Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?

110th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    110-238

======================================================================
 
 DEPARTMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION, AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2008

                                _______
                                

 July 18, 2007.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

    Mr. Olver, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                             MINORITY VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 3074]

    The Committee on Appropriations submits the following 
report in explanation of the accompanying bill making 
appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, and 
Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2008.

                        INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT

                                                            Page number

                                                            Bill Report
Major challenges facing transportation and housing over the 
    next decade............................................      
                                                                       
Projects...................................................      
                                                                       
Solvency of highway trust fund.............................      
                                                                       
The effect of guaranteed spending..........................      
                                                                       
Operating plan and reprogramming procedures................      
                                                                       
Relationship with budget offices...........................      
                                                                       
Tabular summary............................................      
                                                                       
Committee hearings.........................................      
                                                                       
Program, project, and activity.............................      
                                                                       
Title I--Department of Transportation......................      
                                                                       
Title II--Department of Housing and Urban Development......      
                                                                       
Title III--Related Agencies................................      
                                                                       
Title IV--General Provisions...............................      
                                                                       
        House of Representatives Report Requirements:
                Constitutional authority...................      
                                                                       
                Statement of general performance goals and 
                    objectives.............................      
                                                                       
                Appropriations not authorized by law.......      
                                                                       
                Transfers of funds.........................      
                                                                       
                Compliance with rule XIII, clause 3(e) 
                    (Ramseyer rule)........................      
                                                                       
                Recissions.................................      
                                                                       
                Changes in the application of existing law.      
                                                                       
                Comparison with the budget resolution......      
                                                                       
                Five-year outlay projections...............      
                                                                       
                Financial assistance to state and local 
                    governments............................      
                                                                       
                Earmarks...................................      
                                                                       
                Tabular summary of the bill................      
                                                                       

Major Challenges Facing Transportation and Housing Over the Next Decade

    Earlier this year, the Committee held a series of hearings 
to explore the emerging challenges facing our nation's 
transportation and housing programs over the next decade. The 
testimony the Committee received from housing and 
transportation experts made clear that demographic changes and 
growth patterns in the United States will continue to have a 
major impact on transportation networks and the need for 
affordable housing.
    Some areas of the nation are losing population and as a 
result, lack an adequate tax base or the necessary resources to 
make investments in transportation and housing.
    Other areas of our nation are growing dramatically. For 
example, the population of the United States recently reached 
300 million, and is expected to grow by another 65 million by 
the year 2030. The 30 largest metropolitan statistical areas as 
defined by the U.S. census bureau now represent close to half 
(45 percent) of the country's total population. From 1990 to 
2005, the population of 15 of the 30 largest metropolitan areas 
grew by over 20 percent, with some metro areas in Florida, 
Arizona, California, and Georgia growing by over 50 percent.
    Each region has its own unique set of challenges in 
managing population growth. The existing transportation 
networks in older metropolitan areas in the Northeast and 
Midwest will continue to have increasing repair and maintenance 
needs, as well as demand for new transit service. The 
metropolitan areas that have seen the most explosive growth, 
mostly in the South and West, will continue to require new 
investments in highway, transit, and aviation to keep up with 
traveling demand.
    Explosive population growth, combined with the rise of 
households with two automobiles and increasingly decentralized 
and unplanned patterns of growth present significant challenges 
for the nation's transportation, housing, and energy policies 
on the federal, state, and local level.
    Increasing congestion has become the most noticeable 
consequence of these demographic changes. As residential 
communities become more separated from employment areas, 
traffic congestion has become a part of everyday life for many 
families.
    Vehicle-miles traveled on our nation's highways have grown 
nearly 94 percent from roughly 1.53 trillion miles in 1980 to 
nearly 3 trillion miles in 2005. According to the Texas 
Transportation Institute, in 2003 drivers in the 85 most 
congested urban areas in the United States experienced 3.7 
billion hours of travel delay, an annual average delay of 47 
hours per commuter. Furthermore, congestion caused travelers to 
use 2.3 billion extra gallons of fuel for a total cost of 
$63,100,000,000 or $794 per commuter.
    Increased travel demand will continue to deteriorate 
existing transportation networks and put pressure on states to 
build more capacity. The Department of Transportation estimates 
that $53,600,000,000 per year will be required to sustain the 
nation's highways, bridges, and transit systems. A far higher 
level of investment, $74,800,000,000 would be required each 
year to improve these systems. With regard to transit, it is 
estimated that an annual investment of $24,000,000,000 would be 
necessary to improve the condition and performance of our 
nation's public transportation systems.
    In addition, while Amtrak, our nation's intercity passenger 
rail system, has made some progress in increasing ridership and 
revenues, much work remains ahead before higher speed rail is 
realized in corridors outside the Northeast.
    Our nation's transportation challenges are not just limited 
to surface transportation. Our aviation system also continues 
to grow. For example, from 1995 to 2005, the number of airline 
passengers grew by 36 percent from 545 million per year to 739 
million. By 2015, our aviation system is expected to transport 
as many as one billion passengers. Additionally, our nation's 
air traffic control system is aging and is in need of 
modernization in order to accommodate the growth in air traffic 
and the expected changes in the aviation fleet.
    Our nation also faces great challenges in the area of 
housing. Providing adequate affordable housing near employment 
opportunities and public transportation will be daunting. 
Currently, there are nearly 14 million households with incomes 
below 50 percent of adjusted median income (AMI) which are 
eligible for federal housing assistance, however, only 25 
percent of these eligible households actually receive federal 
housing assistance.
    As such, the Committee recognizes that a great unmet need 
exists for affordable housing throughout the country. For 
example, only 2.1 million Section 8 vouchers are authorized 
despite the fact that an estimated 8 million families and 
individuals are eligible for this assistance.
    In public housing, the situation is no better. Public 
housing is home to 2.6 million people, including seniors, 
persons with disabilities, and low-income families. In 2005, 
the median income of families in the public housing program was 
$10,738, only 23 percent of the national median household 
income of $46,326. Public housing is a valuable social and 
economic asset that cannot be created or sustained by the 
private market. In fact, it would cost an estimated 
$162,000,000,000 to replace the existing stock of 1.2 million 
public housing units, yet the budget request for public housing 
is perennially too low to support annual capital needs, much 
less address the $18 billion backlog in capital needs. More 
than half of public housing units were constructed prior to 
1970 and are in need of rehabilitation and serious capital 
investment. The Committee recognizes that public housing is an 
irreplaceable asset and that it will require significant 
capital investment to continue to provide its 2.6 million 
residents with safe and affordable homes.
    The Committee is cognizant of the fact that it must begin 
to address the shortage of affordable housing for families, 
seniors and the disabled immediately. It is also incumbent upon 
the Department of Housing and Urban Development to explore new 
means of financing and innovative methods of partnering with 
nonprofits and with the private sector to spur more housing 
production.
    In addition to the budgetary challenges presented above, 
the Committee strongly believes that transportation, housing, 
and energy can no longer be viewed as completely separate 
spheres with little or no coordination throughout the different 
levels of government. To that effect, the Committee has 
included provisions in this report requiring the Departments of 
Transportation and Housing and Urban Development to better 
coordinate public transportation and housing policies and 
programs. Better planning and coordination on the federal, 
state, and local level can ensure that affordable housing is 
located closer to public transportation and employment centers.
    Finally, as the United States continues to grapple with the 
catastrophic effects of global warming and other environmental 
hazards, the Committee strongly believes that federal policies 
must be instituted to reduce the amount of energy consumed by 
the transportation and housing sectors. Taken together, 
transportation (28 percent) and residential housing (21 
percent) produce almost 50 percent of total U.S. energy 
consumption. (Source 2004 Energy Data Book, DoE). To this end, 
the Committee has included a number of key investments for 
public transit and intercity rail. The Committee has also 
included language urging HUD to incorporate stronger 
sustainability standards into HUD's housing programs.

                                Projects

    Congress has made significant reforms in the way it reviews 
funding for the Federal government; reforms which the Committee 
takes very seriously as it executes its constitutional 
authority. Earmarking or directed spending of Federal dollars 
does not begin with Congress. It begins with the Executive 
Branch. For example, the Administration requests funding for 
specific projects within the Federal Transit Administration's 
Capital Investment Grant account and within the Federal 
Aviation Administration's Facilities and Equipment account. The 
Administration, in selecting these projects, goes through a 
process that is the functional equivalent of earmarking. When 
the Committee reviews the budget request, it goes through a 
process of rigorous review and may alter or modify this list to 
reflect additional priorities.
    In addition, there are designated projects or earmarks 
embedded in the surface transportation authorization 
legislation. For example, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 
Efficient Transportation Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) 
includes designated projects or earmarks during each year of 
its authorization. For example, in fiscal year 2008 alone, 
SAFETEA-LU directs $2,966,400,000 to 5,091 specific projects 
under the ``High Priority Projects'' program; $487,000,000 to 
33 specific projects under the ``National Corridor 
Infrastructure Improvement Program''; $444,750,000 to 25 
specific projects under the ``Projects of National and Regional 
Significance'' program; $638,809,000 to 466 specific projects 
under the ``Transportation Improvements'' program; and 
$100,000,000 to nine specific projects under the ``Bridge 
Program'' set-aside. Similarly, in the transit program, 
SAFETEA-LU directs $492,167,593 to 662 specific bus and clean 
fuel bus projects and $22,225,000 to 24 specific transit 
research projects.
    The Executive Branch also engages in another practice which 
steers or directs money to specific entities or purposes 
through a process of contracting out various activities and 
services. In many work locations, the number of people working 
for contractors exceeds the number of Federal employees in the 
same building or location. Many of these, in fact, are non-
competitive or sole-sourced. When added together, the Executive 
Branch steers or directs far greater spending to specific 
projects or corporations than is directed or earmarked by 
Congress. And the practice of non-competitive contracting has 
exploded in the past five years.
    For example:
      In Fiscal Year 2005, the Department of Transportation 
awarded 225 sole-source contracts totaling more $140 million.
      From FY2002-2006, HUD awarded contracts worth over $4.2 
billion dollars, but only had a full and open competition on 
approximately 46 percent of their contract awards.
      HUD awarded more than $500,000 in no-bid contracts to the 
executive director of the Virgin Islands PHA to improve that 
PHA's operations.
      On February 1, 2005, the FAA awarded a $1.8 billion, 5-
year, fixed-price incentive contract to operate 58 flight 
service stations in the continental United States, Puerto Rico, 
and Hawaii. However, the contract has been plagued with 
technical and operational problems with the program, which 
include system outages, computer glitches, lost flight plans, 
excessive hold times, dropped calls, and poor quality service.
    The Committee believes that the extensive use of 
noncompetitive contracts increases the potential for waste, 
fraud, and abuse of federal dollars. Each of the above examples 
reaffirms the importance of sound internal controls and fraud 
deterrence measures in federal contracting. The Committee urges 
both the Department of Transportation and HUD to improve its 
contract policies to better protect taxpayer dollars. The 
Committee intends to carefully monitor the contracting 
practices of the agencies within the Committee's jurisdiction.

                   Solvency of the Highway Trust Fund

    The Committee is greatly concerned about the status of the 
Highway Trust Fund. Both the Treasury Department and the 
Congressional Budget Office are projecting that the Highway 
Account of the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) will have a negative 
cash balance by the end of fiscal year 2009. The Mass Transit 
Account of the Highway Trust Fund faces a similar fate, 
however, at a slightly slower pace. The Mass Transit Account is 
expected to reach a negative balance by fiscal year 2011. The 
Committee was disappointed that, despite the precarious 
financial state of the Highway Trust Fund, the budget request 
did not include any serious proposals to address the looming 
shortfall.
    It is well documented that our nation's transportation 
infrastructure is aging and, as noted above, the investment 
needs of our nation's highway and transit systems are 
significant. Unfortunately, in each of the last six years 
(2001-2006), expenditures have exceeded receipts into the 
Highway Trust Fund. The highway guarantees were based upon the 
principle that the highway program would be funded solely from 
a dedicated revenue source financed by user fees. However, that 
funding source was overcommitted by the authorizing legislation 
and the principles behind the guarantees have been undermined.
    Without additional revenues for transportation investment, 
the nation will be unable to reduce congestion, maintain aging 
bridges and highways, or expand capacity. In short, the looming 
crisis in the HTF will hinder the nation's ability to meet the 
transportation challenges outlined above. The Committee 
believes that there will be sufficient resources in the HTF to 
meet the guaranteed highway and transit funding levels required 
by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation 
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) in fiscal year 
2008. However, the Committee will continue to carefully monitor 
the balances in the HTF to determine whether the guaranteed 
funding levels are sustainable.
    In addition, the Committee understands that SAFETEA-LU 
established two commissions to examine the investment needs and 
revenue options for our nation's surface transportation system. 
The Committee anxiously awaits the recommendations of these 
commissions and expects the authorizing committees of 
jurisdiction to take prompt action to restore the solvency of 
the Highway Trust Fund to ensure that much needed 
transportation investments can continue to occur in the years 
ahead.

                   The Effect of Guaranteed Spending

    Nearly a decade ago, in 1998, the Transportation Equity Act 
for the 21st Century (TEA-21) amended the Budget Enforcement 
Act and created, over the objections of the Appropriations and 
Budget Committees, two new additional spending categories or 
`firewalls', the highway category and the mass transit 
category. The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, 
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) 
extended the highway and mass transit firewalls through fiscal 
year 2009. Similar treatment was provided for certain aviation 
programs with the passage of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation 
Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR-2l) and 
were later extended in the Vision-l00 Century of Aviation 
Reauthorization Act. As the Committee noted during 
deliberations on these bills, the Acts fundamentally 
established mandatory spending programs within the 
discretionary caps. This undermines Congressional flexibility 
to fund other equally important programs within the Committee's 
jurisdiction not protected by funding guarantees and to address 
emerging priorities. This year, with a more focused 
jurisdiction, the funding for critical housing programs for 
low-income families must compete for scarce federal resources 
with transportation programs that enjoy a funding guarantee. In 
addition, funding guarantees skew transportation priorities 
inappropriately by providing increases to highway, transit, and 
airport spending while leaving safety-related operations in the 
Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Railroad 
Administration and Amtrak to scramble for the remaining 
resources. As in past years, the Committee has done all in its 
power, considering this environment, to produce a balanced bill 
providing adequately for all modes of transportation as well as 
all non-transportation programs under the jurisdiction of this 
bill.

              Operating Plan and Reprogramming Procedures

    The Committee continues to have a particular interest in 
being informed of reprogrammings which, although they may not 
change either the total amount available in an account or any 
of the purposes for which the appropriation is legally 
available, represent a significant departure from budget plans 
presented to the Committee in an agency's budget justifications 
and supporting documents, the basis of this appropriations Act.
    The Committee directs the departments, agencies, 
corporations and offices funded within this bill, to notify the 
Committee prior to increasing any program, activity, object 
classification or element in excess of $5,000,000 or 10 
percent, whichever is less. Likewise, the Committee directs the 
same entities noted above to not decrease any program, 
activity, object classification or element by $5,000,000 or 10 
percent, whichever is less. Additionally, the Committee expects 
to be promptly notified of all reprogramming actions which 
involve less than the above-mentioned amounts. If such actions 
would have the effect of significantly changing an agency's 
funding requirements in future years, or if programs or 
projects specifically cited in the Committee's reports are 
affected by the reprogramming, the reprogramming must be 
approved by the Committee regardless of the amount proposed to 
be moved. Furthermore, the Committee must be consulted 
regarding reorganizations of offices, programs, and activities 
prior to the planned implementation of such reorganizations.
    The Committee also directs that the Department of 
Transportation and the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development shall submit operating plans, signed by the 
respective secretary for the Committee's review within 60 days 
of the bill's enactment.

                    Relationship With Budget Offices

    Through the years, the Committee has channeled most of its 
inquiries and requests for information and assistance through 
the budget offices of the various departments, agencies, and 
commissions. The Committee has often pointed to the natural 
affinity and relationship between these organizations and the 
Committee which makes such a relationship workable. The 
Committee reiterates its longstanding position that while the 
Committee reserves the right to call upon all offices in the 
departments, agencies, and commissions, the primary conjunction 
between the Committee and these entities must normally be 
through the budget offices. The Committee appreciates all the 
assistance received from each of the departments, agencies, and 
commissions during the past year. The workload generated by the 
budget process is large and growing, and therefore, a positive, 
responsive relationship between the Committee and the budget 
offices is absolutely essential to the appropriations process.

                            Tabular Summary

    A table summarizing the amounts provided for fiscal year 
2007 and the amounts recommended in the bill for fiscal year 
2008 compared with the budget estimates is included at the end 
of this report.

                           Committee Hearings

    In addition to the hearings noted above, the Committee also 
conducted extensive hearings on the programs and projects 
provided for in this bill. Pursuant to House rules, each of 
these hearings was open to the public. The Committee received 
testimony from cabinet officers, agency heads, inspectors 
general, and other officials of the executive branch in areas 
under the bill's jurisdiction. In addition, the Committee has 
considered written material submitted for the hearing record by 
Members of Congress, private citizens, local government 
entities, and private organizations. The bill recommendations 
for fiscal year 2008 have been developed after careful 
consideration of all the information available to the 
Committee.

                     Program, Project, and Activity

    During fiscal year 2008, for the purposes of the Balanced 
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 
99-177), as amended, with respect to appropriations contained 
in the accompanying bill, the terms `program, project, and 
activity' shall mean any item for which a dollar amount is 
contained in an appropriations Act (including joint resolutions 
providing continuing appropriations) or accompanying reports of 
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, or 
accompanying conference reports and joint explanatory 
statements of the committee of conference. This definition 
shall apply to all programs for which new budget (obligational) 
authority is provided, as well as to capital investment grants 
within the Federal Transit Administration. In addition, the 
percentage reductions made pursuant to a sequestration order to 
funds appropriated for facilities and equipment within the 
Federal Aviation Administration shall be applied equally to 
each budget item that is listed under said accounts in the 
budget justifications submitted to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations as modified by subsequent 
appropriations Acts and accompanying committee reports, 
conference reports, or joint explanatory statements of the 
committee of conference.

                 TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION


                        Office of the Secretary


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES


Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......................       $84,553,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008......................        96,197,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        90,678,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...................        +6,125,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................        -5,519,000
                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The bill provides $90,678,000 for the salaries and expenses 
of the various offices comprising the office of the secretary. 
The Committee's recommendation includes individual funding for 
all of the offices within the office of the secretary, as has 
been done in past years, rather than consolidating them as 
proposed in the budget request. The Committee notes that the 
fiscal year 2008 budget requested a 14 percent increase above 
the fiscal year 2007 enacted level for the salaries and 
expenses of the office of the secretary. The Committee 
understands that as of March 31, 2007, there were as many as 
120 vacancies throughout the various secretarial offices. Given 
these vacancies and other budgetary constraints, the Committee 
recommendation includes a more modest increase in each of the 
offices. However, the Committee will continue to closely 
monitor the Department's progress in filling staff vacancies to 
determine whether additional resources will be needed. The 
following table compares the fiscal year 2007 enacted level to 
the fiscal year 2008 budget estimate and the Committee's 
recommendation by office:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Fiscal year      Fiscal year         House
                                                                 2007 enacted    2008 estimate     recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immediate office of the secretary............................       $2,197,000       $2,314,000       $2,305,000
Office of the deputy secretary...............................          697,000          737,000          724,000
Office of the executive secretariat..........................        1,441,000        1,535,000        1,498,000
Office of the under secretary of transportation for policy...       11,635,000       12,374,000       12,100,000
Board of contract appeals....................................          696,000               --               --
Official of small and disadvantaged business utilization.....        1,264,000        1,335,000        1,314,000
Office of the chief information officer......................       11,801,000       12,587,000       12,273,000
Office of the assistant secretary for governmental affairs...        2,291,000        2,384,000        2,382,000
Office of the general counsel................................       15,148,000       16,219,000       15,753,000
Office of the assistant secretary for budget and programs....        8,465,000       10,417,000        8,903,000
Office of the assistant secretary for administration.........       21,880,000       26,008,000       23,568,000
Office of public affairs.....................................        1,908,000        1,988,000        1,984,000
Office of intelligence and security..........................        2,027,000        2,737,000        2,737,000
Office of emergency transportation...........................        3,103,000        5,562,000        5,137,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total \1\..............................................       84,553,000       96,197,000       90,678,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Numbers don't add due to rounding.

    Immediate office of the secretary.--The Immediate Office of 
the Secretary has the primary responsibility to provide overall 
planning, direction, and control of departmental affairs. The 
Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,305,000 for 
expenses of the immediate office of the secretary, which 
represents an increase of $108,000 above the fiscal year 2007 
enacted level and $9,000 below the level assumed in the budget 
request.
    Immediate office of the deputy secretary.--The Immediate 
Office of the Deputy Secretary has the primary responsibility 
to assist the Secretary in the overall planning, direction and 
control of the departmental affairs. The Deputy Secretary 
serves as the chief operating officer of the day to day 
operations of the Department of Transportation. The Committee 
recommends $724,000 for expenses of the immediate office of the 
deputy secretary, which is an increase of $27,000 above the 
fiscal year 2007 enacted level and $13,000 below the budget 
request.
    Executive secretariat.--The Executive Secretariat assists 
the Secretary and Deputy Secretary in carrying out their 
management functions and responsibilities by controlling and 
coordinating internal and external written materials. The 
Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,498,000 for 
expenses of the executive secretariat, which is $57,000 more 
than the fiscal year 2007 enacted level and $37,000 below the 
level assumed in the budget request.
    Office of the under secretary of transportation for 
policy.--The Office of the Under Secretary of Transportation 
for Policy serves as the Department's chief policy officer 
responsible for international standards development and 
harmonization; aviation and other transportation-related trade 
negotiations; coordination and development of departmental 
policy and legislative initiatives; the performance of policy 
and economic analysis; and the execution of the essential air 
service program. The Committee provides a total of $12,100,000 
for the office of the under secretary of transportation for 
policy which represents an increase of $465,000 above the 
fiscal year 2007 enacted level and a reduction of $274,000 
below the requested level. The Committee denies the budget 
request to move two FTEs from the Office of Intelligence and 
Security into the policy office.

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

    Office of small and disadvantaged business utilization.--
The Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization is 
responsible for promoting small and disadvantaged business 
participation in the department's procurement and grants 
programs. The Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$1,314,000 for the office of small and disadvantaged business 
utilization, which represents an increase of $50,000 above the 
fiscal year 2007 enacted level and $21,000 below the level 
requested in the budget request.
    Office of the chief information officer.--The Office of the 
Chief Information Officer (CIO) serves as the principal advisor 
to the Secretary on matters involving information resources and 
information systems management. The Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $12,273,000 for the office of the chief 
information officer, which is an increase of $472,000 above the 
fiscal year 2007 enacted level and $314,000 below the level 
assumed in the budget request.
    Office of the assistant secretary for governmental 
affairs.--The Office of the Assistant Secretary for 
Governmental Affairs is responsible for coordinating all 
Congressional, intergovernmental, and consumer activities of 
the department. The Committee recommendation includes 
$2,382,000 for the office of the assistant secretary for 
governmental affairs, which represents an increase of $91,000 
above the fiscal year 2007 enacted level and $2,000 below the 
budget request.
    In addition, the bill continues a provision (sec. 187) that 
requires the department to notify the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations not less than three business days 
before any discretionary grant award, letter of intent, or full 
funding grant agreement in excess of $1,000,000 is announced by 
the department or its modal administrations from: (1) any 
discretionary program of the Federal Highway Administration 
other than the emergency relief program; (2) the airport 
improvement program of the Federal Aviation Administration; and 
(3) any program of the Federal Transit Administration program 
other than the formula grants and fixed guideway modernization 
programs. Such notification shall include the date on which the 
official announcement of the grant is to be made and no such 
announcement shall involve funds that are not available for 
obligation.
    Office of the general counsel.--The Office of the General 
Counsel provides legal services to the Office of the Secretary 
and coordinates and reviews the legal work of the chief 
counsels' offices of the operating administrations. The 
Committee recommends $15,753,000 for the office of general 
counsel, which represents an increase of $605,000 from the 
fiscal year 2007 enacted level, and $466,000 less than the 
budget request.
    Office of the assistant secretary for budget and 
programs.--The Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs is 
responsible for developing, reviewing and presenting budget 
resource requirements for the department to the Secretary, 
Congress and the Office of Management and Budget. The Committee 
recommends an appropriation of $8,903,000 for the office of the 
assistant secretary for budget and programs, which represents 
an increase of $438,000 over the fiscal year 2007 enacted level 
and $1,514,000 below the level requested in the budget.
    Office of the assistant secretary for administration.--The 
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration is 
responsible for coordinating, overseeing and conducting various 
accounting, procurement, personnel management, and automatic 
data processing operations of the department. The Committee 
recommends an appropriation of $23,568,000 for expenses of the 
office of the assistant secretary for administration, which 
represents an increase of $1,688,000 from the fiscal year 2007 
enacted level and $2,440,000 below the level assumed in the 
budget request.
    Office of public affairs.--The Office of Public Affairs is 
responsible for news releases, articles, fact sheets, briefing 
materials, publications, and audio-visual materials of the 
department. The Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$1,984,000 for expenses of the office of public affairs, which 
represents an increase of $76,000 above the fiscal year 2007 
enacted level and $4,000 below the level assumed in the budget 
request.
    Office of intelligence and security.--The Office of 
Intelligence and Security serves as the Department's primary 
point of contact with the Homeland Security Counsel and the 
Department of Homeland Security. The office provides 
intelligence and security oversight of the operating 
administrations to increase the safety and security of the 
traveling public, and to provide the Secretary and Deputy 
Secretary with current intelligence and security information, 
with special emphasis on potential or actual terrorist threats 
to transportation interests. The Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $2,737,000 for expenses of the office of 
intelligence and security, which is an increase of $710,000 
above the fiscal year 2007 enacted level and the same level 
assumed in the budget request. The Committee denies the 
transfer to two FTEs to the policy office and reduces the 
requested increase for contract services by a similar amount.

Deny transfer of two FTEs to the Policy Office..........       +$250,000
Reduce contract services................................        -250,000

    Office of emergency transportation.--The Office of 
Emergency Transportation coordinates the Department's 
participation in National and Regional exercises; conducts 
training for emergency personnel; administers the Continuity of 
Government and Continuity of Operations programs; and 
coordinates DOT's role in contingency planning and response 
activities. In light of the hurricane disasters in 2005, the 
Department of Transportation has been charged with the expanded 
responsibility of coordinating mass evacuations when disasters 
overcome the capabilities of state and local governments. Given 
these new responsibilities, the Inspector General has noted 
that the Department must ensure that roles and responsibilities 
are carefully defined and that there is effective communication 
and coordination with other Federal agencies. The Committee 
recommendation includes $5,137,000 for the office of emergency 
response, which is $2,034,000 above the fiscal year 2007 
enacted level and $425,000 below the budget request. Within the 
amounts provided, the Committee includes $305,000 for two 
additional FTEs for the manager and assistant manager positions 
for the DOT Emergency Transportation Center. The Committee 
provides half-year funding for three additional FTEs to assist 
with emergency preparedness planning, training and response. 
The Committee denies the request for $150,000 for additional 
contract and consultant support and encourages the office to 
leverage the expertise available in the modal administrations.

Reduce funding for emergency transportation staff.......       -$275,000
Reduce contract and consultant services.................        -150,000

    Congressional budget justifications.--The Committee directs 
the department to include the same level of detail that was 
provided in the congressional justifications presented in 
fiscal year 2003. Some of the budget documents submitted for 
fiscal year 2008 did not adhere to that standard. Further, the 
department is directed to include in the budget justification 
funding levels for the prior year, current year, and budget 
year for all programs, activities, initiatives, and program 
elements. Each budget submitted by the department must also 
include detailed justification for the incremental funding 
increases and additional FTEs being requested above the enacted 
level, by program, activity, or program element.
    OST currently includes a helpful discussion in its 
justification of changes from the current year to the request. 
To ensure that each adjustment is identified, the Committee 
directs OST in future congressional justifications to include 
detailed information in tabular format which identifies 
specific changes in funding from the current year to the budget 
year for each office, including each office within the office 
of the secretary.
    Operating plan.--The Committee directs the department to 
submit an operating plan for fiscal year 2008, signed by the 
secretary for review by the Committees on Appropriations of 
both the House and Senate within 60 days of the bill's 
enactment. The operating plan should include funding levels for 
the various offices, programs and initiatives detailed down to 
the object class or program element covered in the budget 
justification and supporting documents or referenced in the 
House and Senate appropriations reports, and the statement of 
the managers.
    Department of defense schools.--The Committee understands 
that there may be differing views within the Department 
regarding payments to the Department of Defense for the 
education of dependent children of those Federal Aviation 
Administration employees in Puerto Rico and Guam if they meet 
the eligibility requirements of Section 2164(c) of title 10, 
United States Code. The Committee encourages the Secretary as 
chief executive of the Department to render a final decision 
regarding these payments that is consistent with the law and is 
in the best interest of the affected children.
    General provisions.--The Committee reiterates its direction 
to the Department to provide a detailed explanation for each 
and every general provision requested in the budget. The 
Committee expects each of the modal administrations to provide 
a similar justification for each requested general provision.
    Bill language.--The bill continues language that permits up 
to $2,500,000 of fees to be credited to the office of the 
secretary for salaries and expenses.

                         OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......................        $8,528,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008......................         9,140,900
Recommended in the bill...............................         9,140,900
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...................          +612,900
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................             - - -
    The office of civil rights is responsible for advising the 
secretary on civil rights and equal opportunity matters and 
ensuring full implementation of civil rights opportunity 
precepts in all of the department's official actions and 
programs. This office is responsible for enforcing laws and 
regulations that prohibit discrimination in federally operated 
and federally assisted transportation programs. This office 
also handles all civil rights cases related to Department of 
Transportation employees.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee provides $9,140,900 for the office of civil 
rights, which represents a $612,900 increase above the fiscal 
year 2007 enacted level and the same as the budget request.

           TRANSPORTATION PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND DEVELOPMENT
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......................       $14,893,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008......................         9,115,000
Recommended in the bill...............................         8,515,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...................        -6,378,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................          -600,000
    This appropriation finances those research activities and 
studies concerned with the planning, analysis, and information 
development needed to support the secretary's responsibilities 
in the formulation of national transportation policies. It also 
finances the staff necessary to conduct these efforts. The 
overall program is carried out primarily through contracts with 
other federal agencies, educational institutions, nonprofit 
research organizations, and private firms.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $8,515,000 for 
transportation planning, research and development, a decrease 
of $6,378,000 below the fiscal year 2007 enacted level and 
$600,000 below the budget request.
    The Committee directs funding to be allocated to the 
following projects:
 Advanced freight locomotive safety and monitoring             $1,000,000
 system, MA...........................................
Ballast water research, UW-Superior, WI...............         1,000,000
Center for commercial deployment of transportation               250,000
 technologies, CA.....................................
Commercial vehicle rollover prevention technology              1,000,000
 demonstration, MI....................................
Great lakes maritime research institute, WI...........         1,000,000
National center for manufacturing sciences (NCMS), MI.           750,000
                          WORKING CAPITAL FUND
 Limitation, fiscal year 2007..........................    ($118,014,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2008 \1\..................             - - -
Recommended in the bill...............................     (128,094,000)
Bill compared with:
    Limitation, fiscal year 2007......................     (+10,080,000)
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................    (+128,094,000)\1\ Proposed without limitation.

    The working capital fund (WCF) was created to provide 
common administrative services to the various modes and outside 
entities that desire those services for economy and efficiency. 
The fund is financed through negotiated agreements with the 
department's operating administrations and other governmental 
elements requiring the WCF's capabilities.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a limitation of $128,094,000 on 
the working capital fund. The budget request proposed a 
limitless program level for the fund in fiscal year 2008. The 
Committee's recommendation is appropriate considering the 
funding levels of the operations and administrative accounts.
    Modal usage of working capital fund.--Consistent with past 
practice, the Committee directs the department, in its fiscal 
year 2009 congressional justifications for each of the modal 
administrations, to account for increases or decreases in WCF 
billings based on planned usage requested or anticipated by the 
modes rather than anticipated by WCF managers.

