ............................ ............................Administrative expenses (Highway Trust Fund, Mass Transit Account)(limitation on obligations) ......................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................

Office of the Administrator ............................................................. (916 ) ............................ (1,063 ) (1,063 ) (∂147 ) (∂1,063 ) ............................Office of Chief Counsel ................................................................... (4,017 ) ............................ (4,273 ) (4,273 ) (∂256 ) (∂4,273 ) ............................Office of Civil Rights ...................................................................... (3,121 ) ............................ (3,272 ) (3,272 ) (∂151 ) (∂3,272 ) ............................Office of Communications and Congressional Affairs ................... (1,345 ) ............................ (1,394 ) (1,394 ) (∂49 ) (∂1,394 ) ............................Office of Budget and Policy ............................................................ (8,646 ) ............................ (9,259 ) (9,259 ) (∂613 ) (∂9,259 ) ............................Office of Planning ........................................................................... (4,086 ) ............................ (4,718 ) (4,718 ) (∂632 ) (∂4,718 ) ............................Office of Program Management ...................................................... (7,906 ) ............................ (8,403 ) (8,403 ) (∂497 ) (∂8,403 ) ............................Office of Demonstration and Innovation ........................................ (4,716 ) ............................ (4,876 ) (4,876 ) (∂160 ) (∂4,876 ) ............................Office of Administration .................................................................. (7,252 ) ............................ (7,654 ) (7,654 ) (∂402 ) (∂7,654 ) ............................Central Account ............................................................................... (16,648 ) ............................ (17,668 ) (17,668 ) (∂1,020 ) (∂17,668 ) ............................Regional offices .............................................................................. (20,546 ) ............................ (22,420 ) (22,420 ) (∂1,874 ) (∂22,420 ) ............................National Transit database .............................................................. ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................

Subtotal ...................................................................................... (79,200 ) (85,000 ) (85,000 ) (85,000 ) (∂5,800 ) ............................ ............................

Formula and Bus Grants (Highway Trust Fund, Mass Transit Account) 

(limitation on obligations) ................................................................... (6,910,132 ) (7,262,775 ) (7,262,775 ) (7,262,775 ) (∂352,643 ) ............................ ............................

Formula and Bus Grants (rescission) ...................................................... ............................ ¥28,661 ¥28,661 ¥28,661 ¥28,661 ............................ ............................

Subtotal ...................................................................................... (6,910,132 ) (7,234,114 ) (7,234,114 ) (7,234,114 ) (∂323,982 ) ............................ ............................
256 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2006 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee rec- ommendation Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 2006 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 

Research and University Research Centers ............................................. 74,448 61,000 65,000 61,000 ¥13,448 ............................ ¥4,000 

Flexible funding ............................................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................

Trust fund share of expenses (Mass Transit Account, HTF) (liquidation 

of contract authorization) .................................................................... (6,910,132 ) (7,262,775 ) (7,262,775 ) (7,262,775 ) (∂352,643 ) ............................ ............................

Capital investment grants ....................................................................... 1,440,682 1,466,000 1,566,000 1,466,000 ∂25,318 ............................ ¥100,000 Small starts ............................................................................................. ............................ ............................ ¥17,760 ............................ ............................ ............................ ∂17,760 

Total, Federal Transit Administration ......................................... 1,594,330 1,583,339 1,669,579 1,583,339 ¥10,991 ............................ ¥86,240 (Limitations on obligations) ....................................................... (6,910,132 ) (7,262,775 ) (7,262,775 ) (7,262,775 ) (∂352,643 ) ............................ ............................

Total budgetary resources ...................................................... (8,504,462 ) (8,846,114 ) (8,932,354 ) (8,846,114 ) (∂341,652 ) ............................ (¥86,240 ) 

Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation 

Operations and maintenance (Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund) ............ 16,121 8,000 17,425 17,425 ∂1,304 ∂9,425 ............................

Maritime Administration 

Maritime security program ....................................................................... 154,440 154,440 154,440 154,440 ............................ ............................ ............................Operations and training ........................................................................... 121,027 115,830 116,442 115,830 ¥5,197 ............................ ¥612 

Emergency appropriations (Public Law 109–148) ......................... 7,500 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥7,500 ............................ ............................

Ship disposal ........................................................................................... 20,790 25,740 25,740 25,740 ∂4,950 ............................ ............................Vessel operations revolving fund ............................................................. ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................Maritime Guaranteed Loan (Title XI) Program Account: 

Administrative expenses ................................................................. 4,085 3,317 3,317 3,317 ¥768 ............................ ............................

Rescission .............................................................................. ............................ ¥2,000 ¥2,000 ............................ ............................ ∂2,000 ∂2,000 

Guarantee loans subsidy ................................................................ ............................ ............................ ............................ 30,000 ∂30,000 ∂30,000 ∂30,000 

National defense tank vessel program (rescission) ................................ ............................ ¥74,400 ¥74,400 ¥74,400 ¥74,400 ............................ ............................Ship construction (rescission) ................................................................. ¥2,071 ............................ ............................ ............................ ∂2,071 ............................ ............................Assistance to Small Shipyards ................................................................ ............................ ............................ ............................ 15,000 ∂15,000 ∂15,000 ∂15,000 

Total, Maritime Administration ................................................... 305,771 222,927 223,539 269,927 ¥35,844 ∂47,000 ∂46,388 
257 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 

Hazardous materials safety ..................................................................... 25,877 27,225 27,225 27,225 ∂1,348 ............................ ............................Administrative expenses .......................................................................... 16,070 17,082 17,082 17,082 ∂1,012 ............................ ............................

Pipeline Safety Fund ....................................................................... 639 639 639 639 ............................ ............................ ............................

Subtotal ...................................................................................... 16,709 17,721 17,721 17,721 ∂1,012 ............................ ............................

Pipeline safety: 

Pipeline Safety Fund ....................................................................... 57,430 56,925 56,925 56,925 ¥505 ............................ ............................Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund ........................................................... 14,850 18,810 18,810 18,810 ∂3,960 ............................ ............................

Subtotal ...................................................................................... 72,280 75,735 75,735 75,735 ∂3,455 ............................ ............................