               MINORITY BUSINESS RESOURCE CENTER PROGRAM

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Limitation on
                                           Appropriation    guaranteed
                                                               loans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.........        $893,000   ($18,367,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2008........         891,000    (18,367,000)
Recommended in the bill.................         893,000    (18,367,000)
Bill compared to:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.....           - - -         (- - -)
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008....          +2,000         (- - -)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The minority business resource center of the office of 
small and disadvantaged business utilization provides 
assistance in obtaining short-term working capital and bonding 
for disadvantaged, minority, and women-owned businesses. The 
program enables qualified businesses to obtain loans at prime 
interest rates for transportation-related projects.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $893,000 for the minority business 
resourse center which is the same as the fiscal year 2007 
enacted level and $2,000 above the budget request. The 
Committee provides $370,000 to cover the subsidy costs for the 
loans and $523,000 for the program's administrative expenses. 
In addition, the Committee recommends a limitation on 
guaranteed loans of $18,367,000, the same as the budget request 
and the fiscal year 2007 enacted level.

                       MINORITY BUSINESS OUTREACH
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......................        $2,970,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008......................         2,970,000
Recommended in the bill...............................         2,970,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...................             - - -
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................             - - -
    This appropriation provides contractual support to assist 
minority business firms, entrepreneurs, and venture groups in 
securing contracts and subcontracts arising out of projects 
that involve federal spending. It also provides grants and 
contract assistance that serves DOT-wide goals.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee provides $2,970,000 for this program, equal 
to both the fiscal year 2007 funding level and the budget 
request.

                        PAYMENTS TO AIR CARRIERS

                    (AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......................       $59,400,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008......................             - - -
Recommended in the bill...............................        60,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...................             - - -
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................       +60,000,000
    The Essential Air Service (EAS) program was originally 
created by the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 as a temporary 
measure to continue air service to communities that had 
received federally mandated air service prior to deregulation. 
The program currently provides subsidies to air carriers 
serving small communities that meet certain criteria.
    The Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of 
1996 (Public Law 104-264) authorized the collection of user 
fees for services provided by the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA) to aircraft that neither take off from, 
nor land in the United States, commonly known as overflight 
fees. In addition, the Act permanently appropriated these fees 
for authorized expenses of the FAA and stipulated that the 
first $50,000,000 of annual fee collections must be used to 
finance the EAS program. In the event of a shortfall in fees, 
the law requires FAA to make up the difference from other funds 
available to the agency.
    The fiscal year 2008 budget proposes to fund the EAS 
program at a total of $50,000,000, solely from new overflight 
fee collections credited to the Airport and Airway Trust Fund 
and changes the program to require communities share in the 
cost of air service. In addition, the budget proposes bill 
language which would result in the elimination of air service 
to nearly a third of the communities that currently receive 
service.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a total program level of EAS in 
fiscal year 2008 of $110,000,000, the same level provided in 
fiscal year 2007. This funding consists of an appropriation of 
$60,000,000 and $50,000,000 to be derived from overflight fee 
collections. Based on current estimates from the Department of 
Transportation, the Committee believes that this funding level 
is sufficient to maintain air service to all communities 
currently served by the Essential Air Service program. However, 
in the event that there is a shortfall, the bill continues 
language allowing the Secretary to transfer up to $10,000,000 
to the EAS program from the small community air service 
development program if necessary.
    The bill does not include the legislative reforms to the 
essential air service program as proposed in the budget. 
However, the Committee continues language (sec. 101) to ensure 
prompt availability of funds for obligation to air carriers 
providing service under the EAS program. The Committee has also 
continued language that allows the secretary to take into 
consideration the subsidy requirements of carriers when 
selecting between carriers competing to provide service to a 
community.
    The bill includes a provision (sec. 104) prohibiting the 
use of funds to implement an essential air service pilot 
program that requires local cost-share participation.

                     COMPENSATION FOR AIR CARRIERS

                              (RESCISSION)
 Rescission, fiscal year 2007..........................      -$50,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008......................       -22,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       -22,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Rescission, fiscal year 2007......................       +28,000,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................             - - -
    The Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act 
(Public Law 107-42) provided $5,000,000,000 to compensate air 
carriers for direct losses incurred during the federal ground 
stop of civil aviation after the September 11, 2001 terrorist 
attacks, and for incremental losses incurred between September 
11 and December 31, 2001. To date, of the $5,000,000,000 
appropriated, $4,603,452,933 of direct compensation payments 
have been made and a total of $375,000,000 has been rescinded 
by Congress.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee includes language that rescinds the remaining 
$22,000,000 from the compensation for air carriers, consistent 
with the budget request. The Committee understands that there 
is one remaining claim that is currently in administrative 
processing. Although the Committee has been informed that this 
claim is expected to be resolved in 2007, the Committee 
requests that the Secretary keep the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations informed as to the status of this 
final claim.

  ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION

    Section 101. The Committee continues a provision allowing 
the Secretary of Transportation to transfer unexpended sums 
from ``office of the secretary, salaries and expenses'' to 
``minority business outreach''.
    Section 102. The Committee continues the provision 
prohibiting the Office of the Secretary of Transportation from 
approving assessments or reimbursable agreements pertaining to 
funds appropriated to the modal administrations in this Act, 
unless such assessments or agreements have completed the normal 
reprogramming process for Congressional notification.
    Section 103. The Committee continues the provision 
prohibiting the use of funds to implement an essential air 
service local cost share participation program.

                    Federal Aviation Administration

    The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is responsible 
for the safety and development of civil aviation and the 
evolution of a national system of airports. The Federal 
Government's regulatory role in civil aviation began with the 
creation of an Aeronautics Branch within the Department of 
Commerce pursuant to the Air Commerce Act of 1926. This Act 
instructed the Secretary of Commerce to foster air commerce; 
designate and establish airways; establish, operate, and 
maintain aids to navigation; arrange for research and 
development to improve such aids; issue airworthiness 
certificates for aircraft and major aircraft components; and 
investigate civil aviation accidents. In the Civil Aeronautics 
Act of 1938, these activities were subsumed into a new, 
independent agency named the Civil Aeronautics Authority.
    After further administrative reorganizations, Congress 
streamlined regulatory oversight in 1957 with the creation of 
two separate agencies, the Federal Aviation Agency and the 
Civil Aeronautics Board. When the Department of Transportation 
began its operations on April 1, 1967, the Federal Aviation 
Agency was renamed the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 
and became one of several modal administrations within the 
department. The Civil Aeronautics Board was later phased out 
with enactment of the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, and 
ceased to exist at the end of 1984. FAA's mission expanded in 
1995 with the transfer of the Office of Commercial Space 
Transportation from the Office of the Secretary, and decreased 
in December 2001 with the transfer of civil aviation security 
activities to the new Transportation Security Administration.
    Aviation trends and challenges.--The aviation industry has 
emerged as one of the largest industries in the world, as air 
travel has facilitated economic growth, world trade, 
international investment and tourism. Both commercial aviation 
and cargo service have experienced significant growth. In the 
ten year period from 1995 to 2006, the number of passengers 
grew from 545 million per year to 740 million. This number is 
expected to grow to 1 billion passengers by 2015. In addition, 
the air freight industry has expanded from 23 billion tons in 
1995 to 40 billion tons in 2006, a 74 percent boost in total 
goods transported due in part to the large rise in express 
delivery services. In 2002, the value of the goods transported 
via commercial aviation surpassed $8,483 billion testifying to 
the industry's value to international and domestic business. 
Based on the demands of a growing, global economy which relies 
on quality goods delivered on a ``just-in-time'' basis, the 
tonnage and value of goods transported via aviation means are 
expected to increase.
    However, the aviation industry is continuing to change and 
FAA is facing some serious challenges. The increase in traffic 
levels has resulted in congestion and delays. Operational 
performance of the National Airspace System (NAS) slipped 
slightly in 2006 with one in four flights arriving late. This 
is the worst level since 2000 when aviation gridlock dominated 
the aviation agenda. The Committee notes that the average 
length of flight delays has increased from 51 minutes in 2000 
to 53 minutes in 2006. Increased travel has also produced more 
emissions and noise problems. While technological advances in 
aircraft design have resulted in quieter planes with lower 
emissions, civilian aviation reportedly contributes 
approximately 3.5 percent of the total emissions that 
negatively impact air quality. Advances in equipment and 
capital programs are expected to reduce congestion and 
emissions but more work in these areas is necessary to cope 
with the increasing demand for aviation transportation.
    Although no legacy airlines are currently in bankruptcy, 
they continue to struggle financially. Over the last several 
years, they have received intense competition from an 
increasing number of low-cost carriers. The declining airfares 
that benefit consumers have contributed to the financial 
difficulties of network carriers. High fuel costs continue to 
undermine the financial improvement of network carriers and are 
also cutting into the low-cost carriers' bottom lines.
    In addition, the nation's fleet mix now runs the gamut from 
very light jets to the A-380, which completed its first flights 
to the U.S. this year. The complexity in the system is 
increasing--the smaller more efficient jets are flying point-
to-point rather than through expensive network hub airports. 
These changes have resulted in workload increases for FAA.
    These workload increases are occurring just when the FAA is 
facing a large wave of controller retirements. FAA has seen an 
increase in retirements over projections in 2006 linked to its 
imposed work rules, and it must ensure that enough controllers 
are hired and trained to replace those that are retiring. In 
addition, the workload on safety inspectors and engineers is 
increasing as the industry continues to outsource and as the 
FAA transitions to the safety management system (SMS).
    Since the current air traffic system, which is largely 
ground-based infrastructure, is not sufficient to meet the 
anticipated demand for air travel or to address the changes in 
the industry, FAA is undertaking the development and 
implementation of the Next Generation Air Transportation System 
(NextGen). The Committee notes that FAA has had a history of 
problems managing modernization projects in the past. NextGen 
is a complex, multibillion modernization project, and FAA must 
establish effective controls and oversight to ensure the FAA 
delivers new capabilities on-time and within budget.
    If our aviation system does not proactively respond to 
these challenges, there will be severe economic and social 
consequences. If we fail to capitalize on the opportunities to 
improve the industry then congestion, higher consumer prices, 
deteriorating air quality and an increased risk to aviation 
safety are all foreseeable repercussions. The Committee 
strongly urges the FAA to aggressively pursue solutions to 
these problems to ensure that the United States remains at the 
forefront of aviation safety and efficiency.
    FAA funding proposal.--The Federal Aviation 
Administration's funding and programs expire in October of this 
year. In its reauthorization proposal submitted on February 14, 
the FAA transforms the aviation financing structure from tax-
based to cost-based. As the foundation of its proposal, the FAA 
would impose new user-fees and issue bonds to finance air 
traffic control modernization. Bondholders would be repaid with 
these user fees.
    The Committee continues to have serious concerns about the 
impact of user fees and bonding on the oversight of FAA 
programs. In the past, the agency's large capital projects 
experienced massive cost growth and schedule slippage. A May 
2005 IG report stated that 11 major FAA acquisitions 
experienced cost growth of $5.6 billion and delays from 2 to 12 
years. Although some progress has been made, more needs to be 
done. This Committee has ensured that the FAA strengthens its 
program management and contractor oversight.
    However, user fees and bonding would create a new fiduciary 
responsibility between the agency and the bondholder. 
Essentially, FAA's allegiance would transfer from the American 
taxpayer to the bondholder, and oversight responsibilities of 
this Committee also would be substituted by bondholders. 
Financial discipline would erode as these programs would exist 
outside of the budget process.
    The Committee firmly believes that now is not the time to 
decrease its oversight role, especially as FAA is developing 
and soon will implement NextGen, a multi-billion effort that 
will dominate FAA's F&E; account. The Committee's oversight of 
FAA's capital programs is and will be vitally important to 
protect tax dollars and to ensure projects are completed on-
time and within budget.
    FAA program structure.--In its fiscal year 2008 budget 
request, the FAA proposed to change FAA's program account 
structure. The request would create two new accounts, Air 
Traffic Organization and Safety and Operations, which would be 
composed of a mix of elements from two eliminated accounts, 
Operations and Facilities and Equipment. The FAA states that 
this structure would align FAA's lines of businesses with its 
reauthorization proposal, which includes user fees in fiscal 
year 2009.
    The Committee notes that FAA's proposed new accounts are 
not authorized, and the Senate's Aviation Investment and 
Modernization Act of 2007 does not adopt the proposal. 
Therefore, the Committee continues funding FAA under the 
existing account structure. In addition, the Committee presents 
all charts and figures in this format.
    Justification of general provisions.--The Committee notes 
that FAA has not provided any justification for, nor has it 
addressed, the general or administrative provisions it proposes 
in the President's budget. The Committee directs FAA to justify 
each provision proposed in a section of each subsequent fiscal 
year's congressional budget justification.

                               OPERATIONS

                    (AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......................    $8,374,217,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008 \1\..................     8,725,783,000
Recommended in the bill...............................     8,716,606,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...................      +342,389,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................        -9,177,000\1\ Reflects requested funding in existing account structure.

    This appropriation provides funds for the operation, 
maintenance, communications, and logistical support of the air 
traffic control and air navigation systems. It also covers 
administrative and managerial costs for the FAA's regulatory, 
international, medical, engineering and development programs as 
well as policy oversight and overall management functions.
    The operations appropriation includes the following major 
activities: (1) operation on a 24-hour daily basis of a 
national air traffic system; (2) establishment and maintenance 
of a national system of aids to navigation; (3) establishment 
and surveillance of civil air regulations to assure safety in 
aviation; (4) development of standards, rules and regulations 
governing the physical fitness of airmen as well as the 
administration of an aviation medical research program; (5) 
administration of the acquisition, research and development 
programs; (6) headquarters, administration and other staff 
offices; and (7) development, printing, and distribution of 
aeronautical charts used by the flying public.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $8,716,606,000 for FAA operations, 
an increase of $342,389,000 above the level provided in fiscal 
year 2007, and $9,177,000 below the budget request.
    A comparison of the fiscal year 2008 budget request to the 
Committee recommendation by budget activity is as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Fiscal year 2007   Fiscal year 2008      Committee
                    Budget activity                           enacted          request \1\        recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air traffic organization...............................     $6,739,761,000     $6,964,813,000     $6,958,413,000
Aviation safety........................................      1,003,410,000      1,056,103,000      1,076,103,000
Commercial space transportation........................         11,696,000         12,837,000         12,549,000
Financial services.....................................         76,289,000        103,849,000        100,593,000
Human resources........................................         85,738,000         91,214,000         89,101,000
Region and center operations...........................        275,797,000        290,872,000        286,848,000
Staff offices..........................................        175,000,000        166,543,000        162,349,000
Information services...................................         36,002,000         39,552,000         38,650,000
Adjustments............................................  .................  .................         -8,000,000
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................................      8,374,217,000      8,725,783,000      8,716,606,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reflects requested funding in existing account structure.

                     TRUST FUND SHARE OF FAA BUDGET

    The bill derives $12,572,000,000 of the total appropriation 
from the airport and airway trust fund. The balance of the 
appropriation ($2,399,606,000) will be drawn from the general 
fund of the Treasury. Under these provisions, 85 percent of the 
FAA's costs will be borne by air travelers and industries using 
those services. The remaining 15 percent will be borne by the 
general taxpayer, regardless of whether they directly utilize 
FAA services.

               STATE OF THE AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND

    According to Administration estimates, fiscal year 2008 
will continue the recent trend where necessary outlays for FAA 
programs outstrip the revenues from aviation users deposited 
into the airport and airway trust fund. The following table 
compares trust fund revenue to trust fund outlays for the past 
three fiscal years. As the table indicates, under current 
estimates the Federal Government is not only spending all the 
revenues coming into the trust fund, it is going beyond that, 
and spending down the cash balance. The Administration 
estimates that, at the end of fiscal year 2008, the uncommitted 
cash balance in the trust fund will be approximately 
$3,134,000,000.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Fiscal year 2006   Fiscal year 2007   Fiscal year 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trust fund revenue \1\.................................    $11,194,000,000    $12,131,000,000    $12,623,000,000
Trust fund outlays.....................................     12,148,000,000     12,308,000,000     14,154,000,000
Difference.............................................       -954,000,000       -177,000,000     -1,531,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes excise taxes, offsetting collections, and interest on trust fund cash balance.

                             BASE TRANSFERS

    The budget proposes to transfer several activities and 
related personnel among offices within the operations 
appropriation. The Committee agrees that these transfers will 
properly align functions and positions among these offices, 
resulting in efficiencies.

                        AIR TRAFFIC ORGANIZATION

    The bill provides $6,958,413,000 for air traffic services, 
a reduction of $6,400,000 from the budget request. These 
resources are managed by FAA's air traffic organization. The 
recommended level reflects a $211,452,000 increase from the 
fiscal year 2007 enacted level, primarily due to mandatory 
adjustments for pay raises and inflation for on-board 
personnel, including air traffic controllers; costs associated 
with hiring and training 1,420 new air traffic controllers; and 
national airspace system (NAS) hand-off costs. NAS hand-off 
costs are associated with additional training for maintenance, 
engineering, telecommunications and other personnel on 
facilities and equipment acquisitions as they become 
operational. Recommended adjustments to the budget estimate are 
listed and described below:

                                                                  Amount
Contract tower base program.............................     +$3,600,000
NAS handoff.............................................     -10,000,000

    Contract tower program.--The bill includes $103,000,000, an 
increase of $3,600,000 above the budget estimate of 
$99,400,000, to continue the contract tower base program. This 
will fund the 10 non-towered airports that are expected to 
enter the program during fiscal year 2008.
    In addition, the bill provides $8,500,000, equal to the 
budget estimate, to continue the contract tower cost-sharing 
program. The Committee continues to believe this is a valuable 
program that provides safety benefits to small communities.
    The Committee recognizes that the number of airports 
participating in the cost-sharing program fluctuates regularly 
because of changes in air traffic activity. In order to prevent 
program disruptions and provide more certainty, the Committee 
allows FAA to use unsubscribed funds from the contract tower 
base-line program to avoid elimination of communities from the 
cost-share towers program. However, FAA should only employ this 
flexibility with surplus funds in the base line contract tower 
program, after all baseline contract tower obligations have 
been fulfilled.
    National airspace system handoff.--The Committee recommends 
a reduction of $10,000,000 below the budget estimate of 
$127,873,000 for a total of $117,400,000 in NAS handoff funding 
to training on newly deployed F&E; systems.
    Controller staffing.--The Committee believes that the FAA's 
leadership should proactively work to reach a mutual agreement 
with its controller workforce. The Committee is extremely 
concerned about controller staffing levels both on-board and in 
the training and hiring ``pipeline'', as controllers are 
crucial to the safety of the flying public. The FAA estimates 
that over the next 10 years, 72 percent of its controllers will 
become eligible to retire as they reach the mandatory 
retirement age of 56. To address the retirement bubble, FAA 
states that it plans to hire and train 15,000 new air traffic 
controllers over that time-frame. In December 2004, it 
submitted to Congress its first air traffic controller 
workforce plan outlining its hiring plan for the next 10 years.
    In March 2007, the agency provided the second update to its 
air traffic controller workforce plan. As with the prior 
update, it refined the methodology, incorporated new estimates 
of future traffic and retirement projections, and included 
recent productivity gains. In addition, it includes facility-
specific controller staffing ranges, consistent with the 
Inspector General's recommendation, which the FAA states is 
based on actual and forecasted traffic demands. Although the 
Committee agrees that facility-specific levels are important to 
ensure an adequate number of controllers are in each facility, 
it is concerned that the lower level of the staffing ranges 
represent a significant reduction in some facilities as 
compared to facility staffing agreements reached with the 
National Air Traffic Controllers Association in 1998.
    In addition, the Committee is concerned that retirements 
have increased over projections. It is clear that the sudden 
escalation in retirements is directly related to the collapse 
of labor negotiations in May 2006. The FAA projected 467 
retirements for fiscal year 2006, and actual retirements were 
tracking close to projections until May when the FAA declared 
an impasse. By the end of the fiscal year, a total of 116 
additional air traffic controllers retired over projections. 
FAA responded by increasing new hires in fiscal year 2007 (by 
250) and raising retirement projections for the future (by 57 
in 2007). FAA states that it is primarily focused on reaching 
its end of year staffing target each year and adjusts new 
hiring goals to meet end of year targets.
    However, the increased retirements translate into a less 
experienced workforce. This less experienced workforce is 
responsible for providing on-the-job training for the new 
Academy graduates. This coupled with the recent reduction in 
training time from 3-5 years to 2-3 years, could result in 
negative safety implications.
    Consistent with the fiscal year 2008 budget request, the 
Committee includes $15,899,000 to support salaries, benefits, 
training and ancillary support costs associated with 1,420 new 
controllers. The agency estimates that the new hires will be 
offset by expected losses of 1,276 controllers, resulting in a 
net increase of 144. The Committee will continue to closely 
monitor the various aspects of the controller issue, including 
retirements and training, to ensure that there are enough 
trained controllers to replace those that are retiring. 
Further, the Committee will continue to monitor the safety of 
the system by reviewing data, including runway incursion and 
operational error statistics.
    Controller diversity plan.--The Committee notes that the 
current controller workforce does not reflect the rich 
diversity of this nation. Given that 72 percent of the more 
than 14,000 controllers will retire over the next 10 years, now 
is the opportune time for FAA to reach-out to minorities and 
females to expand their numbers in the controller ranks.
    The Committee directs the FAA to develop a plan that will 
attract a controller workforce that more closely resembles this 
nation. The plan should include new methods to increase lower 
than anticipated participation rates and include a current 
controller workforce baseline with metrics to measure the 
plan's effectiveness. The Committee requires the FAA to provide 
the controller diversity plan to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations by January 1, 2008, and to provide 
updates to the Committee annually thereafter on new activities 
undertaken on the plan's effectiveness.
    Automated external defibrillators.--The Committee believes 
that automated external defibrillators (AEDs) can serve as a 
critical lifesaving device for FAA employees that experience 
cardiac arrest. Therefore, the Committee directs the FAA to 
study the issue of installing AEDs in its facilities and 
encourages the FAA to develop a policy on AEDs. The study 
should include the cost of an AED; other costs, such as 
installation, training, and maintenance; a review of OSHA and 
any other applicable guidelines or requirements; a review of 
liability risks; an accounting of FAA facilities that currently 
have defibrillators; and a review of other federal agencies' 
policies on providing AEDs. The Committee directs FAA to 
provide the study to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriation within 60 days of enactment of this Act.
    Flight service stations.--The Committee is troubled by the 
technical and operational problems associated with the flight 
service station consolidation and modernization. These problems 
include system outages, lost flight plans, excessive hold 
times, dropped calls, and poor quality service with specialists 
incapable of briefing on important weather and safety 
information. The Committee remains concerned the operational 
needs of the users are not being met thus affecting safety. 
Therefore, the Committee directs the FAA to develop and 
implement management controls to ensure that the contractor has 
sufficient specialists certified in a particular service area 
to meet user need, consistent with the recommendation included 
in the Inspector General's May 2007 report. The FAA shall 
report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, no 
later than December 31, 2007, on the status of these controls.

                            AVIATION SAFETY

    The bill provides $1,076,103,000 for aviation safety, an 
increase of $20,000,000 above the budget request. Recommended 
adjustments to the budget are described below.

Annualize on-board safety inspectors and engineers......    +$16,000,000
Hire additional critical safety staff...................      +4,000,000

    Critical safety staff.--The Committee has been concerned 
for some time about the level of critical safety personnel. To 
address delinquencies in the office of flight standard and 
aircraft certification, the 2006 Act provided an additional 
$12,000,000 above the fiscal year 2006 budget request for 238 
new safety personnel, of which $8,000,000 was for aviation 
flight standards (AFS) inspectors, and $4,000,000 for aircraft 
certification safety inspectors, engineers, pilots, and 
scientists. After accounting for the fiscal year 2006 across 
the board cut and mandatory pay raise, only 87 new safety 
staff, 55 for AFS and 32 for AIR, could be hired. The Committee 
took care to ensure that the entire 238 positions originally 
envisioned could be hired in fiscal year 2007, and provided 
funding for 43 AFS positions and 14 AIR positions in House 
Joint Resolution 20.
    Although the fiscal year 2008 budget request provides 
increases to several critical safety staff offices, including 
84 in AFS and 28 in AIR, it does not include the necessary 
funding to annualize the 57 AIR and AFS staff hired in fiscal 
year 2007. Therefore the committee provides $16,000,000 for 
these purposes, in addition to the requested funding level.
    Further, the Committee provides another $4,000,000 to hire 
critical safety staff. The Committee expects that these funds 
will allow FAA to hire up to 60 AVS personnel. Within this 
$4,000,000, the Committee provides $2,000,000 for AVS 
inspectors, $750,000 for AIR, $250,000 for aviation medicine, 
$750,000 for Air Traffic Safety Oversight, and $250,000 for 
quantity, integration, and executive services.
    Funds provided for the AVS offices are designated 
congressional items of interest. The Committee prohibits the 
reprogramming of funds between the offices, or for any other 
purpose within or outside of the aviation safety office, 
including the hiring of other types of personnel within 
aviation safety.
    The Committee directs the Secretary to provide annual 
reports beginning March 1, 2008 regarding the use of the funds 
provided, including, but not limited to the total full-time 
equivalent staff years in the offices of aircraft certification 
and flight standards, total employees, vacancies, and positions 
under active recruitment to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations.
    AVS safety workforce plan.--The FAA delivered its first 
aviation safety workforce plan to Congress on May 10, 2007. The 
purpose of the plan was to ensure that the FAA sustains 
sufficient oversight of a dynamic and growing industry given 
its highly-trained and technically-skilled workforce with a 
historic and expected annual attrition rate of 5 to 7 percent. 
The plan assumes an overall staffing growth of .05 to 2 percent 
per year over attrition in AVS overall. It also addresses the 
need to attract the right mix of new skills as FAA transitions 
the current AVS workforce to a safety management system 
culture. However, the plan does not indicate the number of 
inspectors required to meet its mission, nor does it provide 
information on additional training needs for on-board staff. To 
accomplish the former, the FAA must produce a staffing model, 
and the Committee understands the FAA currently is working with 
the National Academy of Sciences to develop such model.
    In addition the report states FAA will expand the use of 
designees. The Committee notes that the IG has had serious 
safety concerns associated with the use of designees. The 
Committee shares the IG's concerns regarding any expansion of 
the use of designees for critical safety oversight activities. 
The Committee directs FAA to provide more detail on overall 
staffing needs, its expected use of designees and how that will 
impact safety, as well as staffing requirements at its office 
and field locations. Further, the Committee directs the FAA to 
submit updates to this plan annually.
    AVS diversity.--The Committee is interested in attracting a 
diverse safety workforce to ensure that the AVS workforce more 
closely resembles this Nation. Therefore, the Committee directs 
the FAA to submit the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriation an AVS diversity plan. The plan should include 
new methods to increase lower than anticipated participation 
rates and include a current AVS workforce baseline with metrics 
to measure the plan's effectiveness. The Committee requires the 
FAA to provide the AVS diversity plan to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriation by January 1, 2008, and to provide 
updates to the Committee annually thereafter on new activities 
undertaken and on the plan's effectiveness.

                    COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION

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

    The Committee recommends $12,549,000 for the office of 
commercial space transportation, a reduction of $288,000 from 
the budget request for funding requests associated with fiscal 
year 2007. This funding level assumes four new FTEs for space 
launch safety. The commercial space launch industry is 
expanding to include the transportation of humans as well as 
satellites and other payloads into space and the use of inland 
as well as coastal launch sites. As a result, FAA's workload 
and safety oversight responsibilities will continue to grow. 
GAO noted in its October 2006 report that the FAA needs 
sufficient expertise to continue to provide timely license 
approvals and monitoring and to address the serious safety 
implications of the industry's expansion for people both on the 
ground and in the launch vehicles.

                           FINANCIAL SERVICES

Fiscal year 2007 related reduction......................     -$1,256,000
Delphi reduction........................................      -2,000,000

    The Committee recommends $100,593,000 for the office of 
financial services, a reduction of $3,256,000 from the budget 
request. The Committee provides $14,483,000 for Delphi 
maintenance and operation costs, FAA's portion of the complex, 
department-wide, financial management system. In addition, the 
Committee provides a total of $984,000 to support 5 new 
positions for expanded contract oversight for the program. The 
Committee reduces funding by $1,256,000 for funds requested 
associated with the fiscal year 2007 request. Within the funds 
provided, the Committee provides 8 FTEs to establish new 
functions and controls to address the material weakness and 
qualified opinion it received on its fiscal year 2006 financial 
statements and other problems identified in prior years. This 
will allow the FAA to effectively manage the capitalization of 
assets (representing a $14 billion portfolio) identified by 
both the IG and the GAO as a longstanding problem. The funding 
level also includes $7,000,000 in base transfers associated 
with penalty mail.

                            HUMAN RESOURCES

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

    The Committee recommends $89,101,000, a reduction of 
$2,113,000 from the budget request for funding associated with 
the fiscal year 2007 request.

                      REGION AND CENTER OPERATIONS

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

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

                             STAFF OFFICES

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

    The Committee provides $200,999,000 for staff offices, 
including information service, a reduction of $5,049,000 below 
the budget request. The reduction is associated with funding 
requested for fiscal year 2007. Within the total, information 
services is provided $38,650,000.

                        ACCOUNT-WIDE ADJUSTMENTS

    Unfilled executive positions.--The recommendation includes 
a reduction of $8,000,000 in agency-wide personnel compensation 
and benefits reflecting the unfilled roster of 15 executive 
positions in the agency, including 6 which were not under 
active recruitment. Past hearing records indicate that, at any 
given time, the agency is likely to have between 10 and 20 
unfilled executive positions. For an agency with 159 executive 
positions, this level of openings may not be problematic. 
However, it does indicate excess costs are being budgeted for 
positions that are not likely to be filled in the entirety of 
the fiscal year.

                             BILL LANGUAGE

    Second career training program.--Once again this year, the 
bill includes a prohibition on the use of funds for the second 
career training program. This prohibition has been in annual 
appropriations Acts for many years, and is included in the 
President's budget request.
    Sunday premium pay.--The bill retains a provision begun in 
fiscal year 1995 which prohibits the FAA from paying Sunday 
premium pay except in those cases where the individual actually 
worked on a Sunday. The statute governing Sunday premium pay (5 
U.S.C. 5546(a)) is very clear: ``An employee who performs work 
during a regularly scheduled 8-hour period of service which is 
not overtime work as defined by section 5542(a) of this title a 
part of which is performed on Sunday is entitled to * * * 
premium pay at a rate equal to 25 percent of his rate of basic 
pay.'' Disregarding the plain meaning of the statute and 
previous Comptroller General decisions, however, in Armitage v. 
United States, the Federal Circuit Court held in 1993 that 
employees need not actually perform work on a Sunday to receive 
premium pay. The FAA was required immediately to provide back 
pay totaling $37,000,000 for time scheduled but not actually 
worked between November 1986 and July 1993. Without this 
provision, the FAA would be liable for significant unfunded 
liabilities, to be financed by the agency's annual operating 
budget. This provision is identical to that in effect for 
fiscal years 1995 through 2007.
    Aviation user fees.--The bill includes a limitation carried 
for several years prohibiting funds from being used to finalize 
or implement any new unauthorized user fees.
    Aeronautical charting and cartography.--The bill maintains 
the provision which prohibits funds in this Act from being used 
to conduct aeronautical charting and cartography (AC&C;) 
activities through the working capital fund (WCF). Public Law 
106-181 authorized the transfer of these activities from the 
Department of Commerce to the FAA, a move which the Committee 
supported. The Committee believes this work should continue to 
be conducted by the FAA, and not administratively delegated to 
the WCF.
    Store gift cards and gift certificates.--The bill maintains 
the limitation in effect since fiscal year 2004 prohibiting FAA 
from using funds to purchase store gift cards or gift 
certificates through a government-issued credit card. This 
provision responds to abuses documented by the U.S. Government 
Accountability Office.
    Credits.--Funds received from specified public, private, 
and foreign sources for expenses incurred may be credited to 
the appropriation.

                        FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

                    (AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......................    $2,516,920,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008 \1\..................     2,462,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................     2,515,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...................        -1,920,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................       +53,000,000\1\ Reflects requested funding in existing account structure.

    The Facilities and Equipment (F&E;) account is the principal 
means for modernizing and improving air traffic control and 
airway facilities. The appropriation also finances major 
capital investments required by other agency programs, 
experimental research and development facilities, and other 
improvements to enhance the safety and capacity of the airspace 
system.
    Next generation air transportation system (NextGen).--The 
Committee is fully supportive of development and transition to 
NextGen and agrees that it is critical to accommodate the 
projected increases in air travel and air freight. In 2006 
there were 740 passengers and the FAA forecasts that airlines 
will carry more than 1 billion passengers by 2015. DOT predicts 
a tripling of passengers, cargo, and operations by 2025.
    Congress established the joint planning and development 
office (JPDO) to manage work related to the NextGen, which will 
be a highly complex, expensive, high-risk endeavor. The FAA 
estimates that $4,600,000,000 will be required for the NextGen 
initiative over the next five years, and much more is required 
in the out-years. In its February 2007 report, the IG 
identified a number of actions that are needed to reduce risk 
with NextGen.
    The report stressed that FAA needs to keep its major 
acquisitions on track. A May 2005 IG report stated that 11 
major FAA acquisitions experienced cost growth of $5.6 billion 
and experienced schedule slips from 2 to 12 years. Although FAA 
has made some progress, it needs to continue strong oversight 
of these programs, particularly since many serve as platforms 
for NextGen.
    In addition, the JPDO must ensure that it is a multi-agency 
effort. It must coordinate diverse agency research efforts 
underway at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 
Department of Commerce, Department of Defense, and Department 
of Homeland Security. The JPDO continues to develop an 
enterprise architecture and an integrated budget document, and 
has been working on memorandum of understandings with 
participating agencies. However, questions remain over which 
entities will fund and conduct some of the necessary research 
and development (R&D;) projects. The IG recommends that the JPDO 
develop an R&D; plan to guide agency research efforts over the 
next several years.
    In addition, the IG recommends that FAA shift from NextGen 
planning to implementation. FAA needs to develop realistic cost 
estimates for development, including adjustments to existing 
project and costs for new initiatives; quantify expected 
benefits; develop a strategy for technology transfer; and 
conduct sufficient human factors research to support NextGen 
changes.
    The Committee directs FAA to continue working to mitigate 
the risks involved in the development of NextGen to ensure that 
the NAS can meet expected traffic demands safely and 
efficiently. Further, FAA shall keep the Committee fully 
appraised of any circumstance which may impact the cost or 
schedule of the NextGen deployment.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,515,000,000 
for this program, a decrease of $1,920,000 below the level 
provided for fiscal year 2007 and $53,000,000 above the budget 
estimate. The bill provides that of the total amount 
recommended, $2,055,027,000 is available for obligation until 
September 30, 2010, and $459,973,000 (the amount for personnel 
and related expenses) is available until September 30, 2008. 
These obligation availabilities are consistent with past 
appropriations Acts.
    Program increases for critical safety programs.--The 
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has included the 
``reduction of runway incursions'' as one of its top 
priorities. In fact, the issue has been on NTSB's ``most wanted 
transportation improvement'' list since the list began in 1990. 
Although the FAA has made significant progress in reducing 
these incidents, the risks remain serious. Therefore, the 
Committee continues to target funding at specific technologies 
that will help prevent runway incursions now and in the future 
as well as other safety programs.

             ENGINEERING, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION

    Runway Incursion Reduction Programs (RIRP).--The Committee 
provides $8,000,000 for the RIRP, an increase of $2,000,000 
over the budget request to accelerate the development of safety 
technologies that mitigate factors and reduce the likelihood of 
runway incursions. This funding level will accelerate 
development and testing of runway intersection lights logic for 
intersecting runways; development of audible runway conflict 
alerts to the cockpit, especially important in low visibility 
conditions; and development of ground-based runway safety 
alerting visual aids for small and medium airports where ASDE-X 
technology is not available.
    Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B).--The 
ADSB program is an important foundation for the next generation 
air traffic control system. It provides an advanced 
surveillance technology which will result in greater positional 
accuracy and better utilization of airspace. In addition, it 
will reduce congestion, increase capacity, increase safety and 
provide greater predictability in departure and arrival times.
    The Committee provides $90,650,000, $5,000,000 above the 
request of $85,650,000 to accelerate ADSB. With the additional 
funds, the Committee directs the FAA to examine frequency 
congestion issues associated with the ADSB signal (expected to 
be used by large commercial aircraft) and accelerate the effort 
to determine how existing aircraft separation standards (based 
on radar technology) can be safely reduced. Resolution of these 
issues is essential for realizing the full benefits of this 
promising technology.

     MODERNIZATION OF AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

    Advanced technology and oceanic procedures (ATOP).--The 
Committee understands that ATOP service problems are resulting 
in the loss of data-link communication with aircraft and 
aircraft position jumps. Not only does this pose a serious 
safety issue, but also these problems directly limit the 
potential capacity and productivity benefits from the new 
automation system. Further, the Committee is concerned that 
ATOP cannot serve as a platform for NextGen if the service is 
not corrected. Therefore, the Committee directs the FAA to 
implement a solution that corrects the problems.

                            ENROUTE PROGRAMS

    Airport surface detection system--model X (ASDE-X).--The 
Committee provides $45,600,000 for ASDE-X, for an increase of 
$7,700,000 over the budget request. The additional funds will 
enable FAA to expedite site implementation and commission ASDE-
X systems earlier than currently planned. Deploying ASDE-X 
earlier at these sites will make it possible to realize safety 
and efficiency benefits sooner, including better controller 
situational awareness in all weather conditions and reduced 
risk of category A and B runway incursions.
    Runway status lights.--The Committee provides $20,000,000 
for runway status lights (RWSL), an increase of $14,700,000 
over the budget request. Implementation of RWSL will reduce the 
likelihood of runway accidents, particularly during take-off 
and landing, when most accidents take place. This program will 
help establish an international standard for this type of 
safety technology and help maintain FAA's international 
leadership. Further, this program responds to continued calls 
from both the operational community and the NTSB to deploy 
technology that provides direct warning to pilots.
    Integrated control and monitoring system.--The Committee 
recommends $2,000,000 for the continued procurement and 
installation, including site preparation, of the integrated 
control and monitoring system (ICMS) and expects the DOT to 
install systems at airports with the highest need.

                           TERMINAL PROGRAMS

    Terminal air traffic control facilities replacement.--The 
Committee provides a total of $155,100,000 for this program, an 
increase of $4,500,000 over the budget request.
                                      FY 2008 budget
              Project                    estimate        RecommendationAbilene, TX.......................         $2,200,000         $2,200,000
Palm Springs, CA..................            500,000          1,500,000
Ft. Lauderdale, FL................          1,000,000          1,000,000
Oakland, CA.......................          4,600,000          4,600,000
Orlando, FL.......................          7,000,000          7,000,000
Toledo, OH........................          1,450,000          1,450,000
Traverse City, MI.................          1,150,000          1,150,000
Kalamozoo, MI.....................         22,550,000         22,550,000
West Palm Beach, FL...............          7,590,000          7,590,000
Houston, TX.......................         29,072,000         29,072,000
Boise, ID.........................          9,074,000          9,074,000
Jeffco, CO........................          2,500,000          2,500,000
Reno, NV..........................         15,223,000         15,223,000
Gulfport, MS......................          7,497,000          7,497,000
LaGuardia, NY.....................          9,000,000          9,000,000
Pensacola, FL.....................          4,180,000          4,180,000
Dayton, OH........................          2,300,000          2,300,000
Memphis, TN.......................          4,760,000          4,760,000
Missoula, MT......................            754,000            754,000
Medford, OR.......................          1,100,000          1,100,000
San Francisco, CA, replacement....              - - -          1,500,000
    Facility power distribution links.--The Committee 
understands that a significant number of facilities require 
upgraded power distribution links. The current electronic 
configurations have caused power outages and resulted in 
significant flight delays. The Committee directs that the FAA 
establish a national program to update the power distribution 
systems at up to 25 facilities with problems, including the 
establishment of cost and schedule baselines and adjustment in 
its capital investment plan to ensure the expeditious solution 
to this problem.

                      LANDING AND NAVIGATION AIDS

    Instrument landing system establishment.--Within the funds 
provided, the Committee directs the following distribution:
 Completion of ILS at Northeastern Regional Airport,             $500,000
 Edenton, North Carolina..............................
Completion of ILS at Somerset Airport, Somerset,                 400,000
 Kentucky.............................................
Completion of ILS at Saline County Airport, Arkansas..           400,000
Continue ILS at Aiken Municipal Airport, South                   300,000
 Carolina.............................................
ILS Independence Municipal Airport, Kansas, (meets               700,000
 cost-benefit test)...................................
    Approach lighting system improvement programs.--Within the 
funds provided, the Committee directs the following 
distribution:
 Continuation of MALSR at Rutland State Airport,                 $700,000
 Vermont..............................................
Continuation of runway and centerline lighting,                  500,000
 Gulfport-Biloxi Airport, Mississippi.................
                        FLIGHT SERVICE PROGRAMS

    Wide area augmentation system (WAAS) and GPS approaches.--
The Committee notes that the fiscal year 2008 budget request of 
$115,900,000 for the wide area augmentation system includes 
$4,100,000 for the development of additional approaches and 
flight procedures at the nation's non-part 139 certified 
airports. The Committee supports this effort, and has provided 
$120,900,000 for WAAS, an increase of $5,000,000 above the 
budget request. Additional funds are provided to publish WAAS 
approaches at airports at non-Part 139 airports without an 
existing ILS approach.
    Loran C.--The Coast Guard has proposed terminating the 
Loran C program in the President's budget because it believes 
this system is no longer necessary for a secondary means of 
navigation. The Committee understands that a decision to 
terminate Loran C is dependent upon agreement by DOT, which has 
not occurred. The Committee also understands that in late 2006, 
DOT convened an independent assessment team, in cooperation 
with DHS, to complete yet another evaluation of Loran C. The 
team concluded that Loran C should be retained and modernized 
to serve as a long-term back-up for GPS. The Committee assumes 
continuation of Loran C in fiscal year 2008.
    Terminal air modernization replacement (TAMR phase II).--
The FAA has not, despite the tremendous attention, prodding, 
and funding from this Committee, completed contract 
negotiations for the display upgrades at the Chicago, Denver, 
Minneapolis, and St. Louis sites. Since these sites are large 
and critical to the national airspace system, these aging 
controller displays have particular safety implications. In 
fact, the IG identified these four sites as critical in 
November 2004, due to their significant reliability problems, 
insufficient computer memory, and insufficient data processing 
capability.
    In the fiscal year 2006 Act, the Committee noted its 
concern regarding FAA's estimated timeline to award the 
contract to update the displays and complete the project. 
However, the Committee was encouraged when the two viable 
contractors came together in January 2006 with a single 
proposal for all sites. The promise and expectation was that 
the alliance would allow these facilities to be updated up to 
10 months earlier and at a cheaper price.
    However, the project has been plagued by delays apparently 
associated with intracontractual issues between the contractors 
as well as with FAA's technical solution which assumed minimal 
software changes. In order to motivate the contractors to reach 
a cost agreement, the FAA was forced to limit funding provided 
under the ``not to exceed'' contract.
    On May 31, the parties reached a cost agreement. A 
definitized contract is expected to be executed by June 30, and 
project completion is slated for July 2008. Clearly, the 
Committee is disappointed that any savings in time and money 
associated with the project has evaporated and remains 
concerned that critical upgrades to large sites with a history 
of failures will not be complete for over a year.

                            MISSION SUPPORT

    Center for advanced aviation systems development (CAASD).--
The Committee provides $81,000,000 for CAASD, an increase of 
$6,800,000 above the budget estimate, and equal to the fiscal 
year 2007 enacted level. This funding level will continue 
CAASD's valuable contributions to many of FAA's programs, but 
particularly the critical input to NextGen and runway safety 
programs.
    CAASD's ability to simulate NextGen capabilities is vital 
to FAA's success now and in the future. This increase will fund 
simulation and evaluations of future concepts that are part of 
NextGen and the evolution to NextGen (including changes in 
roles and responsibilities for controllers, pilots and both 
aircraft and ground system automation; new concepts in airspace 
management; and use of procedures based on required navigation 
performance). It will allow CAASD to develop requirements and 
perform alternatives analysis for the operational and system 
architecture evolution of the NAS toward NextGen.
    Further, regarding runway safety programs, this funding 
level will allow CAASD to conduct simulation of runway 
incursion encounters similar to the 2005 Boston Logan near miss 
and 2006 Chicago O'Hare near miss and prepare evaluation plans 
for experimental deployment at a selected major airport. It 
will fund human-in-the-loop simulations for design and 
evaluation of a runway incursion warning system that resides in 
each aircraft and is not dependent on airport ground 
infrastructure. A flight-deck-based system would be applicable 
to a large number of mid-sized and smaller airports that don't 
have expensive surface surveillance systems.

                     PERSONNEL AND RELATED EXPENSES

    The Committee recommends $459,973,000 for personnel and 
related expenses. This appropriation finances the installation 
and commissioning of new equipment and modernization of FAA 
facilities.
    Collaboration with collective bargaining units.--The 
Committee notes that participation by FAA's users and servicers 
and their respective collective bargaining unit organizations 
is vitally important to ensure the best capital products and 
solutions for both the FAA and the flying public. History has 
shown the early and continuous inclusion of subject matter 
experts can prevent seemingly subtle problems that could have 
challenging and expensive consequences. This lesson was very 
clear in the middle 1990s during the development of the 
standard terminal automation replacement system (STARS). The 
FAA severely limited controller input, which resulted in 
significant cost overruns and schedule delays. These 
relationships are critical, particularly as the FAA plans and 
develop the Next Generation Air Transportation System 
(NextGen).
    The Committee understands that the FAA's imposed work rules 
have caused confusion about collective bargaining unit 
participation in capital program development. In a May 23 
letter to the National Air Traffic Controllers Association 
(NATCA), FAA clarified that the relationship would continue. 
The FAA states that the imposed work rules define a process for 
establishing workgroups for technology and procedural changes, 
and that NATCA can submit a list of individuals to FAA to 
assist in the NextGen Activities. It also explains that the 
President of NATCA has an existing seat on two primary traffic 
advisory committees, the joint program and development office's 
institute management counsel, and the operational evolution 
partnership (OEP) associates team. In a May 24 letter, the FAA 
invites NATCA to continue to take part on the OEP, and in a 
separate letter, invites PASS to participate on the OEP.
    The Committee is encouraged that the FAA appears to 
understand the importance of collective bargaining 
participation in air traffic modernization projects, and 
directs the FAA to continue this spirit of cooperation so 
fundamental to the success of the agency.

                             BILL LANGUAGE

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

                 RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, AND DEVELOPMENT

                    (AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......................      $130,234,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008......................       140,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       140,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...................        +9,766,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................             - - -
    This appropriation provides funding for long-term research, 
engineering and development programs to improve the air traffic 
control system and to raise the level of aviation safety, as 
authorized by the Airport and Airway Improvement Act and the 
Federal Aviation Act. The appropriation also finances the 
research, engineering and development needed to establish or 
modify federal air regulations.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $140,000,000, an increase of 
$9,766,000 above the fiscal year 2007 enacted level and equal 
to the President's budget estimate.
    A table showing the fiscal year 2007 enacted level, the 
fiscal year 2008 budget estimate, and the Committee 
recommendation follows:

                 RESEARCH, ENGINEERING AND DEVELOPMENT

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Fiscal year 2007   Fiscal year 2008      Committee
                        Program                               enacted            request         recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improve Commercial Aviation Safety.....................        $88,231,780        $91,256,000        $91,256,000
    Fire research and safety...........................          6,638,000          7,350,000          7,350,000
    Propulsion and fuel systems........................          4,048,000          4,086,000          4,086,000
    Advanced materials/structural safety...............          2,843,000          2,713,000          2,713,000
    Atmospheric hazards/digital system safety..........          3,848,000          3,574,000          3,574,000
    Aging aircraft.....................................         18,621,000         14,931,000         14,931,000
    Aircraft catastrophic failure prevention...........          1,512,000          2,202,000          2,202,000
    Flightdeck safety/systems integration..............          7,999,000          9,651,000          9,651,000
    Aviation safety risk analysis......................          5,292,000          9,517,000          9,517,000
    ATC/AF human factors...............................          9,654,000         10,254,000         10,254,000
    Aeromedical research...............................          7,031,780          6,780,000          6,780,000
    Weather research...................................         19,545,000         16,888,000         16,888,000
    Unmanned aircraft system...........................          1,200,000          3,310,000          3,310,000
Improve Efficiency of the ATC System...................         21,166,000         28,676,000         28,676,000
    Joint program and development office...............         18,100,000         14,321,000         14,321,000
    Wake turbulence....................................          3,066,000         10,755,000         10,755,000
    GPS Civil Requirements.............................                  0          3,600,000          3,600,000
Reduce Environmental Impacts...........................         16,017,410         15,469,000         15,469,000
    Environment and energy.............................         16,017,410         15,469,000         15,469,000
Mission Support........................................          4,818,450          4,599,000          4,599,000
    System planning and resource mgmt..................          1,388,450          1,184,000          1,184,000
    Technical laboratory facilities....................          3,430,000          3,415,000          3,415,000
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
        Total..........................................        130,233,640        140,000,000        140,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Helicopter emergency medical services weather tool.--The 
Committee notes that the air ambulance industry improves the 
survival of trauma victims and other critical patients. Air 
ambulance flights are subject to greater risks than other 
helicopter operations because they often fly at night, in a 
variety of weather conditions, and to remote sites to provide 
medical attention. The Committee notes that the FAA research 
budget increases funding for the helicopter emergency medical 
services weather tool and the national ceiling visibility 
research from the fiscal year 2007 level. The Committee 
supports this program which provides weather information for 
low altitude, off-airport operations and helps ensure safety.
    Flight data and cockpit voice recorders.--The Committee 
understands that the Transportation Security Administration 
(TSA) plans to evaluate the safety and security benefits of 
deployable flight data and cockpit voice recorders equipped 
with emergency locator transmitters. The Committee encourages 
FAA to coordinate with TSA to test such technologies on 
civilian passenger aircraft in order to identify those that 
would improve the survivability of flight data and cockpit 
voice recorders following civil aviation disasters.
    Flight attendant fatigue.--The Committee directs FAA to 
continue to study the phenomenon of flight attendant fatigue. 
The Civil Aerospace Medical Institute's September 2005 report 
stated that ``flight attendant fatigue appears to be a salient 
issue warranting further evaluation''. It recommended continued 
study on incident reports, field research on fatigue, improving 
models for assessing flight attendant fatigue, review of 
international policies and practices, and development of 
training material.

                       GRANTS-IN-AID FOR AIRPORTS

                (LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

                      (LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

                    (AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Liquidation of
                                         contract        Limitation on
                                      authorization       obligations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...     $4,399,000,000   ($3,514,500,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2008..      4,300,000,000    (2,750,000,000)
Recommended in the bill...........      4,399,000,000    (3,600,000,000)
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year                    ---      (+85,500,000)
     2007.........................
    Budget request, fiscal year           +99,000,000     (+850,000,000)
     2008.........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The bill includes a liquidating cash appropriation of 
$4,399,000,000 for grants-in-aid for airports, authorized by 
the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as amended. 
This funding provides for liquidation of obligations incurred 
pursuant to contract authority and annual limitations on 
obligations for grants-in-aid for airport planning and 
development, noise compatibility and planning, the military 
airport program, reliever airports, airport program 
administration, and other authorized activities. This is 
$99,000,000 above the amount requested in the President's 
budget and equal to the fiscal year 2007 enacted level.

                       LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS

    The bill includes a limitation on obligations of 
$3,600,000,000 for fiscal year 2008. This is $850,000,000 above 
the President's budget and $85,500,000 over the fiscal year 
2007 level.

                  ADMINISTRATION AND RESEARCH PROGRAMS

    The bill provides that, within the overall obligation 
limitation, $80,676,000 is available for administration of the 
airports program by the FAA. In addition, $10,000,000 is for 
the airport cooperative research pilot program, and up to 
$18,712,000 for the airport technology research. These levels 
are consistent with the request.

                         HIGH PRIORITY PROJECTS

    Of the funds covered by the obligation limitation in this 
bill, the Committee directs FAA to provide not less than the 
following funding levels, out of available resources, for the 
following projects in the corresponding amounts. The Committee 
agrees that state apportionment funds may be construed as 
discretionary funds for the purposes of implementing this 
provision. To the maximum extent possible, the administrator 
should work to ensure that airport sponsors for these projects 
first use available entitlement funds to finance the projects. 
However, the FAA should not require sponsors to apply carryover 
entitlement to discretionary projects funded in the coming 
year, but only those entitlements applicable to the fiscal year 
2007 obligation limitation. The Committee further directs that 
the specific funding allocated above shall not diminish or 
prejudice the application of a specific airport or geographic 
region to receive other AIP discretionary grants or multiyear 
letters of intent.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.021

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.022

                              (RESCISSION)
 Rescission, fiscal year 2007..........................      -$25,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008......................           -  -  -
Recommened in the bill................................     -$185,500,000
Bill compared with:
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2007......................      -160,000,000
 Budget request, fiscal year 2008.....................      -185,500,000
    The Committee recommendation includes a rescission of 
contract authorization of $185,500,000 from contract authority 
in fiscal year 2007 above the obligation limitation provided in 
that year. Therefore, this rescission has no effect on any 
grants-in-aid program.

                             BILL LANGUAGE

    Runway incursion prevention systems and devices.--
Consistent with the provisions of Public Law 106-181 and the 
fiscal year 2004 through 2007 Appropriations Acts, the bill 
allows funds under this limitation to be used for airports to 
procure and install runway incursion prevention systems and 
devices.
    Small community air service development program.--The bill 
specifies that $10,000,000 of the total amount limited is 
available to continue the small community air service 
development program.
    Administration and research programs.--The bill provides 
that, within the overall obligation limitation, $80,676,000 is 
available for administration of the airports program by the 
FAA. The Committee also provides $10,000,000 for the airport 
cooperative research pilot program, and up to $18,712,000 for 
the airport technology research program.

       ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

    Section 110. The Committee retains a provision requiring 
FAA to accept landing systems, lighting systems, and associated 
equipment procured by airports, subject to certain criteria.
    Section 111. The Committee retains, without modification, a 
provision limiting the number of technical workyears at the 
Center for Advanced Aviation Systems Development to 375 in 
fiscal year 2008.
    Section 112. The Committee retains a provision prohibiting 
FAA from requiring airport sponsors to provide the agency 
``without cost'' building construction, maintenance, utilities 
and expenses, or space in sponsor-owned buildings, except in 
the case of certain specified exceptions.
    Section 113. The Committee continues a provision allowing 
reimbursement for fees collected and credited under 49 U.S.C. 
45303.
    Section 114. The Committee retains a provision allowing 
reimbursement of funds for providing technical assistance to 
foreign aviation authorities to be credited to the operations 
account.
    Section 115. The Committee continues a provision extending 
the current terms and conditions of FAA's aviation insurance 
program, commonly known as the ``war risk insurance'' program, 
for one additional year, from December 31, 2007 to December 31, 
2008. This will extend provisions relating to premium price 
caps, which were set to expire at the end of this calendar 
year. In addition, it also extends the underlying program from 
March 2008 to December 31, 2008. The Committee recommendation 
preserves the status quo under this program, a savings of 
$164,000,000 from the budget estimate. Savings accrue because 
the bill's provisions result in additional revenue from 
insurance premiums, which were assumed to be zero in the budget 
estimate for fiscal year 2008.
    Section. 116. The Committee retains a provision prohibiting 
funds to change weight restrictions or prior permission rules 
at Teterboro Airport, Teterboro, New Jersey.

                     Federal Highway Administration

    The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides 
financial assistance to the states to construct and improve 
roads and highways, and provides technical assistance to other 
agencies and organizations involved in road building 
activities. Title 23 of the United States Code and other 
supporting legislation provide authority for the various 
activities of the FHWA. Funding is provided by contract 
authority, with program levels established by annual 
limitations on obligations set in Appropriations Acts.
    The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation 
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), enacted August 10, 
2005, provides for increased transportation infrastructure 
investment, strengthens transportation safety and environmental 
programs, and continues core research activities. SAFETEA-LU 
also amended the Budget Enforcement Act to continue two 
discretionary spending categories, one of which is the highway 
category. This category is comprised of all federal-aid 
highways funding, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration's motor carrier safety funding, the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) highway safety 
grants funding and NHTSA's highway safety research and 
development funding. If appropriations action forces highway 
obligations to exceed this level, the resulting difference in 
outlays is charged to the discretionary spending category. In 
addition, in fiscal year 2008, if receipts into the highway 
account of the highway trust fund exceed levels specified in 
SAFETEA-LU, automatic adjustments are made to increase or 
decrease obligations and outlays for the highway category 
accordingly. Additional resources provided by this automatic 
spending mechanism are called revenue-aligned budget authority 
(RABA).

                  SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2008 PROGRAM

    SAFETEA-LU caps the highway category obligations at 
$40,824,075,404 in fiscal year 2008 and, within that amount, 
limits federal-aid highway obligations to $39,585,075,404. In 
addition, the provisions of SAFETEA-LU require an increase of 
$630,975,955 in fiscal year 2008 in federal-aid highway funding 
due to RABA. This combined total highway funding level of 
$40,216,051,359 represents a 3.2 percent increase over the 
fiscal year 2007 enacted level of $38,965,232,253. The 
Committee's recommendation is consistent with the levels 
guaranteed by SAFETEA-LU, as adjusted for RABA. The following 
table summarizes the program levels within the FHWA for fiscal 
year 2007 enacted, the fiscal year 2008 budget request and the 
Committee's recommendation:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year 2007         Fiscal year 2008
               Program                         enacted                  request          Recommended in the bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-aid highways.................          \1\ $38,122,978              $39,585,075              $39,585,075
Revenue aligned budget authority                       842,254                       --                  630,976
 (RABA)..............................
                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Subtotal.........................               38,965,232               39,585,075               40,216,051
Exempt contract authority............                  740,737                  739,000                  739,000
                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Subtotal.........................               39,705,969               40,324,075               40,955,051
Appropriation for pay raise (Sec.                        2,794                       --                       --
 111, P.L. 110-5)....................
Appalachian development highway                         19,800                       --                       --
 system (GF).........................
Emergency relief program--P.L. 110-28                  871,022                       --                       --
 (GF)................................
Rescission of contract authority.....               -4,342,604               -1,999,976               -3,385,286
Rescission of budget authority.......                       --                 -409,469                   -4,765
                                      ==========================================================================
        Total........................               36,256,981               37,914,630               37,565,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reflects transfer of funds to NHTSA.

                 LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......................    ($360,991,620)
Budget request, fiscal year 2008......................     (384,556,000)
Recommended in the bill...............................     (384,556,000)
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...................     (+23,564,380)
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................             - - -
    This limitation controls spending for the salaries and 
expenses of the FHWA required to conduct and administer the 
federal-aid highway program, highway-related research, and most 
other federal highway programs.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a limitation of $384,556,000, 
consistent with the budget request and $23,564,380 above the 
fiscal year 2007 level.
    Full-time equivalent staff years (FTE).--The funding level 
provided by the Committee includes the resources necessary for 
the FHWA to fill 215 vacancies in order to hire up to the FTE 
ceiling of 2,430 FTE in fiscal year 2008.
    Unobligated balances in miscellaneous accounts.--The 
Committee has once again included several provisions in the 
bill that rescinds unobligated balances of contract authority 
that are either no longer needed because the projects have been 
completed or cannot be spent due to limitations on obligations 
set in this Act or prior Acts, such as SAFETEA-LU. The 
Committee continues to encourage the FHWA to identify unneeded 
balances, especially related to unobligated highway project 
funds which have been designated for specific purposes and 
geographic locations and cannot be used for another project 
without legislative action and which would otherwise remain 
unobligated indefinitely. Therefore, the Committee directs the 
FHWA to submit a report to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations by February 1, 2008, detailing how the agency is 
reviewing unobligated project funds and the processes it has 
for notifying Congress of those projects where legislative 
action is needed. In addition, the Committee understands that 
Section 1603 of SAFETEA-LU addresses the use of excess funds 
and funds for inactive projects that were allocated before 
fiscal year 1991. The Committee directs the FHWA to include 
with the fiscal year 2009 budget submission a description of 
any action taken under that section in fiscal year 2007.

                 LIMITATION ON TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......................    ($425,502,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2008......................     (429,800,000)
Recommended in the bill...............................     (429,800,000)
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...................      (+4,298,000)
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................             - - -
    This limitation controls spending for the transportation 
research and technology contract programs of the FHWA. It 
includes a number of contract programs including surface 
transportation research, training and education, university 
transportation research, and intelligent transportation systems 
research. Funding for the Bureau of Transportation Statistics 
(BTS) is also included within this limitation even though BTS 
is organizationally placed within the Research and Innovative 
Technology Administration (RITA). Additional information 
regarding BTS is included in the RITA section of this report.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The recommendation includes an obligation limitation for 
transportation research of $429,800,000 in fiscal year 2008 for 
the following transportation research programs:

Surface transportation research.........................    $196,400,000
Training and education..................................      26,700,000
Bureau of transportation statistics.....................      27,000,000
University transportation research......................      69,700,000
Intelligent transportation systems research.............     110,000,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
    Total...............................................    $429,800,000

                          FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

                (LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

                      (LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Liquidation of
                                      contract          Limitation on
                                   authorization         obligations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year          $36,032,343,903    ($38,965,232,253)
 2007.........................
Budget request, fiscal year          38,000,000,000     (39,585,075,404)
 2008.........................
Recommended in the bill.......       40,955,051,359     (40,216,051,359)
Bill compared to:
    Appropriation, fiscal year       +4,922,707,456     (+1,250,819,106)
     2007.....................
    Budget request, fiscal           +2,955,051,359       (+630,975,955)
     year 2008................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The federal-aid highways (FAH) program is designed to aid 
in the development, operations and management of an intermodal 
transportation system that is economically efficient, 
environmentally sound, provides the foundation for the nation 
to compete in the global economy, and moves people and goods 
safely.
    All programs included within FAH are financed from the 
highway trust fund and most are distributed via apportionments 
and allocations to states. The FAH program is funded by 
contract authority in SAFETEA-LU and liquidating cash 
appropriations are subsequently provided to fund outlays 
resulting from obligations incurred under contract authority.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a liquidating cash appropriation 
of $40,955,051,359. This is the amount required to pay the 
outstanding obligations of the highway program at levels 
provided in this Act and prior appropriations Acts.