Emergency preparedness grants: 

Emergency preparedness fund ........................................................ 198 198 198 198 ............................ ............................ ............................Limitation on emergency preparedness fund ................................. (14,157 ) (28,328 ) (28,328 ) (28,328 ) (∂14,171 ) ............................ ............................

Total, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration ......................................................................................... 115,064 120,879 120,879 120,879 ∂5,815 ............................ ............................

Research and Innovative Technology Administration 

Research and development ...................................................................... 5,716 8,217 6,367 8,217 ∂2,501 ............................ ∂1,850 Research and special programs .............................................................. ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................

(By transfer) .................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................

Office of Inspector General 

Salaries and expenses ............................................................................. 61,874 64,143 64,143 64,143 ∂2,269 ............................ ............................

Surface Transportation Board 

Salaries and expenses ............................................................................. 26,186 22,925 22,925 26,500 ∂314 ∂3,575 ∂3,575 

Offsetting collections ...................................................................... ¥1,250 ¥1,250 ¥1,250 ¥1,250 ............................ ............................ ............................

Total, Surface Transportation Board .......................................... 24,936 21,675 21,675 25,250 ∂314 ∂3,575 ∂3,575 Total, title I, Department of Transportation ............................... 14,304,995 13,262,142 12,901,417 13,206,768 ¥1,098,227 ¥55,374 ∂305,351 

Appropriations .................................................................... (15,692,265 ) (14,999,203 ) (15,251,086 ) (15,669,273 ) (¥22,992 ) (∂670,070 ) (∂418,187 ) Rescissions ........................................................................ (¥10,371 ) (¥155,061 ) (¥155,061 ) (¥158,708 ) (¥148,337 ) (¥3,647 ) (¥3,647 ) Rescission of contract authority ....................................... (¥4,877,362 ) (¥1,582,000 ) (¥2,194,608 ) (¥2,303,797 ) (∂2,573,565 ) (¥721,797 ) (¥109,189 ) Emergency appropriations ................................................. (3,500,463 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (¥3,500,463 ) ............................ ............................Offsetting collections ......................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................
258 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2006 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee rec- ommendation Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 2006 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 

(Limitations on obligations) ....................................................... (47,271,957 ) (50,431,240 ) (51,265,740 ) (51,081,740 ) (∂3,809,783 ) (∂650,500 ) (¥184,000 ) (Exempt contract authority) ........................................................ (739,000 ) (739,000 ) (739,000 ) (739,000 ) ............................ ............................ ............................(By transfer) ............................................................................... (121,232 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (¥121,232 ) ............................ ............................(Transfer out) .............................................................................. (¥121,232 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (∂121,232 ) ............................ ............................Total budgetary resources .......................................................... (62,315,952 ) (64,432,382 ) (64,906,157 ) (65,027,508 ) (∂2,711,556 ) (∂595,126 ) (∂121,351 ) Transportation discretionary total .............................................. 14,304,995 13,262,142 12,901,417 13,206,768 ¥1,098,227 ¥55,374 ∂305,351 

TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Departmental Offices 

Salaries and expenses ............................................................................. 194,626 223,874 223,786 223,874 ∂29,248 ............................ ∂88 

Executive direction .......................................................................... (8,556 ) (17,501 ) (8,760 ) (8,760 ) (∂204 ) (¥8,741 ) ............................General Counsel .............................................................................. (7,773 ) ............................ (8,741 ) (8,741 ) (∂968 ) (∂8,741 ) ............................Economic policies and programs .................................................... (31,691 ) (41,947 ) (41,947 ) (41,947 ) (∂10,256 ) ............................ ............................Financial policies and programs .................................................... (26,308 ) (25,336 ) (27,086 ) (25,336 ) (¥972 ) ............................ (¥1,750 ) Terrorism and Financial Intelligence .............................................. (39,540 ) (45,401 ) (45,401 ) (45,701 ) (∂6,161 ) (∂300 ) (∂300 ) Treasury wide management ............................................................ (16,675 ) (20,372 ) (18,534 ) (20,072 ) (∂3,397 ) (¥300 ) (∂1,538 ) Administration ................................................................................. (63,094 ) (73,317 ) (73,317 ) (73,317 ) (∂10,223 ) ............................ ............................Currency manipulation .................................................................... (990 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (¥990 ) ............................ ............................Undesignated reduction .................................................................. ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................Emergency appropriations (Public Law 109–234) ......................... 1,800 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥1,800 ............................ ............................

Subtotal ...................................................................................... (196,426 ) (223,874 ) (223,786 ) (223,874 ) (∂27,448 ) ............................ (∂88 ) 

Office of Foreign Assets Control .............................................................. ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................Department-wide systems and capital investments programs .............. 24,168 34,032 34,032 34,032 ∂9,864 ............................ ............................Office of Inspector General ...................................................................... 16,830 17,352 17,352 18,352 ∂1,522 ∂1,000 ∂1,000 Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration ................................. 131,953 136,469 136,469 136,469 ∂4,516 ............................ ............................Air transportation stabilization program account ................................... 2,723 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥2,723 ............................ ............................
259 

Community development financial institutions fund program account .................................................................................................... 54,450 7,821 40,000 55,000 ∂50 ∂47,179 ∂15,000 Treasury building and annex repair and restoration .............................. 9,900 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥9,900 ............................ ............................Financial Crimes Enforcement Network ................................................... 72,894 89,794 84,066 77,321 ∂4,427 ¥12,473 ¥6,745 

Total, Departmental Offices ....................................................... 509,344 509,342 535,705 545,048 ∂35,704 ∂35,706 ∂9,343 

Financial Management Service ................................................................ 233,881 233,654 233,654 233,654 ¥227 ............................ ............................Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau: 

Salaries and expenses .................................................................... 90,215 63,964 92,604 92,604 ∂2,389 ∂28,640 ............................Spending from proposed user fees ................................................. ............................ 28,640 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥28,640 ............................Offsetting collections ...................................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................

Subtotal ...................................................................................... 90,215 92,604 92,604 92,604 ∂2,389 ............................ ............................

Bureau of the Public Debt ....................................................................... 175,154 177,789 177,789 177,789 ∂2,635 ............................ ............................Payment of government losses in shipment ........................................... 1,000 500 500 500 ¥500 ............................ ............................

Total, Dept. of Treasury, non-IRS ............................................... 1,009,594 1,013,889 1,040,252 1,049,595 ∂40,001 ∂35,706 ∂9,343 

Internal Revenue Service 

Tax administration and operations .......................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................

Adjusted appropriation .................................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................

Processing, assistance, and management .............................................. 4,095,212 4,045,122 ............................ ............................ ¥4,095,212 ¥4,045,122 ............................

Rescission ....................................................................................... ¥20,000 ............................ ............................ ............................ ∂20,000 ............................ ............................

Taxpayer services ..................................................................................... ............................ ............................ 2,059,151 2,110,000 ∂2,110,000 ∂2,110,000 ∂50,849 Tax law enforcement ................................................................................ 4,678,498 4,762,327 ............................ ............................ ¥4,678,498 ¥4,762,327 ............................Enforcement ............................................................................................. ............................ ............................ 4,757,126 4,797,126 ∂4,797,126 ∂4,797,126 ∂40,000 Information systems ................................................................................. 1,582,977 1,602,232 ............................ ............................ ¥1,582,977 ¥1,602,232 ............................Operations support ................................................................................... ............................ ............................ 3,459,152 3,487,000 ∂3,487,000 ∂3,487,000 ∂27,848 

Subtotal ...................................................................................... 10,336,687 10,409,681 10,275,429 10,394,126 ∂57,439 ¥15,555 ∂118,697 

Business systems modernization ............................................................. 197,010 167,310 197,060 245,000 ∂47,990 ∂77,690 ∂47,940 Health Insurance Tax Credit Administration ........................................... 20,008 14,846 14,846 14,846 ¥5,162 ............................ ............................

Rescission ....................................................................................... ¥9,000 ............................ ............................ ............................ ∂9,000 ............................ ............................

IRS Oversight Board ................................................................................. ............................ ............................ ............................ 2,000 ∂2,000 ∂2,000 ∂2,000 

Total, Internal Revenue Service .................................................. 10,544,705 10,591,837 10,487,335 10,655,972 ∂111,267 ∂64,135 ∂168,637 
260 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2006 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee rec- ommendation Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 2006 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 

Total, title II, Department of the Treasury ................................. 11,554,299 11,605,726 11,527,587 11,705,567 ∂151,268 ∂99,841 ∂177,980 

Appropriations .................................................................... (11,581,499 ) (11,605,726 ) (11,527,587 ) (11,705,567 ) (∂124,068 ) (∂99,841 ) (∂177,980 ) Rescissions ........................................................................ (¥29,000 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (∂29,000 ) ............................ ............................

TITLE III—DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

Public and Indian Housing 

Tenant-based Rental Assistance: 

Renewals ......................................................................................... 13,948,858 14,436,200 14,506,200 14,436,200 ∂487,342 ............................ ¥70,000 Tenant protection vouchers ............................................................. 178,200 149,300 149,300 149,300 ¥28,900 ............................ ............................Family self-sufficiency coordinators ............................................... 47,520 47,500 47,500 47,500 ¥20 ............................ ............................Administrative fees ......................................................................... 1,237,500 1,281,100 1,137,500 1,271,100 ∂33,600 ¥10,000 ∂133,600 Working capital fund ...................................................................... 5,841 5,900 5,900 5,900 ∂59 ............................ ............................Family Unification ........................................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ 10,000 ∂10,000 ∂10,000 ∂10,000 

Subtotal ...................................................................................... 15,417,919 15,920,000 15,846,400 15,920,000 ∂502,081 ............................ ∂73,600 

Emergency appropriations (Public Law 109–148) ......................... 390,300 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥390,300 ............................ ............................Advance appropriations .................................................................. 4,200,000 4,200,000 4,200,000 4,200,000 ............................ ............................ ............................Less appropriations from prior year advances ............................... ¥4,200,000 ¥4,200,000 ¥4,200,000 ¥4,200,000 ............................ ............................ ............................

Total, Tenant-based rental assistance ...................................... 15,808,219 15,920,000 15,846,400 15,920,000 ∂111,781 ............................ ∂73,600 

Project-based rental assistance: 

Renewals ......................................................................................... 4,890,303 5,526,240 5,326,240 5,526,240 ∂635,937 ............................ ∂200,000 Contract administrators .................................................................. 145,728 145,500 145,500 145,500 ¥228 ............................ ............................Working capital fund ...................................................................... 1,386 3,960 3,960 3,960 ∂2,574 ............................ ............................

Total, Project-based rental assistance ...................................... 5,037,417 5,675,700 5,475,700 5,675,700 ∂638,283 ............................ ∂200,000 

Public Housing Capital Fund ................................................................... 2,438,964 2,178,000 2,208,000 2,460,000 ∂21,036 ∂282,000 ∂252,000 Public Housing Operating Fund ............................................................... 3,564,000 3,564,000 3,564,000 3,660,000 ∂96,000 ∂96,000 ∂96,000 Revitalization of severely distressed public housing .............................. 99,000 ............................ ............................ 100,000 ∂1,000 ∂100,000 ∂100,000 
261 

Native American housing block grants ................................................... 623,700 625,680 625,680 625,680 ∂1,980 ............................ ............................Indian housing loan guarantee fund program account .......................... 3,960 5,940 3,960 5,940 ∂1,980 ............................ ∂1,980 

(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ................................................... (116,276 ) (251,000 ) (116,276 ) (251,000 ) (∂134,724 ) ............................ (∂134,724 ) 

Native Hawaiian housing block grant ..................................................... 8,727 5,940 8,815 8,815 ∂88 ∂2,875 ............................Native Hawaiian loan guarantee fund program account ........................ 891 1,010 1,010 1,010 ∂119 ............................ ............................

(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ................................................... (35,714 ) (43,000 ) (43,000 ) (43,000 ) (∂7,286 ) ............................ ............................