                       LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS

    The bill includes language limiting fiscal year 2008 
federal-aid highways obligations to $40,216,051,359, consistent 
with the SAFETEA-LU highway funding guarantees as adjusted for 
RABA. Of the amount provided under RABA, an amount to be 
calculated is available to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration (FMCSA) for the motor carrier safety grant 
program and bill language is included to transfer this funding 
to FMCSA.
    The Committee has also included bill language that allows 
the Secretary to charge and collect fees from the applicant for 
a direct loan, guaranteed loan, or line of credit to cover the 
cost of the financial and legal analyses performed on behalf of 
the Department. These fees are not subject to any obligation 
limitation or the limitation on administrative expenses set for 
the transportation infrastructure finance and innovation 
program under section 608 of title 23, United States Code.
    Although the following table reflects an estimated 
distribution of obligations by program category, the bill 
includes a limitation applicable only to the total of certain 
federal-aid spending. The following table indicates estimated 
obligations by program within the $40,216,051,359 provided by 
this Act and additional resources made available by permanent 
law:

     FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS ESTIMATED OBLIGATION LIMITATION BY PROGRAM
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               FY 2008
             Programs                FY 2006      FY 2007        est.
                                    limitation   limitation   limitation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject to limitation:
    Surface transportation           5,139,465    5,621,419    5,998,864
     program.....................
    National highway system......    4,879,210    5,337,589    5,696,201
    Interstate maintenance.......    3,994,609    4,370,819    4,664,604
    Bridge program...............    3,412,935    3,734,641    3,985,720
    Congestion mitigation and air    1,393,288    1,523,840    1,626,137
     quality improvement.........
    Highway safety improvement         866,641      931,854      994,124
     program.....................
    Equity bonus.................    5,858,197    7,500,737    8,495,718
    Surface transportation             169,159      180,829      188,155
     research program............
    University transportation           83,029       88,757       92,353
     research and training and
     education...................
    ITS standards, research and         94,743      101,279      105,382
     development.................
    Bureau of Transportation            26,730       27,469       27,401
     Statistics..................
    Federal lands highways.......      701,440      815,623      913,951
    High priority projects.......    2,554,960    2,731,212    2,841,869
    Projects of national and           306,451      409,488      426,079
     regional significance.......
    National corridor                  335,562      448,389      466,555
     infrastructure improvement
     program.....................
    Transportation improvements..      440,165      588,162      611,991
    Appalachian development            395,296      423,820      443,680
     highway system..............
    Transportation, community,          52,755       56,394       58,679
     and system preservation
     program.....................
    Other programs...............    4,501,315    3,720,825    2,077,154
    Transportation infrastructure      105,079      112,327      116,878
     finance and innovation
     (TIFIA).....................
    Administration...............      360,992      360,992      384,556
                                  --------------------------------------
        Total subject to            35,672,020   39,086,465   40,216,051
         obligation limitation...
                                  ======================================
Emergency relief program.........      100,000      101,737      100,000
Equity bonus.....................      639,000      639,000      639,000
                                  --------------------------------------
        Total exempt programs....      739,000      740,737      739,000
                                  ======================================
Emergency relief supplements.....  \1\ 3,452,3  \1\ 871,022           --
                                            63
                                  ======================================
        Grand total, Federal-aid    39,863,383   40,698,224   40,955,051
         highways (direct).......
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ General Fund appropriation (FY 2006: P.L. 109-148, P.L. 109-234; FY
  2007: P.L. 110-28).

    The following table reflects the estimated distribution of 
the federal-aid limitation by state:

                                                         ESTIMATED FY 2008 OBLIGATION LIMITATION
                                                                [In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Formula            Formula                             Appalachian
                          State                                Obligation         Obligation        Equity Bonus       Development           Total
                                                               Limitation      Limitation RABA                       Highway  System
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama..................................................            574,512             10,556             53,532             27,598            666,198
Alaska...................................................            243,543              4,885             44,021                  0            292,449
Arizona..................................................            597,127             10,415             50,328                  0            657,870
Arkansas.................................................            380,533              6,684             27,463                  0            414,679
California...............................................          2,691,034             46,479            160,315                  0          2,897,828
Colorado.................................................            418,986              6,962             17,656                  0            443,604
Connecticut..............................................            389,789              6,870             31,802                  0            428,461
Delaware.................................................            125,382              2,104              4,119                  0            131,605
District of Columbia.....................................            132,556              2,093                  0                  0            134,649
Florida..................................................          1,530,876             27,251            157,052                  0          1,715,180
Georgia..................................................          1,035,159             18,773            110,253             16,915          1,181,100
Hawaii...................................................            131,046              2,157              4,473                  0            137,676
Idaho....................................................            222,907              3,918             20,314                  0            247,139
Illinois.................................................          1,028,307             17,608             69,938                  0          1,115,853
Indiana..................................................            770,454             13,637             75,058                  0            859,149
Iowa.....................................................            354,165              5,698              5,433                  0            365,296
Kansas...................................................            326,680              5,194              1,858                  0            333,733
Kentucky.................................................            475,864              9,082             28,023             64,727            577,697
Louisiana................................................            483,954              8,228             16,224                  0            508,406
Maine....................................................            147,535              2,329                957                  0            150,822
Maryland.................................................            502,661              8,534             25,576              6,054            542,824
Massachusetts............................................            526,252              8,485              8,976                  0            543,713
Michigan.................................................            921,922             15,850             66,475                  0          1,004,257
Minnesota................................................            478,810              8,462             36,600                  0            523,871
Mississippi..............................................            371,396              6,378             15,495              5,005            398,273
Missouri.................................................            715,227             12,406             44,431                  0            772,064
Montana..................................................            285,830              5,062             27,966                  0            318,858
Nebraska.................................................            239,274              3,869              4,626                  0            247,769
Nevada...................................................            219,343              3,677             10,889                  0            233,909
New Hampshire............................................            140,319              2,332              5,941                  0            148,592
New Jersey...............................................            843,506             14,362             53,217                  0            911,085
New Mexico...............................................            290,791              5,062             17,988                  0            313,841
New York.................................................          1,380,978             23,097             48,816             21,309          1,474,199
North Carolina...........................................            840,850             15,287             73,519             30,095            965,751
North Dakota.............................................            200,631              3,280              5,726                  0            209,637
Ohio.....................................................          1,079,562             19,401             85,826             19,373          1,204,163
Oklahoma.................................................            469,938              8,022             30,723                  0            508,683
Oregon...................................................            363,870              6,010              7,656                  0            377,536
Pennsylvania.............................................          1,281,461             23,021             63,759             97,623          1,465,865
Rhode Island.............................................            162,579              2,606                  0                  0            165,184
South Carolina...........................................            516,420              8,974             39,625              2,742            567,762
South Dakota.............................................            205,494              3,538             10,899                  0            219,932
Tennessee................................................            637,864             11,767             47,726             33,012            730,369
Texas....................................................          2,588,489             45,211            221,331                  0          2,855,031
Utah.....................................................            230,993              3,843              9,971                  0            244,807
Vermont..................................................            137,108              2,204                  0                  0            139,312
Virginia.................................................            792,638             14,545             63,741             31,562            902,486
Washington...............................................            554,232              8,968             11,085                  0            574,286
West Virginia............................................            252,516              5,692             17,342             81,664            357,214
Wisconsin................................................            582,621             10,308             56,565                  0            649,495
Wyoming..................................................            205,914              3,596              8,689                  0            218,199
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Subtotal.............................................         30,079,897            524,781          2,000,000            443,680         33,048,358
High priority projects...................................          2,797,815             44,054                  0                  0          2,841,869
Allocated programs.......................................          4,263,684             62,140                  0                  0          4,325,824
                                                          ==============================================================================================
    Total limitation.....................................         37,141,395            630,976          2,000,000            443,680         40,216,051
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Federal-aid highways and bridges are managed through a 
federal-state partnership. States and localities maintain 
ownership and responsibility for maintenance, repair and new 
construction of roads. State highway departments have the 
authority to initiate federal-aid projects subject to FHWA 
approval of plans, specifications, and cost estimates. The 
federal government provides financial support for construction 
and repair through matching grants, the terms of which vary 
with the type of road.
    There are almost four million miles of public roads in the 
United States and approximately 594,000 bridges. The federal 
government provides grants to states to assist in financing the 
construction and preservation of about 971,000 miles (24 
percent) of these roads, which represents the National Highway 
System plus key feeder and collector routes. Highways eligible 
for federal aid carry about 85 percent of total U.S. highway 
traffic. Under SAFETEA-LU, federal-aid highways funds are made 
available through the following major programs:
    Surface transportation program (STP).--STP is a flexible 
program that may be used by states and localities for projects 
on any federal-aid highway, bridge projects on any public road, 
transit capital projects, and intracity and intercity bus 
terminals and facilities. A portion of STP funds are set aside 
for transportation enhancements and state sub-allocations are 
provided. The federal share for STP is generally 80 percent, 
subject to the sliding scale adjustment, with a four-year 
availability period.
    National highway system (NHS).--The NHS program provides 
funding for a designated National Highway System consisting of 
roads that are of primary federal interest. The NHS consists of 
the current Interstate, other rural principal arterials, urban 
freeways and connecting urban principal arterials, and 
facilities on the Defense Department's designated Strategic 
Highway Network, and roads connecting the NHS to intermodal 
facilities. Legislation designating the 161,000 mile system was 
enacted in 1995 and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 
Century (TEA-21) added to the system the highways and 
connections to transportation facilities identified in the May 
24, 1996, report to Congress. The federal share for the NHS 
program is generally 80 percent, subject to the sliding scale 
adjustment, with an availability period of four-years.
    Interstate maintenance (IM) program.--The IM program 
finances projects to rehabilitate, restore, resurface and 
reconstruct the Interstate system. Reconstruction that 
increases capacity, other than HOV lanes, is not eligible for 
IM funds. The federal share for the IM program is 90 percent, 
subject to the sliding scale adjustment, and funds are 
available for four years.
    Funds provided for the IM discretionary program in fiscal 
year 2008 shall be available for the following activities in 
the corresponding amounts:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.023

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.024

    Bridge replacement and rehabilitation program.--The bridge 
program enables states to improve the condition of their 
bridges through replacement, rehabilitation, and systematic 
preventive maintenance. The funds are available for use on all 
bridges, including those on roads functionally classified as 
rural minor collectors and as local. Bridge program funds have 
a four-year period of availability with a federal share for all 
projects, except those on the Interstate System, of 80 percent, 
subject to the sliding scale adjustment. For those bridges on 
the Interstate System, the federal share is 90 percent, subject 
to the sliding scale adjustment.
    There is a set-aside of $100,000,000 from the fiscal year 
2008 funding for the bridge program that is designated for 
specific projects listed in SAFETEA-LU.
    Congestion mitigation and air quality improvement program 
(CMAQ).--The CMAQ program directs funds toward transportation 
projects and programs to help meet and maintain national 
ambient air quality standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, and 
particulate matter. A minimum \1/2\ percent of the 
apportionment is guaranteed to each state.
    The Committee strongly disagrees with the FHWA's proposal 
to change its longstanding policy regarding the use of CMAQ 
funds for operating assistance for new start projects. The 
previous policy established under TEA-21 allowed CMAQ funds to 
be used for operating assistance to help support the initiation 
of new rail and bus service for up to three years. The FHWA's 
proposed guidance continues to permit the use of CMAQ for bus 
service but unfairly denies fixed guideway projects needed 
funds for new transit operations. The Committee believes that 
new rail systems have a beneficial effect on air quality and 
congestion which is the very purpose of the CMAQ program. 
Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest that SAFETEA-LU 
required any change to the existing standard in this regard. 
Finally, with the Administration's announcement on May 31, 
2007, regarding a ``new international climate change 
framework'' and its related goal of reducing greenhouse gases, 
the Committee believes it is timely and appropriate to direct 
the Secretary to revisit this proposed policy and reinstitute 
CMAQ eligibility regarding operating assistance for new start 
projects for up to three years.
    Highway safety improvement program (HSIP).--The new HSIP 
(previously funded by a set-aside from STP) was established as 
a core program beginning in 2006. The program, which features 
strategic safety planning and performance, devotes additional 
resources and supports innovative approaches to reducing 
highway fatalities and injuries on all public roads.
    Appalachian development highway system.--This program makes 
funds available to construct highways and access roads under 
section 201 of the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 
1965. Under SAFETEA-LU, funding is authorized at $470,000,000 
for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2009; is available until 
expended; and is distributed among the 13 eligible states based 
on the latest available cost-to-complete estimate prepared by 
the Appalachian Regional Commission.
    Equity bonus program.--The equity bonus (replaces TEA-21's 
minimum guarantee) provides additional funds to states to 
ensure that each state's total funding from apportioned 
programs and for high priority projects meets certain equity 
considerations. Each state is guaranteed a minimum rate of 
return on its share of contributions to the highway account of 
the highway trust fund, and a minimum increase relative to the 
average dollar amount of apportionments under TEA-21. Certain 
states will maintain the share of total apportionments they 
each received during TEA-21. An open-ended authorization is 
provided, ensuring that there will be sufficient funds to meet 
the objectives of the equity bonus.
    Emergency relief (ER).--The ER program provides funds for 
the repair or reconstruction of federal-aid highways and 
bridges and federally-owned roads and bridges that have 
suffered serious damage as the result of natural disasters or 
catastrophic failures. The ER program supplements the 
commitment of resources by states, their political 
subdivisions, or federal agencies to help pay for unusually 
heavy expenses resulting from extraordinary conditions.
    The authorization for the ER program has been set at 
$100,000,000 per year since 1972. However, the number of 
disasters and the expense associated with the damages caused by 
these disasters has far exceeded this annual authorization for 
a very long time. In fact, a GAO report issued in February 2007 
noted that ER allocations have averaged over $730,000,000 per 
year from fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2006 and the 
additional needs for this program have been met by supplemental 
funding measures provided by this Committee. During 
consideration of the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, 
Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 
2007, the Committee once again worked to address the needs of 
the ER program. However, during this process, it came to the 
Committee's attention that there were inconsistencies with 
regard to how projects were placed on the FHWA's ER backlog 
list and how pending ER requests were being communicated to 
Congress. In light of this, the Committee directs the FHWA to 
undertake a review of the ER program and update the policy and 
procedures manual used by the FHWA, state Departments of 
Transportation (DOTs), and local transportation agencies to 
apply and administer ER funds. The review should address and 
make appropriate improvements to the process used by the FHWA 
to approve and process ER funding requests; the process and 
documentation required to establish eligibility; the process 
used to encourage states to expeditiously submit formal 
requests, and other issues identified during the review by the 
FHWA or state DOTs. The Committee directs the FHWA to provide a 
report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by 
December 1, 2007, on the results of the review.
    Federal lands.--This category funds improvement for forest 
highways; park roads and parkways; Indian reservation roads; 
and refuge roads. The federal lands highways program provides 
for transportation planning, research, engineering, and 
construction of highways, roads, parkways, and transit 
facilities that provide access to or within public lands, 
national parks, and Indian reservations.
    Funds provided for the federallands program in fiscal year 
2008 shall be available for the following activities in the 
corresponding amounts:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.025

    The Committee directs that the funds allocated above are to 
be derived from the FHWA's public lands highways discretionary 
program and not from funds allocated to the National Park 
Service's regions.
    Baltimore Washington Parkway feasibility study.--The 
Committee directs the FHWA's Office of Federal Lands Highways 
to work with the National Park Service and the Maryland State 
Highway Administration to determine the feasibility of adding a 
third northbound and a third southbound lane for Maryland Route 
295/Baltimore Washington Parkway from the intersection with 
Interstate 695 to New York Avenue in the District of Columbia. 
The FHWA shall prepare a report which must be submitted to the 
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, not later than 
one year after the date of enactment of this Act, on the 
feasibility of such a widening. The feasibility study shall 
include an assessment of the impact of the Base Realignment and 
Closure process on traffic throughout the Maryland Route 295 
corridor between Baltimore, MD, and Washington, DC.
    Ferry boats and ferry terminal facilities.--SAFETEA-LU 
reauthorized funding for the construction of ferry boats and 
ferry terminal facilities and requires that $20,000,000 from 
each of fiscal years 2005 through 2009 be set aside for marine 
highway systems that are part of the National Highway System 
for use by the states of Alaska, New Jersey and Washington. In 
fiscal year 2008, SAFETEA-LU provides $65,000,000 for the ferry 
boat program.
    Funds provided for the ferry boats and ferry terminal 
facilities program in fiscal year 2008 shall be available for 
the following activities in the corresponding amounts:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.026

    National scenic byways program.--This program provides 
funding for roads that are designated by the Secretary of 
Transportation as All American Roads (AAR) or National Scenic 
Byways (NSB). These roads have outstanding scenic, historic, 
cultural, natural, recreational, and archaeological qualities. 
In fiscal year 2008, SAFETEA-LU provides $40,000,000 for this 
program.
    Transportation, community, and system preservation (TCSP) 
program.--SAFETEA-LU continues the TCSP program to provide 
grants to states and local governments for planning, 
developing, and implementing strategies to integrate 
transportation, community and system preservation plans and 
practices. These grants may be used to improve the efficiency 
of the transportation system; reduce the impacts of 
transportation on the environment; reduce the need for costly 
future investments in public infrastructure; and provide 
efficient access to jobs, services, and centers of trade.
    Funds provided for the TCSP program in fiscal year 2008 
shall be available for the following activities in the 
corresponding amounts:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.027

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.028

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.029

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.030

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.031

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.032

    Transportation infrastructure finance and innovation 
(TIFIA) program.--The TIFIA credit program provides funds to 
assist in the development of surface transportation projects of 
regional and national significance. The goal is to develop 
major infrastructure facilities through greater non-federal and 
private sector participation, building on public willingness to 
dedicate future revenues or user fees in order to receive 
transportation benefits earlier than would be possible under 
traditional funding techniques. The TIFIA program provides 
secured loans, loan guarantees, and standby lines of credit 
that may be drawn upon to supplement project revenues, if 
needed, during the first 10 years of project operations. As 
required by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, this account 
records, for this program, the subsidy costs associated with 
the direct loans, loan guarantees, and lines of credit 
obligated in 1992 and beyond (including modifications of direct 
loans or loan guarantees that resulted from obligations or 
commitments in any year), as well as administrative expenses of 
this program. The subsidy amounts are estimated on a present 
value basis; the administrative expenses are estimated on a 
cash basis.
    Federal highway research, technology and education.--
Research, technology, and education programs develop new 
transportation technology that can be applied nationwide. 
Activities include surface transportation research, including 
intelligent transportation systems; development and deployment, 
training and education; university transportation research.
    High priority projects.--Funds are provided for specific 
projects identified in SAFETEA-LU. A total of 5,091 projects 
are identified, each with a specified amount of funding over 
the five years of SAFETEA-LU.
    Projects of national and regional significance.--Provides 
funding for specific projects of national or regional 
importance. All the funds authorized for this program from the 
highway trust fund are designated for projects listed in 
SAFETEA-LU.
    Congestion Reduction Initiative.--The budget requested 
$175,000,000 to support a new Department-wide effort to tackle 
congestion in all modes of transportation. The stated goal of 
this initiative was to improve quality of life and economic 
growth by spreading demand by route, mode, and time of day, and 
by more efficient operation of the existing transportation 
system. The budget proposed to fund this initiative by 
reprogramming unobligated balances associated with what was 
described as ``inactive'' Federal-aid highway program 
demonstration projects.
    The Committee believes that efforts to reduce congestion 
are a worthwhile objective. However, the Committee cannot 
support this initiative as proposed by the Administration. 
First, the Administration did not do a thorough analysis to 
determine whether the proposed funding source--the 
reprogramming of inactive project funding--was, in fact, no 
longer needed by those projects. The Committee also believes 
that the Administration's congestion proposal should have been 
more comprehensive in scope and had involved other modal 
administrations. For instance, the Administration's budget 
request was a bit disingenuous in that it requested 
$175,000,000 for a congestion reduction initiative at the same 
time it also proposed major cuts to Amtrak and transit 
programs. Clearly, rail and transit should be a major part of 
any initiatives to reduce congestion. The Committee notes that 
the Administration has significant discretion with regard to 
selecting projects for the various highway and transit 
allocated programs in the fiscal year 2007. The Committee will 
review how the Administration uses these resources to address 
congestion and determine whether additional funding for the 
congestion initiative needs to be revisited either later in the 
fiscal year 2008 process or in next year's budget.
    Impacts of Defense Base Realignments on Transportation.--
The Committee understands that GAO has an ongoing review of the 
effects of Department of Defense (DOD) rebasing initiatives on 
communities and is assessing the economic impacts on 
communities surrounding DOD bases receiving large numbers of 
personnel as a result of 2005 Base Realignment and Closure 
(BRAC), overseas rebasing, and Army modularity actions The 
Committee directs GAO to include as a part of that review the 
impacts DOD's base realignments will have on transit and 
transportation needs in these regions. GAO's analysis should 
take into account BRAC related traffic projections for the next 
decade and the associated future planning needs of state and 
local governments while ensuring the national security needs of 
these facilities. GAO should coordinate their evaluation with 
DOT, and with the appropriate state transportation agencies to 
the extent possible, to include comprehensive and innovative 
solutions to anticipate and relieve congestion and 
transportation alternatives that will help reduce carbon 
emissions.

                              (RESCISSION)

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

    The bill includes a rescission of $3,000,000,000 of the 
unobligated balances of funds apportioned to the states under 
chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code, and applies this 
rescission proportionally to each highway program, including 
funds set aside for transportation enhancements and within the 
state of population areas.

       ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

                        (INCLUDING RESCISSIONS)

    Section 120. The Committee includes a provision that 
distributes obligation authority among federal-aid highways 
programs.
    Section 121. The Committee continues a provision that 
credits funds received by the Bureau of Transportation 
Statistics to the federal-aid highways account.
    Section 122. The Committee includes a provision that 
rescinds unobligated balances associated with completed 
demonstration or high priority projects from the Intermodal 
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, Public Law 102-
240. The specific authorizations and amounts to be rescinded 
were identified in information provided to the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) and referenced in a GAO letter to 
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations dated May 11, 
2006. The FHWA should also look at closing out projects with 
small balances, such as less than $2,000, in order to achieve 
the amount rescinded in the bill.
    Section 123. The Committee includes a provision that 
rescinds unobligated balances associated with completed high 
priority projects from the Transportation Equity Act for the 
21st Century, Public Law 105-178. The specific authorizations 
and amounts to be rescinded were also identified by GAO in 
their May 11, 2006, letter.
    Section 124. The Committee includes a provision that 
rescinds unobligated funds authorized for the TIFIA program.
    Section 125. The Committee includes a provision that 
rescinds unobligated contract authority authorized for 
administrative expenses of the FHWA that will not be available 
for obligation because of the limitation on administrative 
expenses imposed in this Act and prior Acts.
    Section 126. The Committee includes a provision that 
rescinds unobligated contract authority authorized for 
transportation research under title 5 of Public Law 109-59 that 
will not be available for obligation because of the limitation 
on obligations imposed on those funds in this Act and prior 
Acts.
    Section 127. The Committee includes a provision that 
rescinds unobligated balances made available for highway 
related safety grants in prior appropriations Acts.
    Section 128. The Committee includes a provision that 
rescinds unobligated balances associated with completed 
demonstration or high priority projects from previous laws. The 
specific authorizations and amounts to be rescinded were 
identified in information provided to GAO and referenced in 
their letter dated May 11, 2006.
    Section 129. The Committee includes a provision that 
provides additional funding to the transportation, community, 
and system preservation program.

              Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

    The primary mission of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration (FMCSA) is to improve the safety of commercial 
vehicle operations on our nation's highways. To accomplish this 
mission, the FMCSA is focused on reducing the number and 
severity of large truck accidents. Agency resources and 
activities contribute to ensuring safety in commercial vehicle 
operations through enforcement, including the use of stronger 
enforcement measures against safety violators; expedited safety 
regulation; technology innovation; improvements in information 
systems; training; and improvements to commercial driver's 
license testing, record keeping, and sanctions. To accomplish 
these activities, the FMCSA works closely with federal, state, 
and local enforcement agencies, the motor carrier industry, 
highway safety organizations, and individual citizens. In 
addition, the FMCSA has the responsibility to ensure that 
Mexican commercial vehicles, entering the U.S. in accordance 
with the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), meet all 
U.S. hazardous material and safety regulations.
    The FMCSA's scope was expanded in fiscal year 2003 by the 
U.S.A. Patriot Act (Public Law 107-56), which called for new 
security measures. In addition, beginning in fiscal year 2002, 
Appropriations Acts (Public Law 107-87, Public Law 108-7, 
Public Law 108-199, and Public Law 108-447) have funded border 
enforcement and safety related activities associated with 
implementation of NAFTA, and activities associated with 
permitting of hazardous materials.
    The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation 
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), enacted August 10, 
2005, reauthorizes the motor carrier safety activities of FMCSA 
through fiscal year 2009 and provides increased funding for 
many of the agency's programs. Funding for the FMCSA is also 
included within a highway discretionary spending category in 
the Budget Enforcement Act that is adjusted annually beginning 
in fiscal year 2007 based on receipts into the highway account 
of the highway trust fund. Additional resources provided by 
this automatic spending mechanism are called revenue-aligned 
budget authority (RABA) and a portion of this adjustment is 
added to FMCSA's motor carrier safety grants.

                      MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY GRANTS

                (LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

                      (LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

                         (INCLUDING RESCISSION)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Liquidation of
                                        contract         Limitation on
                                     authorization        obligations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007..       $294,000,000      ($294,000,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.        300,000,000       (300,000,000)
Recommended in the bill..........        300,000,000       (300,000,000)
Bill compared to:
    Appropriation, fiscal year            +6,000,000        (+6,000,000)
     2007........................
    Budget request, fiscal year                - - -             (- - -)
     2008........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FMCSA's motor carrier safety grants program was 
authorized by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 
Century, amended by the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 
1999, and continued through fiscal year 2009 by SAFETEA-LU. 
This account provides the necessary resources to the motor 
carrier safety assistance program (MCSAP) state grants. Grants 
are used to support compliance reviews in the states; identify 
and apprehend traffic violators; conduct roadside inspections; 
and support safety audits on new entrant carriers. Grants are 
also provided to states for enforcement efforts at both the 
southern and northern borders to ensure that all points of 
entry into the U.S. are fortified with comprehensive safety 
measures; for improvement of state commercial driver's license 
(CDL) oversight activities to prevent unqualified drivers from 
being issued CDLs; and for improving the linkage between state 
motor vehicle registration systems and carrier safety data in 
order to identify unsafe commercial motor carriers.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $300,000,000 in liquidating cash 
for this program.

                       LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS

    The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of 
$300,000,000 for the grant programs of FMCSA. This level is 
consistent with SAFETEA-LU and is $6,000,000 above the fiscal 
year 2007 level. In addition, consistent with SAFETEA-LU, the 
highway funding guarantees are adjusted for RABA in fiscal year 
2008. Of the amount provided under RABA, an amount to be 
calculated is available to FMCSA for the motor carrier safety 
grant program and bill language is included under the Federal 
Highway Administration to transfer this funding to FMCSA.
    The bill also provides separate obligation limitations for 
the following funding allocations:

Motor carrier safety assistance program.................  ($202,000,000)
Commercial driver's license improvements program........    (25,000,000)
Border enforcement grants...............................    (32,000,000)
Performance and registration information system 
    management program..................................     (5,000,000)
Commercial vehicle information systems and networks 
    deployment program..................................    (25,000,000)
Safety data improvement program.........................     (3,000,000)
Commercial driver's license information system 
    modernization program...............................     (8,000,000)

    New entrant audits.--Section 4107 of SAFETEA-LU provides 
the Secretary the discretion to deduct up to $29,000,000 of the 
funds made available for motor carrier safety grants for audits 
of new entrant motor carriers. The interim final rule for the 
new entrant safety assurance process was published on May 13, 
2002, with an effective date of January 2003. This rule 
requires all new entrants to pass a safety audit within the 
first 18 months of operations in order to receive permanent DOT 
registration. Therefore, the Committee recommendation continues 
bill language requiring FMCSA to provide $29,000,000 for new 
entrant audits.
    Unobligated balances.--The Committee includes bill language 
that rescinds unobligated contract authority authorized under 
this heading that will not be available for obligation because 
of limitations on obligations imposed on those funds in 
previous acts.

              MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY OPERATIONS AND PROGRAMS

                (LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

                      (LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

                         (INCLUDING RESCISSION)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Liquidation of
                                         contract        Limitation on
                                      authorization       obligations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...       $223,000,000     ($223,000,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2008..        228,000,000      (228,000,000)
Recommended in the bill...........        228,000,000      (228,000,000)
Bill compared to:
    Appropriation, fiscal year             +5,000,000       (+5,000,000)
     2007.........................
    Budget request, fiscal year                 - - -            (- - -)
     2008.........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This limitation controls spending for salaries and 
operating expenses and for motor carrier research by the FMCSA. 
It provides the necessary resources to support motor carrier 
safety program activities and maintain the agency's 
administrative infrastructure. Funding supports nationwide 
motor carrier safety and consumer enforcement efforts, 
including federal safety enforcement activities at the U.S./
Mexico border to ensure that Mexican carriers entering the U.S. 
are in compliance with Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Regulations. Resources are also provided to fund motor carrier 
regulatory development and implementation, information 
management, research and technology, safety education and 
outreach, and the safety and consumer telephone hotline.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $228,000,000 in liquidating cash 
for the operations and research activities of the FMCSA, 
consistent with the amount of contract authority provided under 
SAFETEA-LU.

                       LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS

    The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of 
$228,000,000 for the implementation, execution, and 
administration of the motor carrier safety program, motor 
carrier safety research, and motor carrier outreach and 
education programs by the FMCSA. This funding level is 
consistent with SAFETEA-LU and represents a $5,000,000 increase 
over fiscal year 2007.
    The following table compares the fiscal year 2007 enacted 
level to the fiscal year 2008 budget estimate and the 
Committee's recommendation for these specific programs:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Fiscal year 2007   Fiscal year 2008
                                                              enacted            estimate      House recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating Expenses.....................................       $161,176,000       $172,659,000       $169,413,000
Research and Technology................................         10,296,000          7,550,000         10,296,000
Information Management.................................         34,318,000         33,329,000         33,329,000
Regulatory Development.................................         11,210,000          9,462,000         11,462,000
Outreach and Education.................................          4,000,000          4,000,000          2,500,000
CMV Operating Grants...................................          1,000,000          1,000,000          1,000,000
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................................        222,000,000        228,000,000        228,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Operating expenses.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$169,413,000 for the operating expenses of FMCSA which is an 
increase of $8,237,000 above the fiscal year 2007 enacted level 
and a decrease of $3,246,000 below the level requested in the 
budget. These funds are to be used to support FMCSA's core 
mission requirements of commercial motor vehicle safety 
enforcement and compliance; hazardous material enforcement and 
compliance; hazardous materials security operations and 
outreach; emergency preparedness; and household goods 
enforcement and compliance. The Committee approves FMCSA's 
requested increase of $7,149,000 for personnel pay, 
compensation and benefits. In addition, the Committee approves 
FMCSA's request to provide $1,000,000 for the operations of the 
Performance and Registration Information System Management 
Program (PRISM). However, the Committee disagrees with FMCSA's 
proposal to increase the agency's contract services by 33.5 
percent above last year's enacted level.

Reduce contract services................................     -$3,246,000

    Safety compliance reviews.--Motor carrier safety has been 
on the National Transportation Safety Board's ``Most Wanted 
Transportation Safety Improvements'' list since 2000 due to 
FMCSA's inadequate standards to identify unsafe vehicles and 
drivers. In that regard, the Committee continues to be greatly 
concerned that only a very small percentage of registered motor 
carriers undergo a safety compliance review each year. 
According to the agency's own budget documents, FMCSA has not 
increased the number of compliance reviews since fiscal year 
2005. This is not acceptable. With over 685,000 registered 
interstate motor carriers, the Committee strongly believes 
FMCSA should strive to increase the number of compliance 
reviews each year and not be satisfied with a compliance review 
rate of less than 1.5 percent. The Committee expects FMCSA to 
prepare a safety oversight action plan that will achieve 
significant increases in the number of compliance reviews that 
the agency completes each year. The Committee directs FMCSA to 
provide a letter report to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations within six months of enactment of this Act that 
compares the agency's compliance review goals to the actual 
number of completed compliance reviews.
    Research and technology.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $10,296,000 for FMCSA's research and technology 
programs which is the same level provided in fiscal year 2007 
and $2,746,000 above the level requested in the budget. The 
Committee includes bill language making the funds for the 
research and technology programs available until September 30, 
2009. The research and technology program is utilized to 
conduct scientific studies of commercial motor vehicle 
technologies as well as to test and develop commercial motor 
vehicle driver, carrier, vehicle and roadside best practices 
and technologies. The Committee disagrees with the budget 
request to reduce the research and technology efforts of the 
FMCSA below the levels provided in fiscal year 2007. The 
Committee believes that advances in commercial motor vehicle 
research and technology hold promise for improving safety on 
our nation's highways.