Total, Public and Indian Housing .............................................. 27,584,878 27,976,270 27,733,565 28,457,145 ∂872,267 ∂480,875 ∂723,580 

Community Planning and Development 

Housing opportunities for persons with AIDS .......................................... 286,110 300,100 300,100 295,000 ∂8,890 ¥5,100 ¥5,100 Rural housing and economic development ............................................. 16,830 ............................ ............................ 20,000 ∂3,170 ∂20,000 ∂20,000 Community development fund ................................................................. 4,177,800 3,032,000 4,215,000 4,215,000 ∂37,200 ∂1,183,000 ............................Community development fund (sec. 424) ............................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................

Emergency appropriations (Public Law 109–148) ......................... 11,500,000 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥11,500,000 ............................ ............................Emergency appropriations (Public Law 109–234) ......................... 5,200,000 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥5,200,000 ............................ ............................

Transfer out (emergency) (Public Law 109–234) .................. (¥27,000 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (∂27,000 ) ............................ ............................

Section 108 loan guarantees: 

(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ................................................... (137,500 ) ............................ ............................ (137,500 ) ............................ (∂137,500 ) (∂137,500 ) Credit subsidy ................................................................................. 2,970 ............................ 2,970 3,000 ∂30 ∂3,000 ∂30 Administrative expenses ................................................................. 743 ............................ ............................ 750 ∂7 ∂750 ∂750 

Brownfields redevelopment ...................................................................... 9,900 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥9,900 ............................ ............................HOME investment partnerships program ................................................. 1,757,250 1,916,640 1,916,640 1,941,640 ∂184,390 ∂25,000 ∂25,000 Homeless assistance grants .................................................................... 1,326,600 1,535,990 1,535,990 1,511,190 ∂184,590 ¥24,800 ¥24,800 Self-help homeownership opportunity program ....................................... 60,390 39,700 60,390 66,000 ∂5,610 ∂26,300 ∂5,610 

Total, Community Planning and Development ........................... 24,338,593 6,824,430 8,031,090 8,052,580 ¥16,286,013 ∂1,228,150 ∂21,490 

Housing Programs 

Housing for the elderly ............................................................................ 734,580 545,490 746,580 750,000 ∂15,420 ∂204,510 ∂3,420 Housing for persons with disabilities ...................................................... 236,610 118,800 239,610 240,000 ∂3,390 ∂121,200 ∂390 Housing counseling assistance ............................................................... ............................ 44,550 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥44,550 ............................Manufactured housing fees trust fund ................................................... 13,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 ∂3,000 ............................ ............................

Offsetting collections ...................................................................... ¥13,000 ¥13,000 ¥13,000 ¥16,000 ¥3,000 ¥3,000 ¥3,000 Offsetting collections (leg proposal) .............................................. ............................ ¥3,000 ¥3,000 ............................ ............................ ∂3,000 ∂3,000 

Rental housing assistance ...................................................................... 26,136 24,750 24,750 24,750 ¥1,386 ............................ ............................

Total, Housing Programs ............................................................ 997,326 733,590 1,010,940 1,014,750 ∂17,424 ∂281,160 ∂3,810 
262 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2006 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee rec- ommendation Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 2006 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 

Federal Housing Administration 

FHA—Mutual mortgage insurance program account: 

(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ................................................... (185,000,000 ) (185,000,000 ) (185,000,000 ) (185,000,000 ) ............................ ............................ ............................(Limitation on direct loans) ............................................................ (50,000 ) (50,000 ) (50,000 ) (50,000 ) ............................ ............................ ............................Administrative expenses ................................................................. 351,450 351,450 351,450 351,450 ............................ ............................ ............................Offsetting receipts .......................................................................... ¥1,309,000 ¥176,000 ¥176,000 ¥176,000 ∂1,133,000 ............................ ............................Move prog to gen/spec risk (legislative proposal) ......................... ............................ ¥358,000 ............................ ............................ ............................ ∂358,000 ............................Administrative contract expenses ................................................... 61,974 62,400 52,400 52,400 ¥9,574 ¥10,000 ............................Additional contract expenses .......................................................... 1,000 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥1,000 ............................ ............................

FHA—General and special risk program account: 

(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ................................................... (35,000,000 ) (35,000,000 ) (35,000,000 ) (35,000,000 ) ............................ ............................ ............................(Limitation on direct loans) ............................................................ (50,000 ) (50,000 ) (50,000 ) (50,000 ) ............................ ............................ ............................Administrative expenses ................................................................. 229,086 229,086 229,086 229,086 ............................ ............................ ............................Offsetting receipts .......................................................................... ¥339,000 ¥476,000 ¥476,000 ¥476,000 ¥137,000 ............................ ............................Credit subsidy ................................................................................. 8,712 8,600 8,600 8,600 ¥112 ............................ ............................Non-overhead administrative expenses .......................................... 71,181 78,111 72,778 78,111 ∂6,930 ............................ ∂5,333 Additional contract expenses .......................................................... 4,000 4,000 ............................ 4,000 ............................ ............................ ∂4,000 Move programs from MMI (leg proposal) ....................................... ............................ 358,000 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥358,000 ............................FHA program modernization and reform (Sec. 325) ...................... ............................ ............................ ¥197,000 ............................ ............................ ............................ ∂197,000 

Total, Federal Housing Administration ....................................... ¥920,597 81,647 ¥134,686 71,647 ∂992,244 ¥10,000 ∂206,333 

Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA) 

Guarantees of mortgage-backed securities loan guarantee program 

account: 

(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ................................................... (200,000,000 ) (100,000,000 ) (100,000,000 ) (100,000,000 ) (¥100,000,000 ) ............................ ............................Administrative expenses ................................................................. 10,700 10,700 10,700 10,700 ............................ ............................ ............................Administrative expenses (legislative proposal) .............................. ............................ 43,000 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥43,000 ............................Offsetting receipts .......................................................................... ¥368,000 ¥181,000 ¥181,000 ¥181,000 ∂187,000 ............................ ............................Offsetting receipts (legislative proposal) ....................................... ............................ ¥43,000 ............................ ............................ ............................ ∂43,000 ............................
263 

Additional contract expenses .......................................................... ............................ 7,000 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥7,000 ............................

Total, Gov’t National Mortgage Association ............................... ¥357,300 ¥163,300 ¥170,300 ¥170,300 ∂187,000 ¥7,000 ............................

Policy Development and Research 

Research and technology ......................................................................... 55,787 68,360 55,787 60,000 ∂4,213 ¥8,360 ∂4,213 

Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity 

Fair housing activities ............................................................................. 45,540 44,550 44,550 44,550 ¥990 ............................ ............................

Office of Lead Hazard Control 

Lead hazard reduction ............................................................................. 150,480 114,840 149,840 152,000 ∂1,520 ∂37,160 ∂2,160 

Management and Administration 

Salaries and expenses ............................................................................. 573,210 594,000 493,240 594,000 ∂20,790 ............................ ∂100,760 

Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac fee proposal ............................................ ............................ ¥4,000 ............................ ............................ ............................ ∂4,000 ............................

Transfer from: 

Limitation on FHA corporate funds ............................... (562,400 ) (556,776 ) (556,776 ) (550,776 ) (¥11,624 ) (¥6,000 ) (¥6,000 ) GNMA ............................................................................. (10,700 ) (10,593 ) (10,700 ) (10,700 ) ............................ (∂107 ) ............................Community Development Loan Guarantees Program ... (750 ) ............................ ............................ (750 ) ............................ (∂750 ) (∂750 ) Native American Housing Block Grants ........................ (150 ) (148 ) (149 ) (149 ) (¥1 ) (∂1 ) ............................Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund Program ........... (250 ) (248 ) (248 ) (248 ) (¥2 ) ............................ ............................Native Hawaiian Housing Loan Guarantees ................. (35 ) (35 ) (35 ) (35 ) ............................ ............................ ............................

Subtotal .................................................................... (1,147,495 ) (1,157,800 ) (1,061,148 ) (1,156,658 ) (∂9,163 ) (¥1,142 ) (∂95,510 ) 

Transfer from CDF (emergency) (Public Law 109–234) ................. (12,000 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (¥12,000 ) ............................ ............................

Working capital fund ............................................................................... 195,030 219,780 ............................ 219,780 ∂24,750 ............................ ∂219,780 

Transfer from CDF(emergency) (Public Law 109–234) .................. (6,000 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (¥6,000 ) ............................ ............................

Office of Inspector General ...................................................................... 81,180 83,240 83,240 91,420 ∂10,240 ∂8,180 ∂8,180 

(By transfer, limitation on FHA corporate funds) ........................... (23,760 ) (23,760 ) (23,760 ) (23,760 ) ............................ ............................ ............................Transfer from CDF (emergency) (Public Law 109–234) ................. (9,000 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (¥9,000 ) ............................ ............................

Subtotal ...................................................................................... (113,940 ) (107,000 ) (107,000 ) (115,180 ) (∂1,240 ) (∂8,180 ) (∂8,180 ) 

Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight ...................................... 60,000 62,000 62,000 67,600 ∂7,600 ∂5,600 ∂5,600 

Offsetting receipts .......................................................................... ¥60,000 ¥62,000 ¥62,000 ¥67,600 ¥7,600 ¥5,600 ¥5,600 

Total, Management and Administration ..................................... 849,420 893,020 576,480 905,200 ∂55,780 ∂12,180 ∂328,720 
264 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2006 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee rec- ommendation Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 2006 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 

Rescissions: 

Housing certificate fund ................................................................. ¥2,050,000 ¥2,000,000 ¥2,000,000 ¥2,000,000 ∂50,000 ............................ ............................Revitalization of severely distressed public housing ..................... ............................ ¥99,000 ............................ ............................ ............................ ∂99,000 ............................Brownfields Redevelopment ............................................................ ¥10,000 ............................ ............................ ............................ ∂10,000 ............................ ............................Community Development Fund ....................................................... ............................ ¥356,400 ............................ ............................ ............................ ∂356,400 ............................

Subtotal ...................................................................................... ¥2,060,000 ¥2,455,400 ¥2,000,000 ¥2,000,000 ∂60,000 ∂455,400 ............................Total, title III, Department of Housing and Urban Development ....................................................................................... 50,684,127 34,118,007 35,297,266 36,587,572 ¥14,096,555 ∂2,469,565 ∂1,290,306 

Appropriations ........................................................... (33,542,827 ) (33,685,407 ) (34,205,266 ) (35,304,172 ) (∂1,761,345 ) (∂1,618,765 ) (∂1,098,906 ) Rescissions ............................................................... (¥2,060,000 ) (¥2,455,400 ) (¥2,000,000 ) (¥2,000,000 ) (∂60,000 ) (∂455,400 ) ............................Advance appropriations ............................................ (4,200,000 ) (4,200,000 ) (4,200,000 ) (4,200,000 ) ............................ ............................ ............................Emergency appropriations ........................................ (17,090,300 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (¥17,090,300 ) ............................ ............................Offsetting receipts .................................................... (¥2,016,000 ) (¥1,234,000 ) (¥1,030,000 ) (¥833,000 ) (∂1,183,000 ) (∂401,000 ) (∂197,000 ) Offsetting collections ................................................ (¥73,000 ) (¥78,000 ) (¥78,000 ) (¥83,600 ) (¥10,600 ) (¥5,600 ) (¥5,600 ) (By transfer) ............................................................. ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................

(Limitation on direct loans) .............................................. (100,000 ) (100,000 ) (100,000 ) (100,000 ) ............................ ............................ ............................(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ..................................... (420,289,490 ) (320,294,000 ) (320,159,276 ) (320,431,500 ) (¥99,857,990 ) (∂137,500 ) (∂272,224 ) (Limitation on corporate funds) ........................................ (598,045 ) (591,560 ) (591,668 ) (586,418 ) (¥11,627 ) (¥5,142 ) (¥5,250 ) 

TITLE IV—THE JUDICIARY 

Supreme Court of the United States 

Salaries and expenses: 

Salaries of justices ......................................................................... 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 ............................ ............................ ............................Other salaries and expenses .......................................................... 58,143 61,405 61,405 61,405 ∂3,262 ............................ ............................

Subtotal ...................................................................................... 60,143 63,405 63,405 63,405 ∂3,262 ............................ ............................

Care of the building and grounds ........................................................... 5,568 12,959 12,959 12,959 ∂7,391 ............................ ............................
265 

Total, Supreme Court of the United States ............................... 65,711 76,364 76,364 76,364 ∂10,653 ............................ ............................