Increase research and technology........................     +$2,746,000

    Information management.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $33,329,000 for the FMCSA's information management 
program which is $989,000 below the fiscal year 2007 enacted 
level and the same level requested in the budget. FMCSA will 
continue its development and deployment of the creating 
opportunities, methods, processes, and securing safety 
(COMPASS) program which will modernize the FMCSA's information 
technology systems by providing a single sign-on capability to 
access the FMCSA Motor Carrier Management Information System 
(MCMIS), the Enforcement Management Information System, and 
Licensing and Insurance data systems. Future releases of 
COMPASS will seek to integrate FMCSA's compliance monitoring 
functions such as new entrant safety audits; hazardous material 
safety permits; insurance cancellation monitoring; compliance 
review ratings; driver medical certification and the process of 
out-of-service orders. Given the importance of the safety data 
in evaluating the performance of commercial motor vehicle 
carriers, the Committee directs the FMCSA to provide a spend 
plan to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations which 
details the expected timeline, cost and capability of each 
release of COMPASS through full deployment. FMCSA is directed 
to deliver this expenditure plan to the Committees no later 
than 90 days after enactment.
    Regulatory development.--The Committee includes $11,462,000 
for FMCSA's regulatory development program which represents an 
increase of $252,000 above the fiscal year 2007 enacted level 
and $2,000,000 above the level requested in the budget. The 
Committee strongly believes that FMCSA should not reduce its 
regulatory development efforts at a time when the agency 
carries a backlog of overdue safety regulations and when the 
Courts have found other key safety regulations to be inadequate 
in meeting safety goals. The Committee is concerned that the 
agency's effort to reduce the backlog of pending regulations 
may result in rules that are not thoroughly developed. While 
the Committee expects the FMCSA to produce safety regulations 
in a timely fashion, the Committee believes that FMCSA must 
take great care to ensure that rules are constructed to advance 
the agency's safety goals and not simply rushed to publication 
only to have them later remanded or vacated by the Courts. The 
Committee has included an increase for regulatory development 
with the expectation that FMCSA will utilize these resources to 
produce quality safety regulations in a timely manner.

Increase regulatory development.........................     +$2,000,000

    Entry level truck driver training.--The Committee restates 
its concern regarding last year's U.S. Court of Appeals 
unanimous decision remanding the FMCSA's final rule on entry 
level truck driver training. In their decision, the Court found 
that FMCSA did not adequately address the recommendations of a 
DOT contracted adequacy report and independent model curriculum 
on driver training. According to the Court, FMCSA ``entirely 
failed to consider important aspects of the CMV training 
problems before it; it largely ignored the evidence in the 
adequacy report and abandoned the recommendations of the model 
curriculum without reasonable explanation; and it adopted a 
final rule whose terms have almost nothing to do with an 
``adequate'' CMV training program.'' The Committee is concerned 
that 15 years has elapsed without the issuance of a 
comprehensive entry-level driver training standard. The 
Committee is disappointed that FMCSA has yet to reissue its 
driver training rule and expects the agency to carefully 
consider the obvious benefits of a comprehensive training 
requirement that includes on-street, behind-the-wheel skills 
training for entry-level truck drivers.
    Motor coach accessibility.--Last year, the Committee 
expressed concern over reports that a number of curbside motor 
coach operators were not in compliance with the Department's 
regulations requiring accessibility to over-the-road buses for 
people with disabilities (49 CFR part 37, Subpart H). The 
Committee is still not convinced that the FMCSA lacks the 
authority to withhold interstate registration for any motor 
coach operator that willfully ignores the FMCSA's own 
regulations in this regard. The Committee does not seek to 
diminish the FMCSA's primary mission which is safety 
enforcement of commercial motor vehicles. However, in the 
agency's normal course of oversight, the Committee believes 
that FMCSA should incorporate compliance with accessibility 
regulations. The Committee understands that the Department of 
Justice has general enforcement authority for violations of the 
Americans with Disabilities Act (Public Law 101-336) but FMCSA 
bears a responsibility to enforce its regulations. The 
Committee urges the Secretary to withhold interstate 
registration from motor coach operators that are not willing 
and able to comply with the department's regulations on 
providing access for the disabled. The Committee also restates 
its direction from last year that the Secretary of 
Transportation provide a letter report by February 15, 2008 to 
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations that details 
the specific actions Department will to take to improve 
accessibility for the disabled.
    Outreach and education.--The Committee recommendation 
provides $2,500,000 for FMCSA's outreach and education programs 
which represents a decrease of $1,500,000 below the fiscal year 
2007 enacted level and the level requested in the budget. The 
Committee notes that the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance grants 
and the high priority grants can supplement the agency's public 
awareness and outreach efforts. The Committee also continues 
bill language that prohibits any funds relating to outreach and 
education from being transferred to another agency.
    CMV operating grants.--The Committee recommendation 
provides $1,000,000 for commercial motor vehicle operator's 
grants which is equal to the fiscal year 2007 enacted level and 
the budget request. The grants, as required by Section 4134 of 
SAFETEA-LU, are designed to help train operators of commercial 
motor vehicles in the safe use of such vehicles.
    U.S.-Mexico cross-border trucking pilot program.--Section 
6901 of Public Law 110-28 established conditions and reporting 
requirements that the Department must meet prior to the 
initiation of its pilot program on cross-border trucking 
between the United States and Mexico. The Committee understands 
that the Secretary has appointed an independent review board to 
review the data of any pilot and assess the safety impacts of 
allowing Mexican-domiciled motor carriers to operate on U.S. 
roads and highways. The Committee expects that the independent 
review board will function autonomously and have unfettered 
access to data on the pilot. In that regard, the Committee 
directs the Secretary to provide adequate resources for the 
board's review activities. The Committee remains greatly 
concerned about the safety implications of the cross-border 
pilot and will carefully monitor its implementation.
    Motor carrier safety goals.--The Committee notes that over 
the last eight years since the creation of FMCSA, the 
Department of Transportation has modified its motor carrier 
safety goals on three occasions. For example, in 1999, DOT 
announced it would pursue a fifty percent reduction in the 
number of large truck carrier fatalities in ten years (by the 
end of 2008). A few years later, FMCSA's safety goals were 
changed from a goal that measured the overall number of motor 
carrier-related fatalities to a goal that was measured by 
comparing the number of fatalities per 100 million truck miles 
traveled (MTMT). This performance measure resulted in a large 
truck fatality rate of 2.3 deaths per 100 MTMT which fell far 
short in meeting FMCSA's own stated goal of 1.65 fatalities per 
100 MTMT. The Committee is concerned that FMCSA has now 
introduced a new performance measure which portrays the grim 
fatality rate in a more appealing light. This year, FMCSA set a 
new goal of decreasing the fatality rate by 2011 by comparing 
commercial motor vehicle crash fatalities against all motor 
vehicle miles traveled in a given year; this denominator 
includes truck, bus, motorcoach, passenger vehicles and even 
motorcycle mileage. Since crashes with large trucks constitute 
nearly 13 percent of the total number of motor vehicle 
fatalities each year, the Committee believes that FMCSA must 
set aggressive safety goals that strive to not only improve the 
fatality rate but also reduce the overall number of motor 
carrier related fatalities. Since DOT first announced its goal 
of reducing large truck carrier related fatalities, the total 
number of deaths has been above 5,000 every year except one 
(2002). The Committee expects FMCSA to establish a rigorous 
safety goal and to develop a comprehensive strategy to achieve 
their goal of reducing the actual number of fatalities.
    Unobligated balances.--The Committee includes bill language 
that rescinds unobligated contract authority authorized under 
this heading that will not be available for obligation because 
of limitations on obligations imposed on those funds in 
previous acts.

                          MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

                              (RESCISSION)
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......................            $- - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2008......................             - - -
Recommended in the bill...............................       -32,187,720
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...................       -32,187,720
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................       -32,187,720
                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee includes bill language that rescinds 
unobligated contract authority authorized for the old ``Motor 
Carrier Safety'' account that will not be available for 
obligation because of limitations on obligations imposed on 
those funds in previous acts.

                 NATIONAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY PROGRAM

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

                              (RESCISSION)
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......................             - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2008......................             - - -
Recommended in the bill...............................        -5,212,858
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...................        -5,212,858
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................        -5,212,858
                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee includes bill language that rescinds 
unobligated contract authority authorized for the old 
``National Motor Carrier Safety Program'' account that will not 
be available for obligation because of limitations on 
obligations imposed on those funds in previous acts.

 ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION--FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

    Section 130. The Committee continues a provision subjecting 
funds appropriated in this Act to the terms and conditions of 
section 350 of Public Law 107-87 and section 6901 of Public Law 
110-28, including a requirement that the secretary submit a 
report on Mexico-domiciled motor carriers.

             National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

    The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 
was established as a separate organizational entity in the 
Department of Transportation in March of 1970. It succeeded the 
National Highway Safety Bureau, which previously had 
administered traffic and highway safety functions as an 
organizational unit of the Federal Highway Administration.
    NHTSA's current programs are authorized in five major laws: 
(1) the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (chapter 
301 of title 49, United States Code (U.S.C.)); (2) the Highway 
Safety Act (chapter 4 of title 23, U.S.C.); (3) the Motor 
Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (MVICSA) (Part C of 
subtitle VI of title 49, U.S.C.); (4) the Transportation Recall 
Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act; and 
(5) the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation 
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU).
    The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides 
for the establishment and enforcement of safety standards for 
vehicles and associated equipment and the conduct of supporting 
research, including the acquisition of required testing 
facilities and the operation of the national driver register, 
which was reauthorized by the National Driver Register Act of 
1982.
    The Highway Safety Act provides for coordinated national 
highway safety programs (section 402 of title 23, U.S.C.) to be 
carried out by the states and for highway safety research, 
development, and demonstration programs (section 403 of title 
23, U.S.C.). The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-
690) authorized a new drunk driving prevention program (section 
410 of title 23, U.S.C.) to make grants to states to implement 
and enforce drunk driving prevention programs.
    MVICSA provides for the establishment of low-speed 
collision bumper standards, consumer information activities and 
odometer regulations. Amendments to this law established the 
responsibility for the administration of mandatory automotive 
fuel economy standards, theft prevention standards for high 
theft lines of passenger motor vehicles, and automobile content 
labeling requirements.
    In 2000, the TREAD Act amended the National Traffic and 
Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Changes included numerous new motor 
vehicle safety and information provisions, including a 
requirement that manufacturers give NHTSA notice of safety 
recalls or safety campaigns in foreign countries involving 
motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment that are 
identical or substantially similar to vehicles or equipment in 
the United States; higher civil penalties for violations of the 
law; a criminal penalty for violations of reporting 
requirements; and a number of rulemaking directions that 
include developing a dynamic rollover test for light duty 
vehicles, updating the tire safety and labeling standards, 
improving the safety of child restraints, and establishing a 
child restraint safety rating consumer information program.
    SAFETEA-LU, which was enacted on August 10, 2005, either 
reauthorized or added new authorizations for the full range of 
NHTSA programs for fiscal years 2005 through 2009. These 
include highway safety programs (section 402 of title 23, 
U.S.C.), highway safety research and development (section 403 
of title 23, U.S.C.), occupant protection incentive grants 
(section 405 of title 23, U.S.C.), alcohol-impaired driving 
countermeasures incentive grants (section 410 of title 23, 
U.S.C.), and the national driver register (chapter 303 of title 
49, U.S.C.). SAFETEA-LU also enacted new initiatives, such as 
the high visibility enforcement program (section 2009 of 
SAFETEA-LU), motorcyclist safety grants (section 2010 of 
SAFETEA-LU), and child safety and child booster seat safety 
incentive grants (section 2011 of SAFETEA-LU). Finally, 
SAFETEA-LU adopted a number of new motor vehicle safety and 
information provisions, including rulemaking directions to 
reduce vehicle rollover crashes, reduce complete and partial 
ejections of vehicle occupants, and enhance passenger motor 
vehicle occupant protection in side impact crashes.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee provides $836,000,000 for NHTSA to maintain 
current programs and continue its mission to save lives, 
prevent injuries, and reduce vehicle-related crashes.
    The following table summarizes the Committee's 
recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Committee
                                                                 2007 enacted     2008 request    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations and research......................................     $228,982,430     $229,750,000     $232,750,000
National driver register.....................................        4,000,000        4,000,000        4,000,000
Highway traffic safety grants................................      587,750,000      599,250,000      599,250,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total..................................................      820,732,430      833,000,000      836,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee's recommendation is $3,000,000 above the 
budget request and fully funds the highway safety programs 
included within the highway category funding guarantees 
continued by SAFETEA-LU.

                        OPERATIONS AND RESEARCH

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 (Highway trust
                                                                (General fund)       fund)            Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 \1\..........................            - - -     $232,982,430     $232,982,430
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.............................            - - -      233,750,000      233,750,000
Recommended in the bill......................................      125,000,000      111,750,000      236,750,000
Bill compared to:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007..........................     +125,000,000     -121,232,430       +3,767,570
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008.........................     +125,000,000     -122,000,000       +3,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes transfer of funds from FHWA.

    The operations and research appropriations support 
research, demonstrations, technical assistance, and national 
leadership for highway safety programs conducted by state and 
local government, the private sector, universities, research 
units, and various safety associations and organizations. These 
programs emphasize alcohol and drug countermeasures, vehicle 
occupant protection, traffic law enforcement, emergency medical 
and trauma care systems, traffic records and licensing, state 
and community traffic safety evaluations, motorcycle riders, 
pedestrian and bicycle safety, pupil transportation, distracted 
and drowsy driving, young and older driver safety programs, and 
development of improved accident investigation procedures.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    For fiscal year 2008, NHTSA requested a total of 
$233,750,000 for operations and research activities to be 
funded entirely using contract authority from the highway trust 
fund. This is contrary to current law. Under NHTSA's proposal, 
SAFETEA-LU would be modified to provide additional contract 
authority in place of the current general fund authorization. 
This funding would then be allocated from two different 
accounts. First, NHTSA requested $229,750,000 of contract 
authority from the highway trust fund to finance operations and 
research activities under section 403 of title 23, U.S.C., as 
well as to carry out the provisions of section 301 of title 49, 
U.S.C. and part C of subtitle VI of title 49, U.S.C. Under 
SAFETEA-LU, only section 403 of title 23, U.S.C. is authorized 
with contract authority out of the highway trust fund. This 
funding is also included within the budgetary firewall 
guarantee for highway spending. Second, the budget included 
$4,000,000 for the national driver register, which is 
authorized by SAFETEA-LU with contract authority from the 
highway trust fund and is included within the highway 
guarantee.
    The Committee recommends new budget authority and 
obligation limitations for a total program level of 
$236,750,000, less than a two percent increase above fiscal 
year 2007. Of this total, $125,000,000 is for operations and 
research from the general fund; $107,750,000 is for section 403 
of title 23, U.S.C., activities from the highway trust fund; 
and $4,000,000 is for the national driver register from the 
highway trust fund. The funding shall be distributed as 
follows:
 Salaries and benefits.................................       $79,177,000
Travel................................................         1,394,000
Operating expenses....................................        23,481,000
Contract programs:
    Safety performance (rulemaking)...................        12,768,000
    Safety assurance (enforcement)....................        18,277,000
    Highway traffic safety programs...................        50,396,000
    Research and analysis.............................        68,834,000
    General administration............................           673,000
Grant administration reimbursements...................       -18,250,000
                                                       -----------------
    Total.............................................       236,750,000
    Highlights of and adjustments made to the budget request by 
the Committee's recommendation are described in the following 
paragraphs.

                        ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

    The Committee recommends $104,052,000 for salaries and 
benefits, travel, rent, and other operating expenses of NHTSA, 
which is $1,500,000 above the budget request. This funding 
level is sufficient to fund 542 full-time equivalent staff 
years (FTE), the same as the fiscal year 2007 enacted level and 
12 FTE above the budget request.

                    SAFETY PERFORMANCE (RULEMAKING)

    NHTSA's safety performance standards (rulemaking) programs 
support the promulgation of federal motor vehicle safety 
standards for motor vehicles and safety-related equipment; 
automotive fuel economy standards required by the Energy Policy 
and Conservation Act; international harmonization of vehicle 
standards; and consumer information on motor vehicle safety, 
including the new car assessment program. Consistent with the 
budget request, the Committee provides $12,768,000 for these 
activities.
    New car assessment program (NCAP).--Within the funds 
provided, the Committee recommends $7,893,000 for NCAP.
    Safety-related rulemaking.--SAFETEA-LU required NHTSA to 
issue or upgrade a number of important motor vehicle safety 
standards that included rollover prevention, ejection 
prevention, door locks, roof strength, and side impact 
protection. While the agency has expressed a commitment to 
issue these rules in a timely fashion, the Committee is 
concerned that NHTSA is taking a one-dimensional approach to 
developing the requirements for each rule whereas most real-
world crashes involve a combination of a these issues. For 
example, a rollover crash often also involves roof crush, door 
lock strength, and occupant ejection. For this reason, it is 
imperative that NHTSA not deal with each issue separately but 
instead takes a comprehensive, systems engineering approach 
that integrates all aspects of real-world crashes when issuing 
these standards for motor vehicles, including large passenger-
carrying motor vehicles, such as motorcoaches and school buses. 
The Committee directs NHTSA to submit a report to the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations by May 1, 2008, that 
explains, for each of the safety rulemakings it must issue in 
response to SAFETEA-LU, how the agency has taken into account 
or is addressing the inter-related nature of real-world crashes 
that involve two or more of the safety standards the agency is 
required to issue or upgrade under SAFETEA-LU. In preparing 
this report, NHTSA should also evaluate the need for adopting 
safety standards for large passenger-carrying motor vehicles to 
prevent rollover crashes, as well as enhance passenger 
protection in all types of crashes to prevent severe injuries 
and deaths from collapsing roofs and passenger ejection from 
their seats and through motorcoach side windows.

                     SAFETY ASSURANCE (ENFORCEMENT)

    The Committee recommends $18,277,000, as requested, for 
safety assurance (enforcement) programs to provide support to 
ensure compliance with motor vehicle safety and automotive fuel 
economy standards, investigate safety-related motor vehicle 
defects, enforce federal odometer law, encourage enforcement of 
state odometer law, and conduct safety recalls when warranted. 
The Committee expects NHTSA to use these funds as reflected in 
its budget justification.

                        HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAMS

    NHTSA provides research, demonstrations, technical 
assistance, and national leadership for highway safety programs 
conducted by state and local governments, the private sector, 
universities, research units, and various safety associations 
and organizations. These programs emphasize alcohol and drug 
countermeasures, vehicle occupant protection, traffic law 
enforcement, emergency medical and trauma care systems, traffic 
records and licensing, state and community evaluation, 
motorcycle riders, pedestrian and bicycle safety, pupil 
transportation, young and older driver safety programs, and 
development of improved accident investigation procedures. The 
Committee recommends $50,396,000 for these programs.
    Highway fatality rate goals.--Motor vehicle crashes are the 
leading cause of death for all Americans ages 3 to 33 and 
Congress has provided increased levels of highway safety 
funding over the last several years to address this tragic 
statistic. Although the rate of highway fatalities decreased 
significantly over the last 20 years, 2005 marked the first 
increase in the highway fatality rate since 1986, with alcohol-
impaired driving accounting for a significant portion of the 
total fatalities. In 2005, 43,443 people died in motor vehicle 
crashes representing the highest number of fatalities since 
1990. Motorcycle deaths increased for the eighth year in a row 
to 4,553, an increase of 115 percent since 1997. There also 
were increases in deaths among pedestrians and bicyclists and 
rollover deaths are now at a record high of 10,816 fatalities. 
Unfortunately, the Committee believes that NHTSA is not making 
adequate progress in addressing this public health crisis and 
should not be complacent and accept the fact that 43,000 lives 
a year are lost on the nation's highways.
    The Committee is concerned about the fact that NHTSA has 
drastically changed or revised critical target goals that were 
set just a few years ago and which the agency now admits cannot 
be achieved. For instance, in the fiscal year 2008 budget, 
NHSTA sets a totally new method for measuring motorcycle 
fatality rate, using 1,000 vehicle registrations instead of 100 
million vehicle miles traveled (MVMT). NHTSA has also raised 
the overall highway fatality rate goal for fiscal year 2008 
from 1.0 to 1.37, acknowledging that it will not achieve this 
goal by 2008 as was originally planned, and has pushed back its 
target of achieving a 1.0 fatality rate per 100 MVMT to 2011. 
The actual fatality rate for 2005 is 1.45.
    The Committee directs NHTSA to submit a report to the House 
and Senate Committees on Appropriations by February 1, 2008, 
that describes what efforts the agency will undertake to make a 
serious reduction in highway fatalities. The report should 
describe why the agency failed to achieve its original target 
goal for 2008 of 1.0 fatalities, as well as specific 
recommendations focused on reducing motorcyclist fatalities. 
NHTSA also needs to explain the rationale behind changing these 
methods for measuring fatality rates.
    Impaired driving.--The Committee remains greatly concerned 
about the high number of alcohol-related fatalities that occur 
each year. In 2005, 17,525 individuals were killed in alcohol-
related crashes and, based on partial year data for 2006, 
alcohol-related fatalities are projected to increase two 
percent to the highest level killed since 1992. The Committee 
continues to believe that a combination of tough laws, 
aggressive enforcement, increased deployment of interlock 
technologies and continuation of the national media campaign 
will save lives. In this regard, the Committee supports NHTSA's 
active leadership in the Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving 
which has brought together law enforcement, policymakers, MADD, 
auto manufacturers and responsible distilled spirits companies 
with the goal to eliminate alcohol impaired driving. The 
Committee encourages NHTSA's involvement in the development of 
vehicle-based technologies, as supported under the Campaign, 
which will accurately detect if a driver is impaired and 
prevent that driver from operating the vehicle. The Committee 
expects NHTSA to provide periodic updates to the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations regarding NHTSA's efforts 
to reduce the number of alcohol-related fatalities.

                         RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS

    The Committee recommends $68,834,000, which is $1,500,000 
above the request, for research and analysis activities to 
provide motor vehicle safety research and development in 
support of all NHTSA programs, including the collection and 
analysis of crash data to identify safety problems, develop 
alternative solutions, and assess costs, benefits, and 
effectiveness. Research will continue to concentrate on 
improving vehicle crashworthiness and crash avoidance, with 
emphasis on increasing safety belt use, decreasing alcohol 
involvement in crashes, decreasing the number of rollover 
crashes, improving vehicle-to-vehicle crash compatibility, and 
improved data systems.
    Fatality analysis reporting system (FARS).--The Committee 
includes $7,922,000 for FARS, an increase of $750,000 above the 
budget request in order to improve the quality of the data 
collected by FARS. NHTSA is directed to utilize this increase 
to conduct quality control workshops and to establish quality 
control procedures to improve the reporting of restraint usage, 
blood alcohol concentration levels, fires, rollovers and other 
important data.
    National automotive sampling system (NASS).--The NASS 
general estimates system data identifies trends of vehicle 
crashes and the NASS crashworthiness data system provides more 
in-depth and descriptive data in order to quantify the 
relationships between the occupants and vehicles in the real-
world crash environment. NASS was originally designed to have 
75 crash investigation teams collect in-depth information on 
about 19,000 crashes each year. The Committee is concerned 
about the relatively low number of crash teams, 24, and cases 
being collected, about 4,800 annually, and therefore provides 
$12,980,000, an increase of $750,000 above the budget request, 
in order to increase the number of cases where data are 
collected.
    National motor vehicle crash causation survey (NMVCCS).--
The Committee provides $7,000,000 for the NMVCCS, as requested.

                         GENERAL ADMINISTRATION

    The Committee recommends $673,000, as requested, for the 
general administration account to provide program evaluation, 
strategic planning, and economic analysis for agency programs. 
Objective quantitative information about NHTSA's regulatory and 
highway safety programs is gathered to measure their 
effectiveness in achieving objectives. This activity also funds 
development of methods to estimate economic consequences of 
motor vehicle injuries in forms suitable for agency use in 
problem identification, regulatory analysis, priority setting, 
and policy analysis.

                        OPERATIONS AND RESEARCH
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......................             - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2008......................             - - -
Recommended in the bill...............................      $125,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...................      +125,000,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................      +125,000,000
                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a total of $125,000,000 for 
operations and research funding as an appropriation from the 
general fund.

                        OPERATIONS AND RESEARCH

                (LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

                      (LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Liquidation of
                                         contract        Limitation on
                                      authorization       obligations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...       $228,982,430  \1\ ($228,982,430
                                                                       )
Budget request, fiscal year 2008..        229,750,000      (229,750,000)
Recommended in the bill...........        107,750,000      (107,750,000)
Bill compared to:
    Appropriation, fiscal year           -121,232,430     (-121,232,430)
     2007.........................
    Budget request, fiscal year          -122,000,000     (-122,000,000)
     2008.........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes transfer of funds from FHWA.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation for liquidation 
of contract authorization of $107,750,000 for payment on 
obligations incurred in carrying out the provisions of the 
operations and research program. The Committee's recommendation 
is consistent with the amount of contract authority provided 
under SAFETEA-LU.
    The Committee recommends limiting obligations from the 
highway trust fund to $107,750,000 for authorized activities 
associated with operations and research.

                        NATIONAL DRIVER REGISTER

                (LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

                      (LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Liquidation of
                                            contract      Limitation on
                                         authorization     obligations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......       $4,000,000     ($4,000,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2008......        4,000,000      (4,000,000)
Recommended in the bill...............        4,000,000      (4,000,000)
Bill compared to:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...            - - -          (- - -)
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..            - - -          (- - -)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This account provides funding to implement and operate the 
national driver register's problem driver pointer system and 
improve traffic safety by assisting state motor vehicle 
administrators in communicating effectively and efficiently 
with other states to identify drivers whose licenses have been 
suspended or revoked for serious traffic offenses such as 
driving under the influence of alcohol or other drugs.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a liquidation cash appropriation 
of $4,000,000 from the highway trust fund to pay obligations 
incurred in carrying out the national driver register program. 
The Committee's recommendation is consistent with the amount of 
contract authority provided under SAFETEA-LU.
    The Committee also recommends limiting obligations from the 
highway trust fund to $4,000,000 for operations and research 
activities associated with the national driver register, of 
which $2,870,000 is for program activities and $1,130,000 is 
for salaries and benefits.

                     HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANTS

                (LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

                      (LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Liquidation of
                                            contract      Limitation on
                                         authorization     obligations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......     $587,750,000   ($587,750,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2008......      599,250,000    (599,250,000)
Recommended in the bill...............      599,250,000    (599,250,000)
Bill compared to:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...      +11,500,000    (+11,500,000)
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..            - - -          (- - -)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SAFETEA-LU reauthorized three state grant programs: highway 
safety programs, occupant protection incentive grants, and 
alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures incentive grants; and 
authorized five additional state grant programs: safety belt 
performance grants, state traffic safety information systems 
improvement grants, high visibility enforcement program, child 
safety and child booster seat safety incentive grants, and 
motorcyclist safety grants.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $599,250,000 in liquidating cash 
from the highway trust fund to pay the outstanding obligations 
of the various highway safety grant programs at the levels 
provided in this Act and prior appropriations Acts. The 
Committee's recommendation is consistent with the amount of 
contract authority provided for highway traffic safety grant 
programs under SAFETEA-LU.
    The Committee continues language limiting the obligations 
to be incurred under the various highway traffic safety grants 
programs. For fiscal year 2008, the Committee has provided 
limitations on obligations at the level prescribed in SAFETEA-
LU, with separate obligation limitations for the following 
funding allocations:

Highway safety programs.................................  ($225,000,000)
Occupant protection incentive grants....................    (25,000,000)
Safety belt performance grants..........................   (124,500,000)
State traffic safety information systems improvements...    (34,500,000)
Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures incentive 
    grants..............................................   (131,000,000)
High visibility enforcement program.....................    (29,000,000)
Motorcyclist safety.....................................     (6,000,000)
Child safety and child booster seat safety incentive 
    grants..............................................     (6,000,000)

    Bill language.--The bill maintains language that prohibits 
the use of funds for construction, rehabilitation, and 
remodeling costs or for office furnishings or fixtures for 
state, local, or private buildings or structures. Language is 
also continued that limits the amount available for technical 
assistance to $500,000 under section 410 of title 23, U.S.C. 
The Committee continues bill language limiting the amount that 
can be used to conduct the evaluation of the high visibility 
enforcement program to $750,000 in fiscal year 2008.
    Highway safety grants.--SAFETEA-LU reauthorized the state 
and community highway safety formula grant program under 
section 402 of title 23, U.S.C., to support state highway 
safety programs designed to reduce traffic crashes and 
resulting deaths, injuries, and property damage. A state may 
use these grants only for highway safety purposes and at least 
40 percent of these funds are to be expended by political 
subdivisions of the state.
    Occupant protection incentive grants.--SAFETEA-LU amended 
section 405(a) of chapter 4 of title 23, U.S.C., to encourage 
states to adopt and implement effective programs to reduce 
deaths and injuries from riding unrestrained or improperly 
restrained in motor vehicles. A state may use these grant funds 
only to implement and enforce occupant protection programs.
    Safety belt performance grants.--SAFETEA-LU established a 
new program of incentive grants under section 406 of title 23, 
U.S.C., to encourage the enactment and enforcement of laws 
requiring the use of safety belts in passenger motor vehicles. 
To date, a total of nine states have passed primary seat belt 
laws in response to this incentive program. A state may use 
these grant funds for any safety purpose under title 23, 
U.S.C., or for any project that corrects or improves a 
hazardous roadway location or feature or proactively addresses 
highway safety problems. However, at least $1,000,000 of 
amounts received by states must be obligated for behavioral 
highway safety activities.
    State traffic safety information systems improvements.--
SAFETEA-LU established a new program of incentive grants under 
section 408 of title 23, U.S.C., to encourage states to adopt 
and implement effective programs to improve the timeliness, 
accuracy, completeness, uniformity, integration, and 
accessibility of state data that is needed to identify 
priorities for national, state, and local highway and traffic 
safety programs; to evaluate the effectiveness of efforts to 
make such improvements; to link these state data systems, 
including traffic records, with other data systems within the 
state; and to improve the compatibility of the state data 
system with national data systems and data systems of other 
states to enhance the ability to observe and analyze national 
trends in crash occurrences, rates, outcomes, and 
circumstances. A state may use these grant funds only to 
implement such data improvement programs.
    Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures incentive 
grants.--SAFETEA-LU amended the alcohol-impaired driving 
countermeasures incentive grant program authorized by section 
410 of title 23, U.S.C., to encourage states to adopt and 
implement effective programs to reduce traffic safety problems 
resulting from individuals driving while under the influence of 
alcohol. A state may use these grant funds to implement the 
impaired driving activities described in the programmatic 
criteria, as well as costs for high visibility enforcement; the 
costs of training and equipment for law enforcement; the costs 
of advertising and educational campaigns that publicize 
checkpoints, increase law enforcement efforts and target 
impaired drivers under 34 years of age; the costs of a state 
impaired operator information system, and the costs of vehicle 
or license plate impoundment.
    High visibility enforcement program.--Section 2009 of 
SAFETEA-LU establishes a new program to administer at least two 
high-visibility traffic safety law enforcement campaigns each 
year to achieve one or both of the following objectives: (1) 
reduce alcohol-impaired or drug-impaired operation of motor 
vehicles; and/or (2) increase the use of safety belts by 
occupants of motor vehicles. These funds may be used to pay for 
the development, production, and use of broadcast and print 
media in carrying out traffic safety law enforcement campaigns. 
The Committee continues to believe that the high visibility 
enforcement program has been effective in encouraging seat belt 
use and in discouraging impaired driving. The Committee directs 
NHTSA to continue to provide updates to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations on the agency's paid media 
strategy and its implementation.
    Motorcyclist safety.--Section 2010 of SAFETEA-LU 
established a new program of incentive grants to encourage 
states to adopt and implement effective programs to reduce the 
number of single and multi-vehicle crashes involving 
motorcyclists. A state may use these grants funds only for 
motorcyclist safety training and motorcyclist awareness 
programs, including improvement of training curricula, delivery 
of training, recruitment or retention of motorcyclist safety 
instructors, and public awareness and outreach programs.
    Child safety and child booster seat safety incentive 
grants.--Section 2011 of SAFETEA-LU established a new incentive 
grant program to make grants available to states that are 
enforcing a law requiring any child riding in a passenger 
vehicle who is too large to be secured in a child safety seat 
to be secured in a child restraint that meets the requirements 
prescribed under section 3 of Anton's Law (49 U.S.C. 30127 
note; 116 Stat. 2772). These grants may be used only for child 
safety seat and child restraint programs.
    The Committee is disappointed that NHTSA failed to 
determine state eligibility in a timely fashion and, as a 
result, awarded less than half of the authorized funds for this 
program in fiscal year 2006. The Committee encourages NHTSA to 
work aggressively to award available Section 2011 funds to all 
qualified states.
    Safe transport of Head Start children.--The Committee 
understands that NHTSA provided input into the regulations 
developed by the Department of Health and Human Services 
regarding the safe transportation of Head Start children. Since 
the issuance of the final regulations, some Head Start grantees 
have reported that their transportation costs have consumed as 
much as 20 percent of the Head Start budget. The Committee 
believes that the safe transport of these children is 
paramount. The Committee once again directs the Secretary of 
Transportation to work with the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services to identify strategies to ensure the safe transport of 
children participating in a Head Start program. In addition, 
the Committee encourages NHTSA to explore the use of the child 
safety and child booster seat safety incentive grants as a 
means of assistance for the transportation of Head Start 
children.
    Grant administrative expenses.--Section 2001(a)(11) of 
SAFETEA-LU provides funding for salaries and operating expenses 
related to the administration of the grants programs and 
supports the national occupant protection user survey and 
highway safety research programs.

      ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY 
                             ADMINISTRATION

                        (INCLUDING RESCISSIONS)

    Section 140. The Committee continues a provision that 
provides funding for travel and related expenses for state 
management reviews and highway safety core competency 
development training.
    Section 141. The Committee includes a provision that 
rescinds unobligated contract authority authorized from the 
highway trust fund for NHTSA's operation and research 
activities that will not be available for obligation because of 
limitations on obligations imposed on those funds in previous 
acts.
    Section 142. The Committee includes a provision that 
rescinds unobligated contract authority authorized for the 
national driver register that will not be available for 
obligation because of limitations on obligations imposed on 
those funds in previous acts.
    Section 143. The Committee includes a provision that 
rescinds unobligated contract authority authorized from the 
highway trust fund for NHTSA's highway safety grant programs 
that will not be available for obligation because of 
limitations on obligations imposed on those funds in previous 
acts.

                    Federal Railroad Administration

    The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is responsible 
for planning, developing, and administering programs to achieve 
safe operating and mechanical practices in the railroad 
industry, as well as managing the high-speed ground 
transportation program. Grants to the National Railroad 
Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) and other financial assistance 
programs serving to rehabilitate and improve the railroad 
industry's physical plant are also administered by FRA.

                         SAFETY AND OPERATIONS
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......................      $150,271,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008......................       148,472,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       148,472,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...................        -1,799,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................             - - -
    The safety and operations account provides support for 
FRA's rail safety and passenger and freight program activities. 
Funding also supports salaries and expenses and other operating 
costs related to FRA staff and programs.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    A total of $148,472,000 is recommended for safety and 
operations, which is a $1,799,000 decrease below the fiscal 
year 2007 enacted level and the same as the budget request. Of 
this amount, $12,268,890 is available until expended. The 
following adjustments have been made to the budget request:

Reduce funding for NDGPS staff..........................       -$163,000
Increase funding for regulatory studies.................        +163,000

    NDGPS staff reduction.--The Committee understands that the 
administration of the Nationwide Differential Global 
Positioning System (NDGPS) program has been transferred to the 
Research and Innovative Technology Administration. The 
Committee decreases the FRA's safety and operations account by 
$163,000 to reflect the reduction in the one full-time 
equivalent employee dedicated to the NDGPS program.
    Regulatory studies.--The Committee disagrees with the FRA's 
proposed reductions to the agency's regulatory studies program. 
As the FRA continues to implement its National Rail Safety 
Action Plan, the Committee notes that the FRA plans to update 
and issue a number of safety rules. For example, FRA is 
completing a research effort which will be used to develop new 
federal design standards for hazardous materials tank cars and 
the agency is developing a proposed rule to facilitate the 
installation of electronically-controlled pneumatic brake 
systems that improve train control. The Committee provides an 
increase of $163,000 to supplement the FRA's regulatory study 
efforts.
    Close call confidential reporting pilot program.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $2,000,000 as requested in 
the budget for the Close Call Confidential Reporting Pilot 
Program. This pilot is intended to provide an avenue for 
railroad employees to voluntarily and anonymously report 
``close call'' incidents that could have resulted in an 
accident without fear of sanction or penalty from their 
employer or the federal government. The FRA intends to conduct 
this pilot at three sites in fiscal year 2008 and the request 
includes $1,200,000 for program implementation; $600,000 for 
program evaluation; and $200,000 for data collection. The 
Committee intends to monitor this pilot program closely to 
ensure that FRA's traditional safety oversight and enforcement 
efforts are not compromised or diminished.
    Annualization of safety positions.--The Committee provides 
$889,000, as requested in the budget, to annualize the twelve 
new safety positions that were provided in fiscal year 2007.

                   RAILROAD RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......................       $34,524,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008......................        32,250,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        33,250,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...................        -1,274,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................        +1,000,000
    The railroad research and development appropriation 
provides science and technology support for FRA's rail safety 
rulemaking and enforcement efforts. The objective of this 
program is to reduce the frequency and severity of railroad 
accidents and to provide technical support for rail safety 
rulemaking and enforcement activities. It also stimulates 
technological advances in conventional and high speed 
railroads.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $33,250,000, 
for railroad research and development which is $1,274,000 below 
the fiscal year 2007 enacted level and $1,000,000 above the 
budget request. The Committee recommendation includes the 
following allocation for FRA's research programs:

Railroad system issues..................................      $3,168,000
Human factors...........................................       3,616,000
Rolling stock and components............................       2,871,000
Track and structures....................................       3,861,000
Track and train interaction.............................       3,168,000
Train control...........................................       6,100,000
Grade crossings.........................................       2,178,000
Hazmat transportation...................................       1,287,000
Train occupant protection...............................       5,120,000
R&D; facilities and test equipment.......................       1,881,000

    Train control.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$6,100,000 for the FRA's train control program which is 
$1,800,000 below the fiscal year 2007 enacted level and 
$1,000,000 above the budget request. The National 
Transportation Safety Board has had the implementation of 
positive train control (PTC) on its ``Most Wanted List'' since 
1990. While there has been some measured progress in the 
development and implementation of PTC systems, the Committee 
notes that it could take several years before all rail lines 
are equipped with train control systems that can prevent train 
collisions. The Committee provides an increase above the budget 
request to enable the FRA to initiate a research effort to 
develop and demonstrate a lower cost train control system that 
can reduce or eliminate the possibility of train collisions on 
tracks not equipped with full PTC. In addition, the Committee 
encourages the FRA to initiate a research effort to assure that 
train control communications are not available to be interfered 
with or monitored by unauthorized persons.
    Highway crossing hazard elimination on designated high 
speed rail corridors.--The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy For Users 
(SAFETEA-LU) reauthorized the railway-highway crossing hazard 
elimination in high speed rail corridors program under section 
104(d) of title 23, United States Code. In fiscal year 2008, 
SAFETEA-LU authorizes $12,500,000 for this program of which 
$2,250,000 was designated for a specific project within 
SAFETEA-LU. A limited number of corridors are eligible for 
these funds.
    The Committee directs funding to be allocated to the 
following projects:

Leucadia boulevard, at-grade safety improvements, CA....        $500,000
Quiet zone at Union Pacific grade crossings, Round Rock, 
    TX..................................................         500,000
Ventura county, Metrolink grade crossing improvements, 
    CA..................................................         500,000
Gulf coast corridor grade crossing hazard elimination, 
    MS and LA...........................................         500,000
Grade crossing hazard elimination, Glendale, CA.........         500,000
Southern California regional rail authority, San 
    Fernando Valley, CA.................................       1,000,000
Hopson road grade separation, Raleigh, NC...............         500,000
Klumac road grade crossing separation, Salisbury, NC....         300,000
Private crossing safety initiative, NC..................         275,000

            RAILROAD REHABILITATION AND IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

    Public Law 105-178 established the Railroad Rehabilitation 
and Improvement Financing (RRIF) loan and loan guarantee 
program. SAFETEA-LU amended the program to allow direct loan 
and loan guarantees up to $35,000,000,000 and required that not 
less than $1,000,000,000 shall be reserved for projects 
primarily benefiting freight railroads other than class I 
carriers. The funding may be used: (1) to acquire, improve, or 
rehabilitate intermodal or rail equipment or facilities, 
including track, components of track, bridges, yards, 
buildings, or shops; (2) to refinance existing debt; or (3) to 
develop and establish new intermodal or railroad facilities. No 
Federal appropriation is required, since a non-Federal 
infrastructure partner may contribute the subsidy amount 
required by the Credit Reform Act of 1990 in the form of a 
credit risk premium. Once received, statutorily established 
investigation charges are immediately available for appraisals 
and necessary determinations and findings. The budget request 
proposed to limit direct loan obligations to $700,000,000 and 
indicated that the Administration intends to send up 
legislation to reform the RRIF program.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee does not modify the loan limitations 
established for the railroad rehabilitation and improvement 
program, as proposed by the President's budget. The Committee 
continues bill language specifying that no new direct loans or 
loan guarantee commitments may be made using federal funds for 
the payment of any credit premium amount during fiscal year 
2008. The Committee understands that the RRIF program has been 
utilized to make improvements to a number of smaller railroads. 
In that regard, the Committee directs the Secretary to submit a 
report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by 
March 14, 2008 that summarizes the capital investment needs of 
class 2 and 3 railroads and the extent to which such needs are 
met by sources other than the federal government.

               PENNSYLVANIA STATION REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......................            $- - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2008......................        -9,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................             - - -
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...................             - - -
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................        +9,000,000
    The Committee recommendation does not include the 
$9,000,000 rescission requested in the budget due to a lack of 
justification.

              RAIL LINE RELOCATION AND IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......................            $- - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2008......................             - - -
Recommended in the bill...............................        35,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...................       +35,000,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................       +35,000,000
    Section 9002 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) 
(Public Law 109-59) amends chapter 201 of title 49 of the 
United States Code to authorize funds for the purpose of 
funding a grant program to provide financial assistance for 
local rail line relocation and improvement projects. In order 
for a State to be eligible for a grant, the project must 
mitigate the adverse effects of rail traffic on safety, motor 
vehicle flow, community quality of life, including noise 
mitigation or economic development.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    Rail lines that intersect communities across the country 
are often safety hazards and impediments to economic 
development. In addition, these rail lines can exacerbate 
congestion at highway-railroad grade crossings which, in turn, 
can contribute to increased levels of emissions of air 
pollutants by idling cars. Since the majority of our nation's 
rail system was built nearly a century ago, it is often the 
case that the communities were built around the rail lines. As 
a result, the financial burden often falls to the State and 
local government if a community seeks to relocate a rail line 
in order to facilitate commerce or to address a safety concern. 
The Committee notes that the FRA issued a notice of proposed 
rulemaking for the rail line relocation program in January, 
2007, and the agency expects to publish a final rule on the 
program by the end of the year. The Committee recommendation 
includes $35,000,000 for the rail line relocation and 
improvement program.
    The Committee directs funding to be allocated to the 
following projects:

Mt. Vernon railroad cut, NY.............................        $250,000
Peco Street grade crossing, Adams County, CO............         200,000
Pierre rail improvements, Pierre, SD....................         200,000
Rail safety upgrades, Coos County, NH...................         400,000
Rail line relocation, Chester, SC.......................         400,000
Railroad grade separation, Elkhart, IN..................         450,000
Railroad relocation planning, Terre Haute, IN...........         450,000
Sacramento intermodal terminal facility track 
    relocation, CA......................................         400,000
Wisconsin west rail transit authority, Barron, WI.......       2,500,000

         Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation


                                (AMTRAK)

    The National Rail Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) was 
created by the Rail Passenger Service Act (P.L. 91-518) in 1970 
to preserve intercity passenger rail in the United States. At 
the time of Amtrak's creation, private rail companies, which 
provided both freight and passenger rail, had been running 
large deficits on their passenger routes for many years and 
wanted to shed this unprofitable part of the business. Amtrak 
was established as a non-governmental corporation and began 
passenger rail operations on May 1, 1971.
    Amtrak currently serves more than 500 destinations in 46 
states over 21,000 miles of track which is largely owned by the 
freight railroads. Amtrak owns about 625 miles of track, over 
half of which is on the Northeast Corridor (NEC) from 
Washington, DC to Boston. Much like their passenger rail 
counterparts in the rest of the world, Amtrak has not been able 
to make a profit. Unlike their counterparts in Europe and 
Japan, Amtrak has suffered from a lack of national investment 
in rail infrastructure, including dedicated high speed rail 
lines and other infrastructure improvements.

                            STATUS OF AMTRAK

    Industrialized countries around the world have long 
recognized the importance of intercity rail to a balanced 
transportation program. The Committee believes investments in 
intercity passenger rail, especially in high density travel 
corridors, should be considered an integral part of our 
nation's transportation policy. As stated in the beginning of 
this report, the United States is undergoing dramatic 
demographic changes that will make rail a more attractive 
travel alternative in a number of high density corridors that 
are between 100 and 500 miles in length. The challenges created 
by demographic shifts and population growth--congested highways 
and airspace, increased travel delays, and environmental 
degradation--could be mitigated by investments in rail. Amtrak, 
along with the federal and state government, will be important 
partners in the rejuvenation of the nation's intercity rail 
system.
    In addition, the environmental benefits of rail are 
frequently overlooked. The 2006 Oakridge National Laboratory's 
Transportation Energy book, published under the purview of the 
Department of Energy, reported Amtrak consumed 18 percent less 
energy per passenger mile than commercial aviation and 17 
percent less than automobiles, which, in turn, lowers the 
production of greenhouse gases.
    The last authorization for Amtrak expired in 2002. In the 
absence of a new authorization, the Committee has continued 
bill language requiring Amtrak to undertake operational and 
management reforms to achieve greater efficiency. Additionally, 
the Committee continuies the requirement that Amtrak prepare an 
annual comprehensive business plan and submit monthly reports 
to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations as to the 
execution of that business plan. Should an authorization bill 
for Amtrak become enacted into law, the Committee will evaluate 
the need to further modify the bill language as the 
appropriations process moves forward. The Committee, however, 
is encouraged by the progress that Amtrak has made on a number 
of fronts as a result of these reforms.
    Operational savings.--Amtrak has made noteworthy strides in 
restoring fiscal discipline to the railroad's operations. For 
example, in fiscal year 2006, Amtrak achieved $61,300,000 in 
operational savings. To date, Amtrak has achieved $39,000,000 
of the $61,000,000 in operational savings that the railroad 
committed to achieve in fiscal year 2007. Amtrak has also set a 
goal to achieve $82,000,000 in savings in fiscal year 2008. The 
majority of these savings will come from continued reductions 
in food and beverage service costs, improving the net operating 
performance of long distance trains, increasing revenues and 
other strategic reform initiatives. The Committee urges Amtrak 
to continue to make every effort to achieve operational savings 
that improve the railroad's efficiency without compromising its 
commitment to safety and service.
    Reduced debt.--Since fiscal year 2002, Amtrak has reduced 
its corporate debt by $500,000,000 and has not assumed any new 
debt for four years in a row. However, despite this progress, 
Amtrak continues to carry nearly $4,000,000,000 in debt that 
resulted from the years when Amtrak took on large amounts of 
private debt financing in order to meet basic system needs.
    Record level ridership and revenues.--The Committee also 
notes that Amtrak experienced record ridership in fiscal year 
2006, serving 24.3 million passengers and increased revenues to 
$1,371,000,000, 10.7 percent higher than the previous year. 
Amtrak's financial performance led to a slight reduction in the 
amount requested for operating subsidies.
    Growing state commitment to rail passenger service.--Amtrak 
has also witnessed a significant increase in the resources that 
States across the nation are willing to commit toward rail 
passenger service. State investments in capital and operational 
improvements have grown from $148,300,000 to $254,800,000 or by 
72 percent from fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2006.
    The Committee applauds these positive developments, 
however, there is sufficient room for improvement. The 
Committee is greatly concerned about Amtrak's on-time 
performance on its routes that operate over freight-owned rail 
lines. While the Acela service on the Northeast Corridor 
enjoyed an 85 percent on-time performance (which also needs 
improvement), system-wide on-time performance was only 68 
percent. If Amtrak is unable to provide predictable and 
reliable service on its long distance and corridor routes 
including the Northeast Corridor, Amtrak will constantly 
struggle to attract and retain riders. The Committee expects 
the freight railroads which host Amtrak passenger trains to 
cooperate with Amtrak to improve on-time performance.
    In addition, while Amtrak has been able to make some 
headway on its backlog of state-of-good repair work, a 
significant portion of the railroad's rolling stock ranges in 
age from 25 to 50 years old and is fast approaching the end of 
its useful life. The Committee believes that Amtrak must 
continue to make progress in replacing its aging equipment. 
Amtrak also has much work to do to ensure that its stations and 
facilities are compliant with the Americans with Disabilities 
Act. The Committee acknowledges that the Federal Railroad 
Administration has not yet promulgated final rules on station 
platform accessibility requirements which will clearly impact 
the improvements that Amtrak will need to undertake.
    Finally, Amtrak's labor workforce, representing nearly 
16,000 employees, has been without a bargaining agreement for 
nearly eight years and as a result, most of Amtrak's employees 
have not seen an increase in wages other than an annual one 
percent cost of living adjustment. As a consequence, Amtrak's 
wages, in many cases, are well below market and many of the 
Amtrak's skilled workforce are compensated as much as 20 
percent below the levels paid for comparable jobs on the 
freight railroads. This has an impact on Amtrak's ability to 
preserve an experienced and skilled labor workforce. The 
Committee is dismayed that Amtrak may implement premium pay 
plans that include a 10 percent increase in salary for 
management, while at the same time most of Amtrak's employees 
have been without a labor agreement and meaningful cost of 
living adjustments for eights years. While the Committee is 
encouraged that Amtrak's management acknowledges the important 
role that the men and women of Amtrak's workforce play in the 
railroad's success, the Committee is frustrated that little 
progress has been made in the railroad's current labor 
negotiation process which can hardly be characterized as good 
faith bargaining. The Committee expects both management and 
labor to work diligently toward an equitable and fair 
resolution.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The combination of continued reform and investment in 
infrastructure will improve the future viability of Amtrak. 
Accordingly, the Committee recommends $1,400,000,000 in total 
funding for Amtrak in fiscal year 2008 which is $106,450,000 
above the fiscal year 2007 enacted level and $600,000,000 above 
the budget request. The Committee provides Amtrak's funding for 
operating grants and capital and debt service grants. The 
Committee continues many reporting and grant making provisions 
contained in prior appropriations Acts.

                            OPERATING GRANTS
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......................      $490,050,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008......................             - - -
Recommended in the bill...............................       475,000,000
Bill compared to:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...................       -15,050,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................      +475,000,000
    The Committee recommends $475,000,000 for operating grants 
for Amtrak which is $15,050,000 below the fiscal year 2007 
enacted level and $475,000,000 above the budget request. The 
Committee is pleased that Amtrak has improved its financial 
performance which resulted in a considerable cash balance at 
the beginning of the last two fiscal years.
    The Committee understands that Amtrak provides a daily cash 
balance report to FRA and a monthly report that measures 
Amtrak's actual revenues compared to the railroad's projected 
revenues. The Committee expects FRA to carefully monitor 
Amtrak's revenues and cash balances. The Committee directs FRA 
to immediately notify the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations if, at any time, Amtrak's projected cash balance 
falls below an acceptable level.
    Since fiscal year 2006, the Committee has urged Amtrak to 
institute reforms to its food and beverage operations as well 
as its sleeper car service. The Committee understands that the 
food and beverage reforms are expected to yield nearly 
$19,000,000 in fiscal year 2007. However, the strategic 
initiative to improve the operating performance of the sleeper 
car service has been suspended. The Committee hopes that Amtrak 
will redouble its efforts in this area and urges Amtrak to 
continue to explore opportunities to achieve savings in the 
sleeper service with the eventual goal of subsidy elimination. 
In that regard, the Committee continues bill language directing 
the Inspector General to monitor Amtrak's operational reform 
efforts and to report quarterly to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations.
    In an ongoing effort to increase sustainable business 
practices, Amtrak is directed to report back to the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations within 60 days of enactment 
on current recycling efforts and the Corporation's plans to 
improve recycling throughout its operations.
    In order to ensure adequate oversight of Amtrak's business 
practices, the Committee includes bill language providing 
$18,500,000 for Amtrak's office of Inspector General.

                    CAPITAL AND DEBT SERVICE GRANTS
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......................      $772,200,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008......................       500,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       925,000,000
Bill compared to:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...................      +152,800,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................      +425,000,000
    The Committee notes that the authors of the original Rail 
Passenger Service Act which created Amtrak in 1970, envisioned 
significant federal capital investments in high speed rail 
lines as well as other rail service improvements. The Committee 
believes that sustained investment in rail infrastructure is 
critical to the long-term viability of intercity passenger rail 
service.
    Amtrak has invested $1,360,000,000 in the Northeast 
Corridor since fiscal year 2003 and has replaced aging bridges, 
upgraded signal equipment, renewed catenary, and improved 
tunnels and track. Increased capital investments will increase 
capacity and on-time performance, reduce trip time, lower 
maintenance costs, and move the rail system toward a state of 
good repair.
    Accordingly, the Committee provides $925,000,000 for 
capital grants, of which $285,000,000 is provided for Amtrak's 
debt service. The Committee recommendation is $152,800,000 
above the fiscal year 2007 enacted level and $425,000,000 above 
the budget request. The Committee believes that the capital 
grants are essential if Amtrak is to continue improving its 
rail service and help move the system toward a state-of-good 
repair. The Committee recommendation sets aside $35,000,000 
within the capital program to be made available for additional 
capital improvements if Amtrak demonstrates to the Secretary's 
satisfaction that the railroad is meeting operational 
efficiency, revenue and ridership targets. The bill permits FRA 
to retain up to one-quarter of one percent for the oversight of 
Amtrak's capital grants. In addition, the bill continues 
requirements that no capital funds may be used to subsidize 
operating losses or may be used for capital projects not on 
Amtrak's business plan. The bill also sets aside $5,000,000 for 
the continued development of Amtrak's cost accounting system 
and requires the DOT Inspector General to assess the strengths 
and weaknesses of the cost accounting system. Additionally, the 
bill requires the Secretary to develop a definition of ``state 
of good repair'' in consultation with Amtrak and the affected 
Northeast Corridor states. The Committee understands that the 
Department of Transportation Inspector General plans to 
initiate a review of Amtrak's five-year capital plan. The 
Committee directs the Inspector General to report to the House 
and Senate Committees on Appropriations by March 14, 2008 the 
results of that review and to assess how effectively Amtrak 
prioritizes and coordinates its capital investments to 
contribute to the overall business goals of the corporation.

                      EFFICIENCY INCENTIVE GRANTS
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......................       $31,300,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008......................       300,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................             - - -
Bill compared to:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...................       -31,300,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................      -300,000,000
    The Committee notes that a significant portion of the bill 
language requested for the efficiency incentive grant program 
mirrors language that has already been included within the 
Operating Grants portion of the bill. The Committee agrees that 
Amtrak must continue to achieve operational savings and 
efficiencies. In that regard, the Committee has included bill 
language within the Capital and Debt Service Grants that sets 
aside $35,000,000 for capital improvements that is to be made 
available if the Secretary determines that Amtrak has achieved 
operational savings and has met ridership and revenue targets 
as defined in Amtrak's fiscal year 2008 business plan.

                 INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL GRANT PROGRAM
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......................             - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2008......................      $100,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        50,000,000
Bill compared to:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...................       +50,000,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................       -50,000,000
    The Committee supports the concept of a Federal-State 
intercity passenger rail grant program and provides $50,000,000 
as an initial investment. The Committee recommendation is 
$50,000,000 below the level requested in the budget. States 
along the Northeast Corridor, as well as Illinois, California, 
Oregon and Washington and others have already invested in their 
intercity rail corridors and improved rail service. The 
Committee applauds state investments in passenger rail and 
strongly believes that the federal government should be a 
partner in this effort just as it is in highway, transit and 
airport investments. This program matched dollar for dollar 
will leverage as much as $100,000,000 in additional rail 
investments. The goal of this program should be to increase the 
overall investment in state corridors not necessarily replace 
the resources that States are already committing to rail 
improvements. The Secretary has made congestion reduction a 
priority for the Department of Transportation and the Committee 
believes that a state rail corridor program that serves city-
pairs between 100-500 miles with sufficient frequency and 
reliability can make a positive contribution to reducing 
congestion.
    The bill allows States to apply to FRA for up to 50 percent 
of the cost of planning and capital investments to support 
improved intercity passenger rail service. In addition, 
priority for grants will be given to planning and 
infrastructure projects that improve safety, reliability and 
the on-time performance of intercity passenger trains; reduce 
congestion on freight railroads; and, work with the freight 
railroads to achieve an on-time performance of at least 80 
percent. The States must also commit financial resources to 
improve safety at highway-railroad grade crossings and to 
projects that protect and enhance the environment, promote 
energy conservation and improve quality of life. The bill also 
requires that projects must be on the Statewide Transportation 
Improvement Plan.

       ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION--FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

    Section 150. The Committee continues a provision that 
allows FRA to purchase promotional items for Operation 
Lifesaver.

                     Federal Transit Administration

    The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) was established as 
a component of the Department of Transportation on July 1, 
1968, when most of the functions and programs under the Federal 
Transit Act (78 Stat. 302; 49 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) were 
transferred from the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development. Known as the Urban Mass Transportation 
Administration until enactment of the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, the Federal Transit 
Administration administers federal financial assistance 
programs for planning, developing, and improving comprehensive 
mass transportation systems in both urban and non-urban areas.
    Authorization for programs under the Federal Transit 
Administration is contained in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users 
(SAFETEA-LU) (P.L. 109-59). Annual appropriations acts provide 
funding by annual limitations on obligations for the formula 
and bus grants only. FTA's administrative expenses, research 
programs, and capital investment grants are provided through 
direct appropriations of budget authority from the General Fund 
of the Treasury.

                        ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......................       $85,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008......................        89,300,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        92,500,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...................        +7,500,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................        +3,200,000
                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $92,500,000 for FTA's salaries and 
expenses, an increase of $7,500,000 above the fiscal year 2007 
funding level and $3,200,000 above the budget request. The 
Committee's recommendation meets the funding guarantees for 
FTA's administrative expenses as required by SAFETEA-LU.
    The Committee recommendation follows the funding structure 
that was provided in fiscal year 2007. Rather than 
appropriating specific amounts for each of the FTA's 
programmatic offices, the Committee includes a single 
appropriation for the agency's overall operations. The 
Committee acknowledges that the FTA is under new leadership and 
is satisfied that the agency does not intend to reorganize the 
operating functions of the FTA without proper consultation of 
the Committee. However, in granting the FTA Administrator 
additional flexibility in the allocation of resources, the 
Committee expects the Administrator to use this discretion in a 
responsible and measured manner. In order to monitor the 
distribution of the FTA's administrative expenses, the 
Committee directs that the FTA's operating plan include a 
specific allocation of administrative expenses resources, 
including a delineation of full time equivalent employees, for 
the following offices: Office of the Administrator; Office of 
Administration; Office of Chief Counsel; Office of 
Communications and Congressional Affairs; Office of Program 
Management; Office of Budget and Policy; Office of Research, 
Demonstration and Innovation; Office of Civil Rights; Office of 
Planning and Environment; and Regional Offices. In addition, 
the Committee directs the FTA to notify the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations at least thirty days in advance of 
any change that results in an increase or decrease of more than 
five percent from the initial operating plan submitted to the 
Committees for fiscal year 2008. The accompanying bill 
specifies that no more than $1,504,000 shall be for the FTA's 
travel expenses and that no more than $20,719,000 shall be for 
the central account.
    The Committee continues the direction to FTA to submit 
future budget justifications in a similar format to the fiscal 
year 2008 budget materials, consistent with the instruction 
provided in House Report 109-153. With the companion new starts 
report, FTA has significantly improved the documents and 
information submitted to the Committees on Appropriations. The 
Committee has again included language requiring FTA to submit 
the annual new starts report with the initial submission of the 
budget request due in February, 2008.
    In addition, the bill continues a provision requiring FTA 
to reimburse the Department of Transportation Office of 
Inspector General $2,000,000 from funds available for contract 
execution for costs associated with audits and investigations 
of transit-related issues, including reviews of new fixed 
guideway systems. The Committee directs the Inspector General 
to continue such oversight activities in fiscal year 2008.
    Transit security.--The Committee reiterates its direction 
as stated in House Report 108-671 regarding transit security. 
The Committee's position remains that the Department of 
Homeland Security is the lead agency on transportation 
security. As stated on the TSA website: ``All new improvements 
will be coordinated with the Transportation Security 
Administration (TSA) which has overall responsibility for 
transportation security among all modes of transportation, 
including rail and transit lines.'' As such, the Committee 
continues bill language prohibiting FTA from creating a 
permanent office of transit security.
    Project oversight.--The Committee does not include bill 
language requested in the budget which would provide a one 
percent administrative takedown for the oversight of the Job 
Access and Reverse Commute program; the New Freedom program and 
National Research projects. Since the Committee provides 
sufficient funding to meet the administrative expense 
guarantees required under SAFETEA-LU, the Committee believes 
that FTA has adequate resources to conduct oversight of these 
programs.
    Transit oriented development.--The Committee strongly 
supports efforts to increase transit oriented development (TOD) 
in public transportation corridors throughout the country. 
Transit oriented development has the potential to increase the 
quality of life for millions of American households by creating 
more densely populated livable communities near transit, 
recreational parks, and retail centers. The Committee believes 
that better access to transit can reduce transportation costs 
for working families and help mitigate the harmful effects of 
automobile travel on the environment. Despite the benefits of 
transit oriented development, the Committee is particularly 
concerned about housing affordability in TOD communities. The 
Committee believes that the preservation of affordable housing 
should become an integral part of transit oriented development 
policies.
    The Committee commends both the Federal Transit 
Administration and Department of Housing and Urban Development 
(HUD) for jointly sponsoring the recently published study 
``Realizing the Potential: Expanding Housing Opportunities Near 
Transit.'' The Committee believes the study provides a number 
of valuable recommendations for federal, state, and local 
policy makers to promote affordable housing near transit. On 
the federal level, the Committee hopes that the cooperation 
between FTA and HUD on the study will be the beginning of a new 
partnership on transit oriented development. Accordingly, the 
Committee includes $1,000,000 within the funds provided for the 
FTA and HUD to establish a new interagency working group on 
transit oriented development and affordable housing. The new 
working group should follow up on recommendations made in the 
jointly sponsored HUD and FTA study mentioned above. The 
working group should also create an action plan with specific 
recommendations on how HUD and the FTA can improve policy 
coordination and provide incentives through existing programs 
to further promote affordable housing near transit corridors. 
The HUD and FTA action plan for mixed income affordable housing 
near transit should be submitted to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations within six months of enactment.

                         FORMULA AND BUS GRANTS

                  (LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORITY)

                      (LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

                         (INCLUDING RESCISSION)
 Obligation limitation, fiscal year 2007...............    $7,262,775,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008......................     7,871,895,000
Recommended in the bill...............................     7,872,893,000
Bill compared with:
    Obligation limitation, fiscal year 2007...........      +610,118,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................          +998,000
    Formula grants to states and local agencies funded under 
the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) fall into the 
following categories: Alaska Railroad, clean fuels grant 
program, over-the-road bus accessibility program, urbanized 
area formula grants, bus and bus facility grants, fixed 
guideway modernization, planning programs (both metropolitan 
and statewide), formula grants for special needs for elderly 
individuals and individuals with disabilities, formula grants 
for other than urbanized areas, job access and reverse commute 
formula program, new freedom program, growing states and high 
density states formula, National Transit Database, alternatives 
analysis, and alternative transportation in parks and public 
lands. Contract authority from the Mass Transit Account of the 
Highway Trust Fund was provided under SAFETEA-LU. This 
appropriations Act provides the obligation limitation for such 
authority. This account is the only FTA account funded from the 
Highway Trust Fund.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The accompanying bill provides $7,872,893,000 in obligation 
limitations for transit formula and bus grants as authorized in 
SAFETEA-LU. The Committee recommendation represents an increase 
of $610,118,000 above the fiscal year 2007 enacted level and 
$998,000 above the budget request. The Committee's 
recommendation does include a cancellation of $28,660,920 in 
unobligated prior year balances of grant funds. This rescission 
will not affect any on-going or planned/authorized project or 
grant.
    Under the obligation limitation provided, SAFETEA-LU 
mandates funding levels for the following programs in fiscal 
year 2008:

Clean Fuels Grant Program...............................     $49,000,000
Over-the-Road Bus Accessibility Program.................       8,300,000
Urban Area Formula Grants...............................   3,910,843,000
Bus and Bus Facility Grants.............................     927,750,000
Fixed Guideway Modernization............................   1,570,000,000
Metropolitan Transportation Planning....................      88,510,000
Statewide Transportation Planning.......................      18,490,000
Special Needs for Elderly Individuals and Individuals 
    with Disabilities...................................     127,000,000
Formula Grants for Other Than Urbanized Areas...........     438,000,000
Job Access and Reverse Commute Formula Program..........     156,000,000
New Freedom Program.....................................      87,500,000
Growing States and High Density States Formula..........     438,000,000
National Transit Database...............................       3,500,000
Alternatives Analysis Program...........................      25,000,000
Alternative Transportation in Parks and Public Lands....      25,000,000

    In addition, SAFETEA-LU mandates $492,167,593 for 662 
designated bus and clean fuel bus projects in fiscal year 2008.
    The Committee has included an administrative provision, as 
proposed in the last two budget requests, which allows FTA to 
provide grants for 100 percent of the net capital cost of a 
factory-installed or retrofitted hybrid electric bus system. 
This new authority, plus the $49,000,000 provided under 
SAFETEA-LU for the clean fuels grant program, is a good 
response to the direction in House Report 109-307 encouraging 
FTA to provide more incentives for hybrid electric bus systems.
    The Committee directs FTA not to reallocate funds provided 
in the Transportation, Treasury, Independent Agencies, and 
General Government Appropriations Act, 2005, or previous Acts 
for the following bus and bus facilities projects:

Ardmore transit center, Pennsylvania
Attleboro Intermodal Mixed-Use Garage Facility, Massachusetts
Binghamton Intermodal Terminal, Broome Country, New York
Burbank Empire Area Transit Center, California
Callowhill bus garage replacement, Pennsylvania
Denton Downtown multimodal transit facility, Texas
Eastern Contra Costa County Park and Ride Lots, California
Glenmont Metrorail parking garage expansion, Maryland
Grant Transit Authority, Bus Facility, Washington
Hampton Roads Transit New Maintenance Facilities, Virginia
Howard County Transit repair Facility, Maryland
Irvington Intermodal Upgrades, New York
Jacobi Transportation Facility, New York
Leesburg Train Depot Renovation and Restoration, Georgia
Regional Transit Project for Quitman, Clay, Randolph and 
    Stewart Counties, Georgia Renaissance Square, New York
Rochester Central Bus Terminal, New York
Springfield Union Station, Springfield, Massachusetts
Union Station Intermodal Transportation Center, Washington, 
    District of Columbia
White Plains Downtown Circulator, New York

    The Committee directs funding to be allocated for the 
following bus and bus facility projects:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.033

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.034

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.035

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.036

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.037

    Job access and reverse commute program.--The Committee 
remains concerned that numerous cities and communities have 
been adversely impacted by the changes made in SAFETEA-LU to 
the Jobs Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) Program. These 
changes have caused JARC funds to be allocated by formula, 
rather than targeted on low income and transit reliant 
communities. The Committee reiterates its direction to the 
Administrator to report to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations by May 4, 2008 on the effects of this change on 
the ability of former recipients of JARC funds to meet the 
goals of the program.
    Alternatives analysis.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $25,000,000 for the alternatives analysis program. The 
Committee directs that funding be allocated for the following 
projects:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.038

    Clean fuel bus program.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $26,000,000 (section 165) to increase the FTA's clean 
fuel bus program to a total funding level of $75,000,000.

                RESEARCH AND UNIVERSITY RESEARCH CENTERS
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......................       $61,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008......................        61,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        65,500,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...................        +4,500,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................        +4,500,000
    Grants for transit research are authorized by the Safe, 
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 
Legacy for Users (Public Law 109-59) (SAFETEA-LU). Starting in 
fiscal year 2006, activities formerly under the ``Transit 
Planning and Research'' account are now under the ``Formula and 
Bus Grants'' account. The National Research program, the 
Transit Cooperative Research Program, and the National 
Institute are funded under this new heading.
    Funding for the National Research programs will be used to 
cover costs for FTA's essential safety and security activities 
and transit safety data collection. Under the national 
component of the program, FTA is a catalyst in the research, 
development and deployment of transportation methods and 
technologies which address issues such as accessibility for the 
disabled, air quality, traffic congestion, and transit services 
and operational improvements. The University Research Centers 
program will provide continued support for research education 
and technology transfer activities aimed at addressing regional 
and national transportation problems.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $65,500,000 for research 
activities of FTA, $4,500,000 above both the fiscal year 2007 
enacted level and the budget request. The Committee's 
recommendation fully funds the research activities of the FTA 
as required by SAFETEA-LU. Within the funds provided, the 
Committee's recommendation includes $9,300,000 for transit 
cooperative research; $4,300,000 for the National Transit 
Institute; and $7,000,000 for the university centers program. 
Also included within this amount is $22,250,000 for 24 specific 
research projects that were designated in the highway 
authorization bill (SAFETEA-LU).
    Consistent with the direction that was provided in fiscal 
year 2007, the Committee requires FTA to report by May 18, 2008 
on all FTA-sponsored research projects from fiscal year 2007 
and 2008. For each project, the report should include 
information on the National relevance of the research, 
relevance to the transit industry and community, expected final 
product and delivery date, sources of non-FTA funding committed 
to the project or research institute, and FTA funding history.
    The Committee directs funding to be allocated for the 
following projects:
 American cities transportation institute, PA..........          $300,000
BuSolutions advanced transit research, MI.............           700,000
Community transportation association of America,               1,600,000
 nationwide joblinks..................................
East Tennessee hydrogen initiative, TN................           700,000
Southern fuel cell coalition demonstration project, GA           200,000
    Public transportation for the elderly.--The Committee notes 
that by 2030, 70 million Americans will be age 65 and over and 
will comprise 20 percent of the United States population. This 
is twice the number of elderly individuals from 2000. Mobility 
will become an increasing concern as our population ages over 
the next two decades. Given this demographic shift, the 
Committee believes that FTA should include the public 
transportation needs of an aging population into its long term 
strategic planning. Since the Committee has met the research 
funding guarantees required in SAFETEA-LU, the Committee 
directs FTA to utilize funding provided in this account to 
research and demonstrate effective solutions to increase 
mobility for older adults. In addition, FTA should identify 
proven strategies for providing coordinated transportation 
services for older adults that can be replicated by other 
communities. The Committee is hopeful that such research and 
planning in this area will result in strategies to help 
communities prepare for this changing population.

                       CAPITAL INVESTMENT GRANTS

                         (INCLUDING RESCISSION)
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......................    $1,566,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008......................     1,399,818,000
Recommended in the bill...............................     1,700,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...................      +134,000,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................      +300,182,000
    Grants for capital investment to rail or other fixed 
guideway transit systems are awarded to public bodies and 
agencies (transit authorities and other state and local public 
bodies and agencies thereof) including states, municipalities, 
other political subdivisions of states; public agencies and 
instrumentalities of one or more states; and certain public 
corporations, boards and commissions under state law. The Safe, 
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 
Legacy for Users (Public Law 109-59) (SAFETEA-LU) made two 
significant changes to the major capital investment grant 
program. First, the program is now funded entirely from the 
General Fund of the Treasury. Second, grants for bus and bus 
facilities and fixed guideway modernization projects, plus 
alternative analysis funds are now eligible under the ``Formula 
and Bus Grants'' account, which is funded by the Mass Transit 
Account of the Highway Trust Fund. Grants to the Denali 
Commission and the Hawaii and Alaska ferries are dictated by 
SAFETEA-LU. Other projects and investments are authorized by 
SAFETEA-LU and are subject to regulation and oversight by FTA.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $1,700,000,000 for capital 
investment grants, $300,182,000 above the budget request and 
$134,000,000 above the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. Within 
the amount provided, the Committee includes a total of 
$17,000,000, or approximately one percent, for oversight 
activities of the investments in this account.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.039

    The Committee's recommendation includes a rescission of 
$17,760,000 from this account. Funds for the rescission are to 
be derived from any project which still has not obligated 
appropriated funds after three years.
    The Committee directs FTA not to reallocate funds provided 
in the Transportation, Treasury, Independent Agencies, and 
General Government Appropriations Act, 2005, or previous Acts 
for the following new start projects:

Canal Street Corridor, New Orleans, Louisiana
Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project, Virginia
Northstar Corridor Rail Project, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Northeast downtown corridor project, Indianapolis, Indiana
Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor Project, Santa Clara 
    County, California

    Full funding grant agreements (FFGAs).--TEA-21, as amended, 
requires that the FTA notify the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations as well as the House Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on Banking sixty 
days before executing a full funding grant agreement. In its 
notification to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations, the Committee directs the FTA to include the 
following: (1) a copy of the proposed full funding grant 
agreement; (2) the total and annual federal appropriations 
required for that project; (3) yearly and total federal 
appropriations that can be reasonably planned or anticipated 
for future FFGAs for each fiscal year through 2007; (4) a 
detailed analysis of annual commitments for current and 
anticipated FFGAs against the program authorization; (5) an 
evaluation of whether the alternatives analysis made by the 
applicant fully assessed all viable alternatives; (6) a 
financial analysis of the project's cost and sponsor's ability 
to finance the project, which shall be conducted by an 
independent examiner and which shall include an assessment of 
the capital cost estimate and the finance plan; (7) the source 
and security of all public- and private-sector financial 
instruments; (8) the project's operating plan, which enumerates 
the project's future revenue and ridership forecasts; and (9) a 
listing of all planned contingencies and possible risks 
associated with the project.
    The Committee continues the direction to FTA to inform the 
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations in writing thirty 
days before approving schedule, scope, or budget changes to any 
full funding grant agreement. Correspondence relating to 
changes shall include any budget revisions or program changes 
that materially alter the project as originally stipulated in 
the full funding grant agreement, including any proposed change 
in rail car procurements. In addition, the Committee also 
directs FTA to continue reporting monthly to the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations on the status of each 
project with a full funding grant agreement or is within two 
years of a full funding grant agreement. The Committee finds 
the monthly updates informative and a useful oversight tool.
    Small starts projects.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $200,000,000 for the small starts program as 
authorized by SAFETEA-LU. The Committee includes funding for 
the following projects:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.040

    Criteria for new start and small start projects.--Prior to 
the enactment of SAFETEA-LU, new start projects had to complete 
alternatives analysis; preliminary engineering; local financial 
commitment to the project; and be justified by the FTA's review 
of the project's mobility improvements, environmental benefits, 
cost effectiveness, and operating efficiencies. With the 
passage of SAFETEA-LU, Congress added economic development and 
public transportation supportive land use policies to the 
required project justification criteria. SAFETEA-LU also 
created the small starts program which requires projects to be 
justified, in part, by a review of a project's economic 
development impacts, land use policies, and cost effectiveness. 
The Committee believes that the addition of economic 
development and land use as criteria for the new starts and 
small starts programs was intentional and deliberate. The 
Committee is concerned that FTA is not adequately incorporating 
the economic development and land use criteria to both 
programs. Accordingly, the Committee directs FTA to modify the 
existing project evaluation process when evaluating, rating and 
recommending new starts and small starts projects to Congress 
for funding to include economic development and land use. For 
new starts, the revised project evaluation, rating and 
recommendation process should incorporate the six project 
justification factors through all phases of project development 
and advancement by utilizing a multiple-measure approach that 
does not base the project recommendation and funding decision 
on any single factor.
    Public-private partnership pilot program.--The Committee is 
aware that FTA, through its Public-Private Partnership Pilot 
Program, is examining whether innovated procurement 
methodologies can reduce and allocate risks associated with the 
construction of new fixed guideway projects. The Committee 
encourages FTA to explore developing innovative finance pilot 
projects that would leverage private sector investment, reduce 
the federal cost share for capital projects, and speed 
completion of new transit systems.

       ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

    Section 160. The Committee continues the provision that 
exempts previously made transit obligations from limitations on 
obligations.
    Section 161. The Committee continues the provision that 
allows funds not obligated by September 30, 2010 for projects 
under ``Capital Investment Grants'' and bus and bus facilities 
under ``Formula and Bus Grants'' to be available for other 
projects under 49 U.S.C. 5309.
    Section 162. The Committee continues the provision that 
allows for the transfer of prior year appropriations from older 
accounts to be merged into new accounts with similar, current 
activities.
    Section 163. The Committee continues a provision that 
allows unobligated funds for projets under ``Capital Investment 
Grants'' to be used in this fiscal year for activities eligible 
in the year the funds were appropriated.
    Section 164. The Committee includes a provision, as 
proposed in the fiscal year 2007 and 2008 budget requests, that 
allows FTA to provide grants for 100 percent of the net capital 
cost of a factory-installed or retrofitted hybrid electric 
system in a bus.
    Section 165. The Committee includes a provision to provide 
funds for the clean fuels program.
    Section 166. The Committee includes a provision which 
repeals a fiscal year 1986 funding prohibition regarding a 
subway system in Los Angeles, CA.

             Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation


                       OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

                    (HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND)
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......................       $16,223,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008......................        17,392,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        17,392,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...................        +1,169,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................             - - -
    The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (the 
Seaway) is a wholly owned Government corporation established by 
the St. Lawrence Seaway Act of May 13, 1954. The Seaway is 
responsible for the operation, maintenance, and development of 
the United States portion of the St. Lawrence Seaway between 
Montreal and Lake Erie, including the two Seaway locks located 
in Massena, New York and vessel traffic control in areas of the 
St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario. The mission of the Seaway 
is to serve the United States intermodal and international 
transportation system by improving the operation and 
maintenance of a safe, secure, reliable, efficient, and 
environmentally responsible deep-draft waterway. The Seaway's 
major priorities include: safety, reliability, trade 
development, management accountability, and bi-national 
collaboration with its Canadian counterpart.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a total appropriation of 
$17,392,000 to fund the operations and maintenance of the 
corporation, which is $1,169,000 above the fiscal year 2007 
enacted level and the same level requested in the fiscal year 
2008 budget. Appropriations from the harbor maintenance trust 
fund and revenues from non-federal sources finance the 
operation and maintenance of the Seaway for which the 
corporation is responsible. The Committee was pleased the 
Administration did not request to institute tolls on the U.S. 
portion of the Saint Lawrence Seaway as attempted in fiscal 
years 2006 and 2007.
    The Committee looks forward to the release of the Great 
Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway Study, a binational study focused on 
the marine infrastructure needs of the Great Lakes St. Lawrence 
Seaway, to aid in planning and investing in the Seaway. The 
Committee recognizes the Seaway's infrastructure is aging. The 
Committee further recognizes that efforts to modernize the 
Seaway will not only increase efficiency but improve the 
reliability of the Seaway's operations.

                        Maritime Administration

    The Maritime Administration (MARAD) is responsible for 
programs that strengthen the U.S. maritime industry in support 
of the Nation's security and economic needs, as authorized by 
the Merchant Marine Act of 1936. MARAD's mission is to promote 
the development and maintenance of an adequate, well-balanced 
United States merchant marine, sufficient to carry the Nation's 
domestic waterborne commerce and a substantial portion of its 
waterborne foreign commerce, and capable of serving as a naval 
and military auxiliary in time of war or national emergency. 
MARAD, working with the Department of Defense (DOD), helps 
provide a seamless, time-phased transition from peacetime to 
wartime operations, while balancing the defense and commercial 
elements of the maritime transportation system. MARAD also 
manages the maritime security program, the voluntary intermodal 
sealift agreement program and the ready reserve force, which 
assures DOD access to commercial and strategic sealift and 
associated intermodal capability. Further, MARAD's education 
and training programs through the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy 
and six state maritime schools help provide skilled U.S. 
merchant marine officers.

                       MARITIME SECURITY PROGRAM
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......................      $154,440,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008......................       154,440,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       156,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...................        +1,560,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................        +1,560,000
                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $156,000,000 for the maritime 
security program (MSP), $1,560,000 above the budget request and 
the amounts provided in fiscal year 2007. This recommendation 
provides funding directly to MARAD and assumes that MARAD will 
continue to administer the program with support and 
consultation of the Department of Defense. The purpose of the 
MSP is to maintain and preserve a U.S. flag merchant fleet to 
serve the national security needs of the United States. The MSP 
provides direct payments to U.S. flag ship operators engaged in 
U.S.-foreign trade. Participating operators are required to 
keep the vessels in active commercial service and are required 
to provide intermodal sealift support to the Department of 
Defense in times of war or national emergency. The Committee's 
recommendation provides funding for 60 ships, at a payment per 
ship of $2,600,000. The recommendation will provide the 
necessary resources for the operation of the MSP through fiscal 
year 2008. Funds are available until expended.

                        OPERATIONS AND TRAINING
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......................      $111,522,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008......................       115,276,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       118,646,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...................        +7,124,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................        +3,370,000
                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $118,646,000 for operations and 
training, $3,370,000 above the budget request and $7,124,000 
above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2007. Funds provided 
for this account are to be distributed as follows:

                         [Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Fiscal year 2008
             Activity                    request       House recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Merchant Marine Academy:
    Salary and Benefits...........            $24,720            $24,720
    Midshipmen Program............              6,977              6,977
    Instructional Program.........              5,689              5,689
    Program Direction and                       2,916              2,916
     Administration...............
    Maintenance, Repair, &                      7,307              7,307
     Operating Requirements.......
    Capital Improvements..........             13,850             14,139
                                   -------------------------------------
        Subtotal, USMMA...........             61,458             61,747
                                   =====================================
State Maritime Schools:
    Student Incentive Payments....                  0                800
    Direct Payments...............              1,881              1,782
    Schoolship Maintenance and                  8,119             10,500
     Repair.......................
                                   -------------------------------------
        Subtotal, State Maritime               10,000             13,082
         Academies................
                                   =====================================
MARAD Operations:
    Base Operations...............             33,612             33,612
    Information technology and                  8,113              8,113
     electronic government........
    IT setaside...................                 98                 98
    Delphi/Accounting.............              1,258              1,258
    GSA Space Increase............                736                736
                                   -------------------------------------
        Subtotal, MARAD Operations             43,818             43,818
                                   =====================================
        Subtotal, Operations and              115,276            118,646
         Training.................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Numbers may not add due to rounding.

    The Committee recommends $61,747,000 for the operation and 
maintenance of the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy (USMMA), an 
increase of $289,000 over the budget request. Of the funds 
provided, the Committee recommends $24,720,000 for salaries and 
benefits, which is available until September 30, 2008, and 
$14,139,000 for capital improvements to the USMMA, which is 
available until expended.
    The Committee recommends $13,082,000 for the six state 
maritime schools (SMS), $3,082,000 above the budget request and 
$1,983,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2007. In 
its budget request, MARAD proposed to sunset the student 
incentive payment (SIP) program and, in exchange, slightly 
increase direct payments to schools. As justification for the 
sunset, MARAD noted that the number of SIP participants 
entering into the program has continued to decrease in recent 
years. However, information from MARAD indicates the level of 
SIP participation has been relatively constant since 2003, and 
is expected to increase by 4 participants for a total level of 
155 in fiscal year 2007.
    Therefore, the Committee provides $800,000 to continue and 
fully support the SIP program in fiscal year 2008. In addition, 
the Committee provides $1,782,000 in SMS direct payments, 
consistent with the fiscal year 2006 and 2007 level. The 
Committee requires MARAD to provide the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations information on the SIP program, 
including the number of SIP participants, SIP graduates, and 
SIP participants that did not become SIP graduates per year for 
the last eight years as well as the Federal funding expended to 
support the program for each of those years.
    The Committee provides $10,500,000 for schoolship 
maintenance and repair, which is available until expended. The 
Committee notes that the budget proposal of $8,119,000 would 
keep the SIRIUS in a dormant state, unavailable for training 
purposes and unable to respond to disasters. MARAD's 
congressional justification mentions that this funding level 
also may result in the lay-up of the ENTERPRISE. The Committee 
provides the increase of $2,389,000 to ensure all six training 
ships are in a state of good repair and available for training 
purposes, consistent with MARAD's statutory obligations.
    The Committee recommends $43,818,000 for MARAD operations, 
the same as the budget request. Within this total, the 
Committee provides $8,113,000 for information technology (IT) 
related activities and electronic government.
    MARAD reorganization.--The Committee is dismayed that 
MARAD, in direct contradiction to the law, did not notify or 
brief the Committee on its planned reorganization. This is 
particularly disappointing since the reorganization, which 
entails not only headquarters level changes but also the 
creation of new field offices throughout the country, will 
significantly impact MARAD's requests of this Committee.
    Further, MARAD provided the Committee with an overview, 
lacking substance, only after the reorganization was well 
underway (and, in fact, it may have been completed). However, 
to this day, the Committee has received little in the way of 
details, not even an organization chart, let alone any out-year 
cost of FTE estimate. Because this reorganization directly 
affects the work of this Committee and presumes an increase in 
appropriation level to fund its changes, the Committee directs 
MARAD to provide an adequate justification and prohibits MARAD 
from establishing any new offices before it briefs the 
Committee.
    General provisions.--The Committee notes that MARAD has not 
provided any justification for, nor has it addressed, the 
general or administrative provisions it proposes in the 
President's budget. The Committee directs MARAD to justify each 
provision proposed in a section of its Congressional budget 
justification.

                             SHIP DISPOSAL
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......................       $20,790,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008......................        20,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        17,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...................        -3,790,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................        -3,000,000
    MARAD serves as the federal government's disposal agent for 
government-owned merchant vessels weighing 1,500 gross tons or 
more. The ship disposal program provides resources to dispose 
of obsolete merchant-type vessels in the National Defense 
Reserve Fleet (NDRF). The Maritime Administration was required 
by Public Law 106-398 to dispose of its obsolete inventory by 
the end of 2006. These vessels pose a significant environmental 
threat due to the presence of hazardous substances such as 
asbestos and solid and liquid polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). 
The list includes a nuclear ship, the SAVANNAH, which contains 
remnants of a nuclear reactor.
    There are currently 119 obsolete vessels located in three 
fleet sites in the NDRF awaiting disposal. According to MARAD's 
budget justification, MARAD removed 23 ships for disposal in 
2006 and expected that it would remove another 18 in 2007 and 
16 in 2008. MARAD expected that by the end of 2008, it would 
have removed all high priority ships and a significant number 
of moderate priority ships available for disposal.
    However, in a letter dated March 8, 2007, MARAD notified 
the Committee that it suspended the program on February 21, 
2007 due to environmental issues associated with hull cleaning. 
In 2006, the Coast Guard began requiring MARAD to remove marine 
growth from ship hulls before allowing vessels to be towed to a 
domestic recycling facility. As a result, MARAD cancelled two 
awards and did not award seven additional pending contracts in 
December 2006. Although the moratorium no longer applies to 
vessels in Virginia, the dispute continues to impede the 
program in Texas and California.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $17,000,000 for ship disposal, 
$3,000,000 below the budget request. Within the funds provided, 
the Committee recommends $4,704,000 to decommission the 
SAVANNAH. Funds are available until expended. Although the 
Committee fully supports this program, the funding reduction 
will not have a negative effect on the program as all funds 
available will likely not be able to be spent in fiscal year 
2008. Not only is the program suspended in two of three states, 
$15,993,000 is available in fiscal year 2007 from carry-over 
funding, and another $20,790,000 was appropriated in the 2007 
Act. Even if the environmental issues were solved immediately, 
MARAD is captive to limited capacity at domestic recycling 
facilities, which it must share with commercial and Navy ship 
recycling work. The Committee notes that MARAD has been working 
with the revelant agencies of jurisdiction in each of the 
affected states and is hopeful that a resolution can be 
reached. The Committee will reevaluate its decision as 
additional progress is made.

              MARITIME GUARANTEED LOAN (TITLE XI) PROGRAM

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......................        $4,085,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008 \1\..................             - - -
Recommended in the bill...............................         3,408,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...................          -677,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................        +3,408,000\1\ Does not include the $3,408,000 proposed by MARAD in redirected
  funds provided in section 112 of title I, Public Law 109-115.

    The maritime guaranteed loan account as provided for by 
title XI of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, provides for 
guaranteed loans for purchasers of ships from the U.S. 
shipbuilding industry and for modernization of U.S. shipyards. 
Funds for administrative expenses for the Title XI program are 
appropriated to this account, and then transferred by 
reimbursement to operations and training to be obligated and 
outlayed.
    As required by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, this 
account includes the subsidy costs associated with the loan 
guarantee commitments made in 1992 and beyond (including 
modifications of direct loans or loan guarantees that resulted 
from obligations or commitments in any year), as well as 
administrative expenses of this program. The subsidy amounts 
are estimated on a net present value basis; the administrative 
expenses are estimated on a cash basis.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee rejects the President's proposal to transfer 
funding from funding contained in a prior appropriations Act, 
and instead recommends $3,408,000 in appropriated funds.

                           SHIP CONSTRUCTION

                              (RESCISSION)
 Rescission, fiscal year 2007..........................       $-2,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008......................             - - -
Recommended in the bill...............................        -3,526,000
Bill compared with:
    Rescission, fiscal year 2007......................         1,526,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................        -3,526,000
    The Committee rescinds $3,526,000 from the ship 
construction account. This account is currently inactive except 
for determinations regarding the use of vessels built under the 
program, final settlement of open contracts, and closing of 
financial accounts.

                         ALTERATION OF BRIDGES
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......................             - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2008......................        $5,650,000
Recommended in the bill...............................             - - -
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...................             - - -
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................        -5,650,000
    The Truman-Hobbs Act authorized the U.S. Coast Guard to 
alter bridges deemed a hazard to marine navigation. The purpose 
of these alterations is to improve the safety of marine 
navigation under the bridge. Currently 15 bridges are eligible 
for funding under the Alteration of Bridges program.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee rejects the President's proposal to transfer 
the alteration of bridges program from the U.S. Coast Guard to 
MARAD on October 1, 2007. The Committee notes that it has not 
yet received a legislative proposal to effectuate this 
transfer. Further, the Committee does not agree with the 
Administration's approach that altering obstructive highway 
bridges be funded from the highway trust fund especially since 
the Congressional Budget Office projects the trust fund will be 
insolvent in 2009. This funding approach was not included in 
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity 
Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) or the Administration's 
proposal on surface reauthorization. The purpose of altering 
these bridges is to improve the safety of marine navigation 
under the bridge, not to improve surface transportation on the 
bridge itself. Since in some cases, unsafe conditions exist on 
the waterway beneath a bridge that has an adequate surface or 
structural condition, the highway trust fund is not appropriate 
to address the purpose of the Truman-Hobbs program. The 
Committee notes that the 2001 President's budget attempted a 
similar approach, which the Committee rejected for these same 
reasons.

           ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION

    Section 170. The Committee continues a provision that 
allows the Maritime Administration to furnish utilities and 
services and make repairs to any lease, contract, or occupancy 
involving government property under the control of MARAD and 
rental payments shall be covered into the Treasury as 
miscellaneous receipts.
    Section 171. The Committee continues a provision that 
prohibits obligations incurred during the current year from 
construction funds in excess of the appropriations contained in 
this Act or in any prior appropriations Act.

         Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

    The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 
(PHMSA), which was established as an administration within the 
Department of Transportation effective November 30, 2004, 
pursuant to the Norman Y. Mineta Research and Special Programs 
Improvement Act (Public Law 108-246), is responsible for the 
department's pipeline safety program and oversight of hazardous 
materials transportation safety operations. As part of its 
mission, the agency is dedicated to safety by working toward 
the elimination of transportation-related deaths and injuries 
in hazardous materials and pipeline transportation, and by 
promoting transportation solutions that enhance communities and 
protect the natural environment.

                        ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......................       $18,031,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008......................        18,130,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        18,130,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...................           +99,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................             - - -
    This appropriation finances the program support costs for 
the PHMSA. This includes policy development, counsel, budget, 
financial management, civil rights, management, administration 
and agency-wide expenses.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee provides $18,130,000 for these costs, of 
which $639,000 is to be provided from the Pipeline Safety Fund. 
The Committee expects PHMSA to use these funds as reflected in 
its budget justification.

                       HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......................       $26,723,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008......................        27,003,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        28,899,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...................        +2,176,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................        +1,896,000
    The PHMSA oversees the safety of the more than 800,000 
daily shipments of hazardous materials in the United States and 
uses risk management principles and security threat assessments 
to understand, communicate, and reduce dangers inherent in 
hazardous materials transportation. The agency formulates, 
issues and revises hazardous materials regulations which cover 
hazardous materials definitions and classifications, hazard 
communications, shipper and carrier operations, training and 
security requirements, and packaging and container 
specifications.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee provides $28,899,000 to continue the agency's 
hazardous materials safety functions, $1,896,000 above the 
request and $2,176,000, or 8 percent, above the fiscal year 
2007 level.
    Full-time equivalent staff years (FTE).--In fiscal year 
2007, the Committee provided additional resources sufficient 
fund four new inspectors, as had been requested, to achieve a 
more effective level of inspections, address the need to 
investigate undeclared shipments, and improve cross-modal data 
sharing. This would increase the hazardous materials safety 
program to 156.5 FTE in fiscal year 2008. However, the agency's 
budget proposes to cut two FTE from this program with little or 
no justification despite the fact that the Committee has been 
very supportive of staffing increases in recent years. As such, 
the Committee includes $19,714,000 for the operating expenses 
of the hazardous materials safety programs, $247,000 above the 
request, which should be sufficient to fund 156.5 FTE as 
previously approved by the Committee.
    Research, development, and other programs.--PHMSA's fiscal 
year 2008 budget requests an additional $1,100,000 for a new 
hazardous materials intermodal portal. In order to offset the 
funding for this new initiative, as well as other mandatory 
increases for inflation, pay raises, and GSA rent, the budget 
makes significant cuts to other programs, including reducing 
contract programs by $852,000, research and development (R&D;) 
activities by $338,000, and the hazardous materials 
registration program by $459,000.
    The Committee's recommendation restores funding to these 
programs in order to maintain them at the fiscal year 2007 
funding level and provides $9,185,000 to be distributed as 
follows:
 Hazardous materials information system...............         $1,855,000
Research and analysis................................            651,000
Inspection and enforcement...........................            232,000
Rulemaking support...................................            463,000
Training and outreach................................          1,438,000
Hazardous materials intermodal portal................          1,100,000
Emergency preparedness...............................            381,000
Hazardous material registration program..............          1,236,000
R&D; information systems..............................            577,000
R&D; research and analysis............................            676,000
R&D; regulation compliance............................            576,000
                                                      ------------------
    Total............................................          9,185,000
    Hazardous materials intermodal portal.--The budget requests 
$1,100,000 to develop a single Department-wide data system that 
will integrate ``stovepiped'' data and help coordinate efforts 
to monitor the vast hazardous materials community to target 
poor performers and security threats. The total cost of the 
portal is $1,500,000, of which $400,000 is funded in the 
pipeline safety appropriation. The Committee approves this 
request.