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

Salaries and expenses: 

Salaries of judges ........................................................................... 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 ............................ ............................ ............................Other salaries and expenses .......................................................... 21,780 24,300 24,000 23,273 ∂1,493 ¥1,027 ¥727 

Total, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fed Circuit ....................... 23,780 26,300 26,000 25,273 ∂1,493 ¥1,027 ¥727 

United States Court of International Trade 

Salaries and expenses: 

Salaries of judges ........................................................................... 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 ............................ ............................ ............................Other salaries and expenses .......................................................... 13,345 14,182 14,182 14,182 ∂837 ............................ ............................

Total, U.S. Court of International Trade ..................................... 15,345 16,182 16,182 16,182 ∂837 ............................ ............................

Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services 

Salaries and expenses: 

Salaries of judges and bankruptcy judges .................................... 305,312 316,000 316,000 316,000 ∂10,688 ............................ ............................Judges COLA .................................................................................... 4,950 5,000 ............................ 5,000 ∂50 ............................ ∂5,000 Other salaries and expenses .......................................................... 3,998,083 4,366,244 4,240,114 4,262,360 ∂264,277 ¥103,884 ∂22,246 Emergency appropriations (Public Law 109–148) ......................... 18,000 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥18,000 ............................ ............................

Subtotal, Salaries and expenses ................................................ 4,326,345 4,687,244 4,556,114 4,583,360 ∂257,015 ¥103,884 ∂27,246 

Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund ................................................ 3,795 3,952 3,952 3,952 ∂157 ............................ ............................Defender services ..................................................................................... 709,830 803,879 750,033 761,051 ∂51,221 ¥42,828 ∂11,018 Fees of jurors and commissioners ........................................................... 60,705 63,079 63,079 63,079 ∂2,374 ............................ ............................Court security ........................................................................................... 368,280 410,334 400,334 397,737 ∂29,457 ¥12,597 ¥2,597 

Total, Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial 

Services .................................................................................. 5,468,955 5,968,488 5,773,512 5,809,179 ∂340,224 ¥159,309 ∂35,667 

Administrative Office of the United States Courts 

Salaries and expenses ............................................................................. 69,559 75,333 73,800 74,333 ∂4,774 ¥1,000 ∂533 

Federal Judicial Center 

Salaries and expenses ............................................................................. 22,127 23,787 23,500 23,390 ∂1,263 ¥397 ¥110 
266 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2006 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee rec- ommendation Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 2006 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 

Judicial Retirement Funds 

Payment to judiciary trust funds ............................................................. 40,600 58,300 58,300 58,300 ∂17,700 ............................ ............................

United States Sentencing Commission 

Salaries and expenses ............................................................................. 14,256 15,740 15,500 15,340 ∂1,084 ¥400 ¥160 

Total, title IV, the Judiciary ........................................................ 5,720,333 6,260,494 6,063,158 6,098,361 ∂378,028 ¥162,133 ∂35,203 

Mandatory appropriations .................................................. (351,912 ) (380,300 ) (380,300 ) (380,300 ) (∂28,388 ) ............................ ............................Discretionary appropriations .............................................. (5,368,421 ) (5,880,194 ) (5,682,858 ) (5,718,061 ) (∂349,640 ) (¥162,133 ) (∂35,203 ) 

TITLE V—EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT AND FUNDS 

APPROPRIATED TO THE PRESIDENT 

The White House 

Salaries and expenses ............................................................................. ............................ 184,252 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥184,252 ............................Compensation of the President and the White House Office: 

Compensation of the President ...................................................... 450 ............................ 450 450 ............................ ∂450 ............................Salaries and expenses .................................................................... 53,292 ............................ 51,952 51,952 ¥1,340 ∂51,952 ............................

Executive Residence at the White House: 

Operating expenses ......................................................................... 12,312 ............................ 12,041 12,041 ¥271 ∂12,041 ............................White House repair and restoration ................................................ 1,683 ............................ 1,600 1,600 ¥83 ∂1,600 ............................

Council of Economic Advisers .................................................................. 4,000 ............................ 4,002 4,002 ∂2 ∂4,002 ............................Office of Policy Development ................................................................... 3,465 ............................ 3,385 3,385 ¥80 ∂3,385 ............................National Security Council ......................................................................... 8,618 ............................ 8,405 8,405 ¥213 ∂8,405 ............................Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board ............................................ ............................ ............................ ............................ 1,500 ∂1,500 ∂1,500 ∂1,500 Office of Administration ........................................................................... 88,429 ............................ 91,393 91,393 ∂2,964 ∂91,393 ............................

Total, The White House ............................................................... 172,249 184,252 173,228 174,728 ∂2,479 ¥9,524 ∂1,500 

Office of Management and Budget ......................................................... 76,161 68,780 76,185 76,185 ∂24 ∂7,405 ............................
267 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 

Office of National Drug Control Policy .................................................... 26,639 23,309 26,928 11,500 ¥15,139 ¥11,809 ¥15,428 High intensity drug trafficking areas program ....................................... 224,730 ............................ 235,000 227,000 ∂2,270 ∂227,000 ¥8,000 Other Federal drug control programs ...................................................... 192,951 212,160 194,000 214,500 ∂21,549 ∂2,340 ∂20,500 Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center ........................................... 29,700 9,600 19,600 20,000 ¥9,700 ∂10,400 ∂400 

Total, Office of National Drug Control Policy ............................. 474,020 245,069 475,528 473,000 ¥1,020 ∂227,931 ¥2,528 

Unanticipated needs ................................................................................ 990 11,789 1,000 1,000 ∂10 ¥10,789 ............................Unanticipated Needs for Natural Disasters (emerg) ............................... ............................ ¥11,789 ............................ ............................ ............................ ∂11,789 ............................Special Assistance to the President ........................................................ 4,410 4,352 4,352 4,352 ¥58 ............................ ............................Official Residence of the Vice President: Operating expenses ............... 322 317 317 317 ¥5 ............................ ............................

Total, title V, Executive Office of the President and Funds Appropriated to the President .................................................... 728,152 502,770 730,610 729,582 ∂1,430 ∂226,812 ¥1,028 

TITLE VI—INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board ................ 5,882 5,957 5,957 5,957 ∂75 ............................ ............................Consumer Product Safety Commission .................................................... 62,370 62,370 62,370 62,370 ............................ ............................ ............................Election Assistance Commission ............................................................. 14,058 16,908 17,158 17,000 ∂2,942 ∂92 ¥158 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation: Office of Inspector General 

(transfer) .............................................................................................. (30,690 ) (26,256 ) (26,256 ) (26,256 ) (¥4,434 ) ............................ ............................

Federal Election Commission ................................................................... 54,153 57,138 57,138 57,138 ∂2,985 ............................ ............................Federal Labor Relations Authority ............................................................ 25,213 25,218 25,218 25,218 ∂5 ............................ ............................Federal Maritime Commission ................................................................. 20,294 21,474 20,294 21,474 ∂1,180 ............................ ∂1,180 

General Services Administration 

Federal Buildings Fund 

Appropriations .......................................................................................... ............................ (243,025 ) ............................ (243,025 ) (∂243,025 ) ............................ (∂243,025 ) Limitations on availability of revenue: 

Construction and acquisition of facilities ...................................... 792,056 690,095 212,146 708,166 ¥83,890 ∂18,071 ∂496,020 Repairs and alterations .................................................................. 861,376 866,194 478,363 866,194 ∂4,818 ............................ ∂387,831 Installment acquisition payments .................................................. 168,180 163,999 163,999 163,999 ¥4,181 ............................ ............................Rental of space ............................................................................... 4,046,031 4,322,548 4,322,548 4,322,548 ∂276,517 ............................ ............................Building operations ......................................................................... 1,885,102 2,003,830 2,003,830 2,003,830 ∂118,728 ............................ ............................

Subtotal ...................................................................................... 7,752,745 8,046,666 7,180,886 8,064,737 ∂311,992 ∂18,071 ∂883,851 

Repayment of debt .......................................................................... 40,000 41,000 41,000 41,000 ∂1,000 ............................ ............................

Emergency appropriations (Public Law 109–148) .................................. 38,000 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥38,000 ............................ ............................
268 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2006 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee rec- ommendation Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 2006 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 

Emergency appropriations (Public Law 109–234) .................................. 37,000 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥37,000 ............................ ............................Rental income to fund ............................................................................. ¥7,808,000 ¥7,844,641 ¥7,844,641 ¥7,844,641 ¥36,641 ............................ ............................

Total, Federal Buildings Fund .................................................... 59,745 243,025 ¥622,755 261,096 ∂201,351 ∂18,071 ∂883,851 

Government-wide policy ........................................................................... 52,268 52,550 52,550 52,550 ∂282 ............................ ............................Operating expenses .................................................................................. 98,891 83,032 80,032 83,032 ¥15,859 ............................ ∂3,000 Office of Inspector General ...................................................................... 42,976 44,312 44,312 44,312 ∂1,336 ............................ ............................Electronic Government Fund .................................................................... 2,970 5,000 3,000 5,000 ∂2,030 ............................ ∂2,000 Allowances and Office Staff for Former Presidents ................................ 2,922 3,030 3,030 3,030 ∂108 ............................ ............................Federal Citizen Information Center Fund ................................................. 14,850 16,866 16,866 16,866 ∂2,016 ............................ ............................

Total, General Services Administration ...................................... 274,622 447,815 ¥422,965 465,886 ∂191,264 ∂18,071 ∂888,851 

Merit Systems Protection Board 

Salaries and expenses ............................................................................. 35,244 36,531 36,531 36,550 ∂1,306 ∂19 ∂19 Limitation on administrative expenses .................................................... 2,579 2,579 2,579 2,600 ∂21 ∂21 ∂21 

Total, Merit Systems Protection Board ....................................... 37,823 39,110 39,110 39,150 ∂1,327 ∂40 ∂40 

Morris K. Udall Foundation 

Morris K. Udall Trust Fund ...................................................................... 1,980 ............................ 2,000 2,000 ∂20 ∂2,000 ............................Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund .................................................. 1,881 693 2,000 2,000 ∂119 ∂1,307 ............................

Total, Morris K. Udall Foundation .............................................. 3,861 693 4,000 4,000 ∂139 ∂3,307 ............................

National Archives and Records Administration 

Operating expenses .................................................................................. 280,215 289,605 281,605 285,915 ∂5,700 ¥3,690 ∂4,310 Electronic records archive ........................................................................ 37,535 45,455 45,455 48,810 ∂11,275 ∂3,355 ∂3,355 Reduction of debt .................................................................................... ¥8,488 ¥10,026 ¥10,026 ¥10,026 ¥1,538 ............................ ............................Repairs and restoration ........................................................................... 9,585 13,020 13,020 18,790 ∂9,205 ∂5,770 ∂5,770 
269 

National Historical Publications and Records Commission: Grants program .................................................................................................... 7,425 ............................ 7,500 5,000 ¥2,425 ∂5,000 ¥2,500 

Total, National Archives and Records Admin ............................ 326,272 338,054 337,554 348,489 ∂22,217 ∂10,435 ∂10,935 

National Credit Union Administration: 

Central liquidity facility: 

(Limitation on direct loans) ................................................... (1,500,000 ) (1,500,000 ) (1,500,000 ) (1,500,000 ) ............................ ............................ ............................(Limitation on admin expenses, corporate funds) ................ (323 ) (331 ) (331 ) (331 ) (∂8 ) ............................ ............................

Community development revolving loan fund ................................ 941 941 941 941 ............................ ............................ ............................

National Transportation Safety Board: 

Salaries and expenses .................................................................... 75,933 79,594 81,594 79,594 ∂3,661 ............................ ¥2,000 

Rescission of unobligated balances ...................................... ¥1,000 ¥1,664 ¥1,664 ¥1,664 ¥664 ............................ ............................

Emergency Fund (rescission) .......................................................... ............................ ¥1,998 ............................ ............................ ............................ ∂1,998 ............................

Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation ................................................. 116,820 119,790 119,790 119,790 ∂2,970 ............................ ............................Office of Government Ethics .................................................................... 11,037 11,489 11,489 11,489 ∂452 ............................ ............................

Office of Personnel Management 

Salaries and expenses ............................................................................. 121,296 111,095 111,095 111,095 ¥10,201 ............................ ............................

Limitation on administrative expenses ........................................... 99,017 126,908 100,178 126,908 ∂27,891 ............................ ∂26,730 

Office of Inspector General ...................................................................... 2,050 1,598 1,598 1,598 ¥452 ............................ ............................

Limitation on administrative expenses ........................................... 16,166 16,166 16,166 16,166 ............................ ............................ ............................

Govt Payment for Annuitants, Employees Health Benefits ..................... 8,393,000 8,780,260 8,780,260 8,780,260 ∂387,260 ............................ ............................Govt Payment for Annuitants, Employee Life Insurance ......................... 36,000 39,000 39,000 39,000 ∂3,000 ............................ ............................Payment to Civil Svc Retirement and Disability Fund ............................ 10,072,000 10,532,000 10,532,000 10,532,000 ∂460,000 ............................ ............................

Total, Office of Personnel Management ..................................... 18,739,529 19,607,027 19,580,297 19,607,027 ∂867,498 ............................ ∂26,730 

Office of Special Counsel ........................................................................ 15,172 15,937 15,937 16,000 ∂828 ∂63 ∂63 Selective Service System .......................................................................... 24,750 24,255 24,255 24,255 ¥495 ............................ ............................United States Interagency Council on Homelessness ............................. 1,782 2,000 2,000 2,000 ∂218 ............................ ............................

United States Postal Service 

Payment to the Postal Service Fund ....................................................... 42,917 ............................ 29,000 29,000 ¥13,917 ∂29,000 ............................Appropriations available from prior year advances ................................ 61,092 73,000 73,000 73,000 ∂11,908 ............................ ............................Advance appropriations ........................................................................... 73,000 79,915 79,915 79,915 ∂6,915 ............................ ............................Less appropriations from prior year advances ........................................ ¥61,092 ¥73,000 ¥73,000 ¥73,000 ¥11,908 ............................ ............................

Total, United States Postal Service ............................................ 115,917 79,915 108,915 108,915 ¥7,002 ∂29,000 ............................
270 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2006 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee rec- ommendation Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 2006 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 

United States Tax Court ........................................................................... 47,518 47,110 47,110 47,110 ¥408 ............................ ............................

Total, title VII, Independent Agencies ........................................ 19,972,947 20,999,133 20,136,498 21,062,139 ∂1,089,192 ∂63,006 ∂925,641 

Appropriations .................................................................... (19,825,947 ) (20,922,880 ) (20,058,247 ) (20,983,888 ) (∂1,157,941 ) (∂61,008 ) (∂925,641 ) Rescissions ........................................................................ (¥1,000 ) (¥3,662 ) (¥1,664 ) (¥1,664 ) (¥664 ) (∂1,998 ) ............................Advance appropriations ..................................................... (73,000 ) (79,915 ) (79,915 ) (79,915 ) (∂6,915 ) ............................ ............................Emergency appropriations ................................................. (75,000 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (¥75,000 ) ............................ ............................(By transfer) ...................................................................... (30,690 ) (26,256 ) (26,256 ) (26,256 ) (¥4,434 ) ............................ ............................(Limitation on direct loans) .............................................. (1,500,000 ) (1,500,000 ) (1,500,000 ) (1,500,000 ) ............................ ............................ ............................(Limitation on corporate funds) ........................................ (323 ) (331 ) (331 ) (331 ) (∂8 ) ............................ ............................

Title VIII—General Provisions, This Bill 

Scoring adjustment (for 1 percent ATB rescission) ................................ ¥10,707 ............................ ............................ ............................ ∂10,707 ............................ ............................

Fed Hwys—addl contract authority (1 percent rescission) ........... ¥6,000 ............................ ............................ ............................ ∂6,000 ............................ ............................

Grand total (net) ........................................................................ 102,948,146 86,748,272 86,656,536 89,389,989 ¥13,558,157 ∂2,641,717 ∂2,733,453 

Appropriations .................................................................... (87,073,023 ) (87,988,269 ) (87,835,954 ) (90,490,843 ) (∂3,417,820 ) (∂2,502,574 ) (∂2,654,889 ) Emergency appropriations ................................................. (20,685,563 ) (¥11,789 ) ............................ ............................ (¥20,685,563 ) (∂11,789 ) ............................Offsetting collections ......................................................... (¥73,000 ) (¥78,000 ) (¥78,000 ) (¥83,600 ) (¥10,600 ) (¥5,600 ) (¥5,600 ) Rescissions ........................................................................ (¥2,117,078 ) (¥2,614,123 ) (¥2,156,725 ) (¥2,160,372 ) (¥43,294 ) (∂453,751 ) (¥3,647 ) Rescission of contract authority ....................................... (¥4,877,362 ) (¥1,582,000 ) (¥2,194,608 ) (¥2,303,797 ) (∂2,573,565 ) (¥721,797 ) (¥109,189 ) Negative subsidy receipts ................................................. (¥2,016,000 ) (¥1,234,000 ) (¥1,030,000 ) (¥833,000 ) (∂1,183,000 ) (∂401,000 ) (∂197,000 ) Advance appropriations ..................................................... (4,273,000 ) (4,279,915 ) (4,279,915 ) (4,279,915 ) (∂6,915 ) ............................ ............................(Limitation on obligations) ................................................ (47,271,957 ) (50,431,240 ) (51,265,740 ) (51,081,740 ) (∂3,809,783 ) (∂650,500 ) (¥184,000 ) (Exempt contract authority) ............................................... (739,000 ) (739,000 ) (739,000 ) (739,000 ) ............................ ............................ ............................

(By transfer) ............................................................. (151,922 ) (26,256 ) (26,256 ) (26,256 ) (¥125,666 ) ............................ ............................(Transfer out) ............................................................ (¥121,232 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (∂121,232 ) ............................ ............................
271 

Total budgetary resources .......................................................... (150,959,103 ) (137,918,512 ) (138,661,276 ) (141,210,729 ) (¥9,748,374 ) (∂3,292,217 ) (∂2,549,453 ) 

Discretionary total .................................................................................... 84,093,784 67,016,212 66,924,026 69,657,479 ¥14,436,305 ∂2,641,267 ∂2,733,453 

Æ