                            PIPELINE SAFETY

                         (PIPELINE SAFETY FUND)

                    (OIL SPILL LIABILITY TRUST FUND)
                                                                                (Oil spill
                                                          (Pipeline safety   liability trust         Total
                                                               fund)              fund)Appropriation, fiscal year 2007........................        $60,065,000        $14,850,000        $74,915,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.......................         55,770,000         18,810,000         74,580,000
Recommended in the bill................................         60,065,000         18,810,000         78,875,000
Bill compared to:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................              - - -         +3,960,000         +3,960,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................         +4,295,000              - - -         +4,295,000
    PHMSA oversees the safety, security, and environmental 
protection of pipelines through analysis of data, damage 
prevention, education and training, enforcement of regulations 
and standards, research and development, grants for states 
pipeline safety programs, and emergency planning and response 
to accidents. The pipeline safety program is responsible for a 
national regulatory program to protect the public against the 
risks to life and property in the transportation of natural 
gas, petroleum and other hazardous materials by pipeline. The 
enactment of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 also expanded the 
role of the pipeline safety program in environmental protection 
and resulted in a new emphasis on spill prevention and 
containment of oil and hazardous substances from pipelines.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The bill includes $78,875,000 to continue pipeline safety 
operations, research and development, and state grants-in-aid 
in fiscal year 2008, which is $4,295,000 over the request and 
$3,960,000 over the fiscal year 2007 level. The bill specifies 
that of the total appropriation, $18,810,000 shall be derived 
from the oil spill liability trust fund and $60,065,000 shall 
be from the pipeline safety fund.
    Investigator Positions.--The budget requests eight new 
investigator positions to enhance data collection, evaluate 
pipeline operator performance, design improvement programs, 
and, when necessary, respond to pipeline incidents. The 
Committee approves these positions and provides the associated 
half-year costs.
    In total, the Committee provides $31,342,000 for salaries 
and benefits, travel, and other operating expenses associated 
with the pipeline safety activities of the agency.
    Contract programs.--The Committee provides $17,050,000 for 
the contract programs associated with PHMSA's pipeline safety 
operations, including $400,000 for the hazardous materials 
intermodal portal, and activities associated with implementing 
the Oil Pollution Act.
    Research and development.--PHMSA's budget proposes to 
reduce the agency's investment in pipeline safety research and 
development by $5,343,000 to a meager $3,750,000 in fiscal year 
2008. This represents almost a sixty percent reduction below 
the fiscal year 2007 level of $9,093,000. The budget notes that 
these funds are being redirected in order to provide additional 
funding for state grants as the agency tries to refocus its 
efforts to meet the mandates of the recently passed pipeline 
safety reauthorization, the Pipeline Inspection, Protection, 
Enforcement, and Safety Act (PIPES Act) of 2006. However, the 
research and development activities of PHMSA are used to 
improve pipeline inspection technology and analysis tools to 
strengthen the industry's ability to effectively manage 
pipeline integrity. Research also helps to improve the 
operators' ability to prevent damage to pipelines, detect 
leaks, and develop stronger pipe materials. Therefore, the 
Committee restores some of the cuts to these programs and 
provides $7,425,000 for these activities in fiscal year 2008.
    State one-call grants.--The Committee directs that no less 
than $1,043,000 of the funds provided shall be for state one-
call grants, as requested.
    State pipeline safety grants.--In December 2006, Section 
2(c) of the PIPES Act amended section 60107(a) of title 49, 
United States Code (U.S.C.), to authorize the Secretary of 
Transportation to pay for up to 80 percent of the cost of 
personnel, equipment, and other activities incurred by state 
pipeline agencies during the calendar year. The previous limit 
had been up to 50 percent. In fiscal year 2006, PHMSA provided 
$18,320,730 for the gas and liquid state grant program, which 
was only 42 percent of the $43,551,854 requested by the states. 
PHMSA's budget states that the agency's goal is to increase the 
federal funding for these grants incrementally by 5 percent 
each year until the 80 percent cap is reached in order to 
encourage states to remain in the pipeline safety program. The 
Committee provides $20,000,000 for these pipeline safety grants 
in fiscal year 2008 to assist state pipeline agencies to 
increase inspection and enforcement activities, an increase of 
$1,503,000, or 8 percent, above the fiscal year 2007 level of 
$18,497,000.
    State damage prevention grants.--Section 60134 of title 49, 
U.S.C., establishes a new grant program to assist in improving 
the overall quality and effectiveness of damage prevention 
programs of the states. Since outside force damage is a leading 
cause of release incidents and is often in close proximity to 
populated areas, the Committee provides $1,515,000 for this 
grant program in fiscal year 2008 as requested.
    Technology development grants.--The budget requests 
$500,000 to establish a grant program for the development of 
technologies to facilitate the prevention of pipeline damage 
caused by excavation activities. The Committee provides the 
funding for these grants as requested.
    Pipeline safety user fee allocation.--The pipeline safety 
program, including state grants, is largely funded through user 
fees on natural gas transmission pipelines, jurisdictional 
hazardous liquid pipelines, and liquefied natural gas terminal 
operators. Yet, the PIPES Act has increased the 
responsibilities for PHMSA and the states with respect to the 
safety of our nation's pipelines. Given this change in scope of 
the pipeline safety program, the Committee directs PHMSA to 
review the user fee collection process to determine if it 
should be modified to more equitably allocate the cost of the 
pipeline safety program across the industry segments covered by 
federal and state oversight. PHMSA shall submit a report to 
both the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by 
February 1, 2008, that summarizes: the agency's statutory 
authority to revise the fee structure; its assessment of the 
current fee structure; and any recommendations for changes to 
the fee structure that should be considered as a result of the 
passage of the PIPES Act.

                     EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS GRANTS

                     (EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUND)
                                                             (Emergency         (Emergency
                                                            preparedness       preparedness          Total
                                                               fund)          grant program)Appropriation, fiscal year 2007........................           $198,000      ($14,157,000)        $14,355,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.......................            188,000       (28,318,000)         28,506,000
Recommended in the bill................................            188,000       (28,318,000)         28,506,000
Bill compared to:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................            -10,000      (+14,161,000)        +14,151,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................              - - -              - - -              - - -
    The Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act 
of 1990 (HMTUSA) requires the PHMSA to: (1) develop and 
implement a reimbursable emergency preparedness grant program; 
(2) monitor public sector emergency response training and 
planning and provide technical assistance to states, political 
subdivisions and Indian tribes; and (3) develop and update 
periodically a mandatory training curriculum for emergency 
responders.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $188,000, the same amount as 
requested, for activities related to emergency response 
training curriculum development and updates, as authorized by 
section 117(A)(i)(3)(B) of HMTUSA. The Committee has provided 
an obligation limitation of $28,318,000 for the emergency 
preparedness grant program.

           Research and Innovative Technology Administration

    The Research and Innovative Technology Administration 
(RITA) was established as an administration within the 
Department of Transportation (DOT) effective November 30, 2004, 
pursuant to the Norman Y. Mineta Research and Special Programs 
Improvement Act, Public Law 108-426. The mission of RITA is to 
provide strategic clarity to DOT's multi-modal and intermodal 
research efforts, while coordinating the multifaceted research 
agenda of the department.
    RITA coordinates, facilitates, and reviews the following 
research and development programs and activities: advancement 
and research and development of innovative technologies, 
including intelligent transportation systems; education and 
training in transportation and transportation-related fields, 
including the University Transportation Centers and the 
Transportation Safety Institute; and activities of the Volpe 
National Transportation Center.
    Also included within RITA is the Bureau of Transportation 
Statistics (BTS), which is funded from the Federal Highway 
Administration's federal-aid highway account. BTS compiles, 
analyzes, and makes accessible information on the nation's 
transportation systems; collects information on intermodal 
transportation and other areas as needed; and enhances the 
quality and effectiveness of the statistical programs of the 
DOT through research, the development of guidelines, and the 
promotion of improvements in data acquisition and use.

                        RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......................        $7,736,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008......................        12,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        12,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...................        +4,264,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................             - - -
                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The bill includes $12,000,000 to continue research and 
development activities in fiscal year 2008. This funding level 
is sufficient to fund 36 full-time equivalent staff years 
(FTE), an increase of 3 FTE over the fiscal year 2007 level.
    Research Programs.--Within the fiscal year 2008 recommended 
funding level, the Committee provides $6,036,000 for RITA's 
research, development, and technology (RD&T;) programs as 
follows:

Hydrogen fuels safety R&D...............................;        $500,000
RD&T; coordination.......................................         536,000
Nationwide Differential Global Positioning System.......       5,000,000

    The Committee recommends that the $6,036,000 provided for 
these RD&T; programs be available until September 30, 2010.
    The bill also includes language that allows funds received 
from states, counties, municipalities, other public 
authorities, and private sources for expenses incurred for 
training to be credited to this appropriation.

                  BUREAU OF TRANSPORTATION STATISTICS

                      (LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......................     ($27,000,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2008......................      (27,000,000)
Recommended in the bill...............................      (27,000,000)
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...................             - - -
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................             - - -
                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    Under the appropriation of the Federal Highway 
Administration, the bill provides $27,000,000 for BTS. In 
addition, BTS will receive a portion of the revenue aligned 
budget authority (RABA) increase to the federal-aid highway 
program. The Committee limits BTS staff to 122 FTE in fiscal 
year 2008.

                      Office of Inspector General


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

    The Inspector General's office was established in 1978 to 
provide an objective and independent organization that would be 
more effective in: (1) preventing and detecting fraud, waste, 
and abuse in departmental programs and operations; and (2) 
providing a means of keeping the Secretary of Transportation 
and the Congress fully and currently informed of problems and 
deficiencies in the administration of such programs and 
operations. According to the authorizing legislation, the 
Inspector General (IG) is to report dually to the Secretary of 
Transportation and to the Congress.
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......................       $64,043,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008......................        66,400,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        66,400,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...................        +2,357,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................             - - -
                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommendation provides $66,400,000 for 
activities of the Office of Inspector General (OIG), consistent 
with the budget request. The Committee continues to value 
highly the work of the OIG in oversight of departmental 
programs and activities.
    In addition, the OIG will receive $6,874,000 from other 
agencies in this bill, as noted below:

Federal Highway Administration..........................      $4,024,000
Federal Transit Administration..........................       2,000,000
Federal Aviation Administration.........................         750,000
National Transportation Safety Board....................         100,000

    Funding is sufficient to finance 410 full-time equivalent 
(FTE) staff years in fiscal year 2008, for a decrease of 10 FTE 
from the fiscal year 2007 level.
    The Committee recognizes that the National Transportation 
Safety Board Reauthorization Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-443) 
authorized the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to audit, 
at least annually, NTSB programs and expenditures, including 
information security. It also provided that the NTSB and OIG in 
the absense of a direct appropriation, enter into a 
reimbursable agreement for any NTSB-related audits or reviews 
performed by the OIG.
    On February 2, 2007, the OIG notified NTSB that it would 
continue to perform the annual audit of NTSB's financial 
statements under the Chief Financial Officers Act, maintain the 
hotline, and conduct follow-up investigations on a cost 
reimbursement basis. OIG intends to enter into a reimbursable 
agreement with NTSB for costs associated with these activities 
(approximately $100,000).
    Unfair business practices.--The bill maintains language 
first enacted in fiscal year 2000 which authorizes the OIG to 
investigate allegations of fraud and unfair or deceptive 
practices and unfair methods of competition by air carriers and 
ticket agents.
    Audit reports.--The Committee requests the Inspector 
General to continue forwarding copies of all audit reports to 
the Committee immediately after they are issued, and to 
continue to make the Committee aware immediately of any review 
that recommends cancellation or modifications to any major 
acquisition project or grant, or which recommends significant 
budgetary savings. The OIG is also directed to withhold from 
public distribution for a period of 15 days any final audit or 
investigative report which was requested by the House or Senate 
Committees on Appropriations.

                      Surface Transportation Board

    The Surface Transportation Board (STB) was created on 
January 1, 1996, by Public Law 104-88, the Interstate Commerce 
Commission (ICC) Termination Act of 1995 (ICCTA). The ICCTA 
abolished the ICC; eliminated certain functions that had 
previously been implemented by the ICC; transferred core rail 
and certain other provisions to the STB; and transferred 
certain motor carrier functions to the Federal Highway 
Administration (now under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration).
    The STB is a three-member, bipartisan, independent 
adjudicatory body organizationally housed within DOT that is 
specifically responsible for regulation of the rail and 
pipeline industries and certain non-licensing regulation of 
motor carriers and water carriers. The STB's regulatory 
oversight of rail carriers encompasses the regulation of rates, 
mergers and acquisitions, construction, and abandonment of 
railroad lines, as well as the planning, analysis and policy 
development associated with these activities. The STB's 
jurisdiction also includes certain regulation of the intercity 
bus industry and surface pipeline carriers as well as the rate 
regulation of water transportation in the non-contiguous 
domestic trade, household-good carriers, and collectively 
determined motor rates.
    The law empowers the STB through its exemption authority to 
promote deregulation administratively on a case-by-case basis 
and continues intact the important rail reforms made by the 
Staggers Rail Act of 1980.

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......................       $26,324,500
Budget request, fiscal year 2008 \1\..................        23,085,000
Recommended in the bill \1\...........................        26,495,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...................          +170,500
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................        +3,410,000 
\1\ Assumes collection of $1,250,000 in user fees, to offset the
  appropriation as the fees are collected throughout the fiscal year.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a total appropriation of 
$26,495,000, an increase of $3,410,000 above the budget 
request. Included in the recommendation is $1,250,000 in fees, 
which will offset the appropriated funding. At this funding 
level, the Board will be able to accommodate 150 full-time 
equivalent staff years.
    The Committee's recommendation funds the following 
increases above the fiscal year 2007 enacted level:

Annualization of fiscal year 2007 pay raise.............        $106,000
Fiscal year 2008 pay raise..............................        +330,000
GSA rent increase at new facility.......................        +398,000
Inflation...............................................         +61,000
Working capital fund increase...........................         +38,000
Fiscal year 2008 equipment expenses (one-time)..........        +133,000

    These increases are offset by a reduction of $892,000 for 
the one-time relocation expenses funded in fiscal year 2007.
    User fees.--Current statutory authority, under 31 U.S.C. 
9701, grants the Board the authority to collect user fees. The 
Committee believes that $1,250,000 in user fees is reasonable. 
Language is included in the bill allowing the fees to be 
credited to the appropriation as offsetting collections, and 
reducing the general fund appropriation on a dollar-for-dollar 
basis as the fees are received and credited. The Committee 
continues this language to simplify the tracking of the 
collections and provide the Board with more flexibility in 
spending its appropriated funds.
    STB case report.--The Committee is aware of frustration 
over rail service and freight rail charges among rail 
customers, including electric utilities, rural electric 
cooperatives, paper companies, agricultural industries and 
local units of government. The Committee recognizes that the 
four major railroads now control more than 94 percent of the 
industry's revenues and 90 percent of the rail track and that 
there are fewer options for shippers that rely on the nation's 
major railroads for service. The Committee directs the STB to 
issue a report to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations by February 1, 2008, that shows the number of 
complaints that have been filed related to high rail charges 
and poor service since January 2005, the STB's determinations 
in these cases, and the status and timing of decisions in any 
pending cases.
    Union Pacific/Southern Pacific merger.--On December 12, 
1997, the Board granted a joint request of Union Pacific 
Railroad Company and the City of Wichita and Sedgwick County, 
KS (Wichita/Sedgwick) to toll the 18-month mitigation study 
pending in Finance Docket No. 32760. The decision indicated 
that at such time as the parties reach agreement or discontinue 
negotiations, the Board would take appropriate action.
    By petition filed June 26, 1998, Wichita/Sedgwick and UP/SP 
indicated that they had entered into an agreement, and jointly 
petitioned the Board to impose the agreement as a condition of 
the Board's approval of the UP/SP merger. By decision dated 
July 8, 1998, the Board agreed and imposed the agreement as a 
condition to the UP/SP merger. The terms of the negotiated 
agreement remain in effect. If UP/SP or any of its divisions or 
subsidiaries materially changes or is unable to achieve the 
assumptions on which the Board based its final environmental 
mitigation measures, then the Board should reopen Finance 
Docket 32760 if requested by interested parties, and prescribe 
additional mitigation properly reflecting these changes if 
shown to be appropriate.
    Waste transfer and sorting facilities.--The Committee 
recognizes that a growing number of certain waste haulers and 
rail companies have sought to exploit a potential loophole in 
the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act in order to 
construct and operate unregulated waste transfer and sorting 
facilities on railroad properties. The developers of these 
types of facilities are claiming that ICCTA grants federal 
preemption from local, state and certain federal regulations 
that protect the public interest with respect to solid waste. 
The Committee disagrees with this interpretation of ICCTA 
preemption since the operation of solid waste facilities is not 
integral to transportation by rail. The Committee urges the STB 
to expeditiously clarify that these types of facilities are 
indeed subject to the same local, state, and federal laws and 
regulations as other solid waste facilities.
    Retirement-eligible personnel.--The Committee notes that 
approximately 34 percent of the current Board staff are 
retirement-eligible. The Committee encourages the Board to 
utilize the flexibility provided by the authorized 150 FTE cap, 
as well as other internal mechanisms, to manage the retirement 
bubble over the next few fiscal years in order to prevent a 
sudden and detrimental loss of personnel due to retirements.

            General Provisions--Department of Transportation


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

    Section 180. The Committee continues the provision allowing 
the Department of Transportation to use funds for aircraft; 
motor vehicles; liability insurance; uniforms; or allowances, 
as authorized by law.
    Section 181. The Committee continues the provision limiting 
appropriations for services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 to the 
rate for an Executive Level IV.
    Section 182. The Committee continues the provision 
prohibiting funds in this Act for salaries and expenses of more 
than 110 political and Presidential appointees in the 
Department of Transportation, and prohibits political and 
Presidential personnel assigned on temporary detail outside the 
Department of Transportation.
    Section 183. The Committee continues the provision 
prohibiting funds for the implementation of section 404 of 
title 23, United State Code.
    Section 184. The Committee continues the provision 
prohibiting recipients of funds made available in this Act from 
releasing personal information, including social security 
number, medical or disability information, and photographs from 
a driver's license or motor vehicle record, without express 
consent of the person to whom such information pertains; and 
prohibits the withholding of funds provided in this Act for any 
grantee if a state is in noncompliance with this provision.
    Section 185. The Committee continues the provision allowing 
funds received by the Federal Highway Administration, Federal 
Transit Administration, and the Federal Railroad Administration 
from states, counties, municipalities, other public 
authorities, and private sources for expenses incurred for 
training may be credited to each agency's respective accounts.
    Section 186. The Committee continues the provision 
authorizing the Secretary of Transportation to allow issuers of 
any preferred stock to redeem or repurchase preferred stock 
sold to the Department of Transportation.
    Section 187. The Committee continues the provision 
prohibiting funds in Title I of this Act from being issued for 
any grant unless the Secretary of Transportation notifies the 
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations not less than 
three full business days before any discretionary grant award, 
letter of intent, or full funding grant agreement totaling 
$1,000,000 or more is announced by the department or its modal 
administrations.
    Section 188. The Committee continues a provision for the 
Department of Transportation allowing funds received from 
rebates, refunds, and similar sources to be credited to 
appropriations.
    Section 189. The Committee amends slightly a provision 
continued for years allowing amounts from improper payments to 
a third party contractor or contractor support that are 
lawfully recovered by the Department of Transportation to be 
available to cover expenses incurred in the recovery of such 
payments.
    Section 190. The Committee includes a new provision that 
clarifies funding for a Monterey, California, highway bypass 
included in Public Law 102-143.
    Section 191. The Committee includes a new provision that 
clarifies funding for a Marlboro Township, New Jersey, highway 
project included in section 378 of Public Law 106-346.

         TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT


                SUSTAINABILITY IN HUD'S HOUSING PROGRAMS

    The Committee held several hearings focused on the future 
direction of housing and transportation policy, and heard a 
consistent refrain that sustainability, both in the nation's 
housing and transportation infrastructure, should be a key 
component in planning for the future. The Committee firmly 
believes that the federal government should be a leader in this 
area, and that a great deal of progress can be made through the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development.
    According to HUD's own figures, the Department assists more 
than 5 million renters and homeowners and spends about 10 
percent of its total budget, approximately $4,000,000,000, in 
energy costs through its various housing programs. The 
Committee notes that HUD has made initial steps to improve 
energy efficiency in its programs, including the adoption of an 
Energy Action Plan in April 2002. In addition, Section 154 of 
the Energy Policy Act of 2005 required HUD to implement an 
integrated energy strategy to improve awareness about energy 
saving technologies and provide limited incentives for energy 
efficiency. HUD has also signed a joint partnership with the 
Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy to 
promote energy efficiency in HUD's affordable housing programs.
    The Committee strongly believes that increased energy 
efficiency in HUD programs is beneficial to the agency through 
lowered utility costs. Just as important, however, is the fact 
that decreased energy costs benefit lower income families and 
communities served by HUD's programs. In fact, the population 
assisted through HUD programs can realize significant health, 
economic and environmental benefits from more sustainable 
approaches to affordable housing development. However, the 
Committee is concerned that HUD's energy and environmental 
initiatives have been largely ineffective because they rely on 
voluntary actions and provide few incentives for compliance. 
For example, for the HOPE VI program, HUD currently awards just 
1 point for Energy Star compliance out of a total of 125 
points. Similar weak incentives are found in other HUD housing 
programs.
    HUD should go beyond voluntary and limited incentives for 
energy efficiency and incorporate robust green building and 
rehabilitation standards into its housing programs.
    Preliminary studies of green affordable housing 
developments have found a 2 to 4 percent increase in the cost 
of construction. However, these same studies also report 
substantial energy and water utility savings for low-income 
families living in green affordable housing. A recent review 
found Green Communities homes were 30 percent more energy 
efficient than traditional homes and that the average household 
can save hundreds of dollars per year in decreased utility 
costs. Furthermore, during the Committee's hearings on 
sustainable communities this year, a reputable green housing 
developer testified that it takes only 5 to 7 years to repay 
the increase in green construction costs through long-term 
operational savings.
    The Committee is convinced that the results of initiatives 
such as the Green Communities program and the U.S. Green 
Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental 
Design (LEED) rating system are increasingly demonstrating that 
sustainable development can be achieved on a cost effective 
basis. The Committee notes that a number of states and cities 
have already incorporated green building criteria into their 
affordable housing programs.
    By including strong green building standards into HUD 
programs, such as HOPE VI, the Committee believes that HUD will 
be able to better promote sustainable communities and healthy 
living environments, as well as reduce utility costs for low-
income families.
    Some programs already contain energy efficiency components, 
which should be utilized, and other programs could find ways to 
better incorporate green principles. For example, the HOME 
program statute authorizes funds for technical assistance and 
capacity development to improve the ability of grantees to 
incorporate energy efficiency into affordable housing (42 
U.S.C. 12782). The Committee urges HUD to investigate the costs 
of requiring stronger environmental standards in HUD programs; 
the long-term operational savings to HUD that may result from 
sustainable capital investments in public housing; and how HUD 
can better incorporate energy efficiency measures and green 
building standards into all housing programs, including but not 
limited to the Community Development Block Grant, HOME, Section 
202, Section 811 and HOPE VI programs.

               COOPERATION BETWEEN HUD AND THE COMMITTEE

    The Committee is disappointed that HUD has not been a more 
willing partner in responding to the requests of the Committee. 
The issues of low-income housing and community and urban 
development are not partisan ones, and the Committee expects 
HUD to work with the Committee in a manner that best reflects 
the gravity and importance of its mission.
    The Committee believes that HUD should be more forthcoming 
in the provision of information to the Committee, particularly 
as it relates to the actual funding needs of its programs. HUD 
either does not know, or has not been willing to share, the 
actual numbers and necessary funding needs with the Committee. 
If the Department does not know this information, it is a sad 
reflection on the agency. HUD should have a better grasp of its 
contracts and funding needs, particularly in the Project-Based 
Rental Assistance account. If HUD is simply disinclined to 
share the information, this unwillingness to be responsive to 
the Committee in the provision of housing and services for 
vulnerable populations is reprehensible. It is in the best 
interest of the Department, as well as the low- and moderate-
income populations that it serves, to be straightforward about 
the funding levels necessary to sustain programs. The Committee 
questions the practice of citing executive privilege as a 
rationale for the withholding of requested budgetary 
information. Accurate information is crucial to the Committee's 
ability to comprehensively consider HUD's budgetary needs each 
year, and is in keeping with the Committee's responsibility to 
evaluate the Administration's budget request.

                       Public and Indian Housing


                     TENANT-BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......................   $15,927,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008......................    16,000,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................    16,330,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...................      +403,000,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................      +330,000,000
    In fiscal year 2005, the Housing Certificate Fund was 
separated into two new accounts: Tenant-Based Rental Assistance 
and Project-Based Rental Assistance. This account administers 
the tenant-based Section 8 rental assistance program otherwise 
known as the Housing Choice Voucher program.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $16,330,000,000 for tenant-based 
rental assistance, an increase of $403,000,000 above the fiscal 
year 2007 enacted level and $330,000,000 above the budget 
request for Section 8 vouchers. Consistent with the budget 
request, the Committee continues the advance of $4,193,000,000 
of the funds appropriated under this heading for Section 8 
programs to October 1, 2008. The entire advance is limited to 
this account.
    Voucher Renewals.--The Committee is providing 
$14,744,506,000, which is an increase of $300,000,000 above the 
budget request for the renewal of tenant-based vouchers. The 
Department is instructed to monitor and report to the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations each quarter on the trends 
in Section 8 subsidies and to report on the required program 
alterations due to changes in rent or changes in tenant income.
    The fiscal year 2008 bill continues the ``budget based'' 
system of funding. However, the Committee recognizes that a 
fully ``budget based'' system leaves the Public Housing 
Authorities (PHAs) with a single fixed amount for the calendar 
year and with the difficult task of maximizing the renewal of 
vouchers while operating under a complex regime of rules and 
requirements that do nothing to facilitate the process. Absent 
real reforms to the program to reduce costs and dramatic 
changes to the program's implementation guidelines to reduce 
the administrative burden, the Committee directs the Department 
to take whatever regulatory and administrative actions it can 
to increase flexibility, reduce administrative burden and 
streamline program implementation. By January 1, 2008, the 
Committee directs the Department to provide a full report on 
the regulatory and administrative options available to the 
Department and those it has implemented. However, absent real 
programmatic and statutory reform these actions at best only 
function as stop gap measures.
    In the fiscal year 2007 joint funding resolution, Congress 
made a necessary change to the funding formula that governs the 
tenant-based rental assistance account. Instead of relying on 
data from May, June and July of 2004, the new formula is based 
on current leasing and cost data from the most recent twelve-
month period, which was defined as January 1, 2006 through 
December 31, 2006. This adjustment is intended to capture the 
true needs of PHAs and encourages PHAs to use their 
undesignated fund balances for the purpose for which they were 
appropriated--serving low-income families and individuals. The 
Committee notes that the Administration proposed the same 
change for fiscal year 2009. The Committee has been deeply 
disappointed in the implementation of this formula change, 
especially in light of the fact that similar language had been 
proposed in the Senate appropriations bill for fiscal years 
2006 and 2007. The Department seemed unwilling to update its 
formula and was uncooperative in implementing this change. The 
Department is reminded that its mission is to serve as many 
low-income families and individuals as efficientlty as possible 
and that it is a partner with the Committee in this effort.
    The Committee reminds HUD that the undesignated fund 
balances, or reserves, held by PHAs are funds meant to be used 
for the housing of low-income families and individuals. The 
Department is instructed to allow the PHAs to use these 
undesignated fund balances in administering their programs, and 
is not permitted to recapture or rescind these reserves for the 
Housing Certificate Fund rescission.
    Having changed the formula in the fiscal year 2007 joint 
funding resolution, and understanding that the new funding 
allocations were delayed due to the fiscal year 2007 
Supplemental Appropriations bill, the Committee believes it is 
important to give PHAs adequate time to transition to the new 
formula. Therefore, the Committee has based the fiscal year 
2008 tenant-based rental assistance renewal formula on the 
amount PHAs actually received in fiscal year 2007. This ensures 
that PHAs will have the time and stability to transition 
effectively to the new formula, and will help to pinpoint the 
increase in utilization due to the new formula.
    In making the formula change, it became very clear that the 
Department must be more open about the Voucher Management 
System (VMS) data so that good policy and funding decisions can 
be made from actual leasing and cost data. The Department is 
therefore instructed to post current VMS data on its website on 
a quarterly basis. This shared information will spur 
innovation, will lead to better policy and funding decisions, 
and will encourage PHAs to increase utilization rates. The 
Committee notes that HUD is considering posting this 
information ahead of Congressional direction.
    The Committee continues and strengthens through bill 
language the direction to the Department to communicate to each 
PHA, within 45 days of enactment, the fixed amount that will be 
made available to each PHA for calendar year 2008. The amount 
being provided in this account is the only source of Federal 
funds that may be used to renew tenant-based vouchers. The 
amounts appropriated here may not be augmented from any other 
source.
    The Committee agrees to the budget request that a portion 
of the contract renewal funds may be used for additional rental 
subsidy due to exigencies as determined by the Secretary and 
for the one-time funding of housing assistance payments 
resulting from the portability provisions of the housing choice 
voucher program. The Committee directs that housing assistance 
payments resulting from the portability provisions be the first 
priority in the use of these funds.
    Tenant protection.--The Committee provides $150,000,000 for 
tenant protection vouchers, the same as the amount enacted for 
fiscal year 2007 and as the budget request. As a result of the 
variable nature of this activity from year to year, language is 
included allowing the Department to use carryover and 
recaptures of unexpended Section 8 balances to fund additional 
rental assistance costs in addition to funds appropriated for 
fiscal year 2008. These additional rental assistance costs are 
limited to housing assistance payments and administrative fees 
not to exceed the rate of administrative fees provided for 
contract renewals. The Department is advised against 
instructing PHAs to fund initial Tenant Protection Vouchers for 
less than twelve calendar months or funding these vouchers from 
the renewal account. The Department is instructed to report to 
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by January 1, 
2008 on the number of Tenant Protection Vouchers in use. 
Further, the Committee instructs HUD to issue Tenant Protection 
Vouchers for all units lost from the affordable stock, not only 
those under lease. The need for affordable housing units is 
great and the Committee is disappointed that HUD would advise 
the further diminution of much-needed housing units.
    Incremental Vouchers.--For the first time in five years, 
the Committee includes funding for incremental vouchers, 
specifically targeted to the non-elderly disabled population 
and homeless veterans. The Committee provides $30,000,000 for 
these vouchers, understanding that the need for vouchers by 
these and other populations remains great. Of the incremental 
vouchers provided, one thousand vouchers are to be provided for 
homeless veterans, in accordance with the HUD-VASH program. The 
Committee is dedicated to using its resources to fund current 
vouchers effectively and efficiently, while providing new 
vouchers for qualified populations.
    Administrative Fees.--The Committee recommends 
$1,351,000,000 for allocation to the PHAs to conduct activities 
associated with placing and maintaining individuals under 
Section 8 assistance. This amount is $62,900,000 above the 
enacted level for 2007 and the same as the level proposed in 
the budget request. In addition, the Committee agrees with the 
Administration's request to fund administrative fees based on 
the number of units leased. This adjustment will incentivize 
PHAs to serve more families and individuals and will lead to 
increased utilization of vouchers, a key goal for the 
Committee.
    Family Self-Sufficiency Coordinators (FSS).--The Committee 
includes $48,000,000 for FSS coordinators, the same amount as 
requested by the budget and $500,000 more than the level 
enacted for 2007. Coordinators help residents link up with 
important services in the community to speed the achievement of 
self-sufficiency. The Committee recognizes the importance of 
this activity and encourages HUD to work with PHAs to 
efficiently and effectively utilize these resources.
    Working Capital Fund.--The Committee provides the requested 
amount of $6,494,000 for transfer to the Working Capital Fund.
    The Committee directs the Department to continue to collect 
and use Form HUD-0952681 for PHAs administering the Housing 
Choice Voucher program.

                        Housing Certificate Fund


                              (RESCISSION)
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.....................     -$1,650,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008....................      -1,300,000,000
Recommended in the bill.............................      -1,300,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.................        +350,000,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008................               - - -
    The Housing Certificate Fund, until fiscal year 2005, 
provided funding for both the project-based and tenant-based 
components of the Section 8 program. Project-based Rental 
Assistance and Tenant-based Rental Assistance are now 
separately funded accounts. The Housing Certificate Fund 
retains balances from previous years' appropriations.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a rescission of $1,300,000,000 
from the Housing Certificate Fund from the Section 8 tenant-
based and project-based rental assistance programs as proposed 
in the budget request. The Committee instructs the Department 
to treat undesignated fund balances held by the public housing 
authorities, however, as funds that belong to the public 
housing authorities and may not be rescinded.

                      Public Housing Capital Fund


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......................    $2,438,964,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008......................     2,024,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................     2,438,964,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...................             - - -
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................      +414,964,000
    The Public Housing Capital Fund provides funding for public 
housing capital programs, including public housing development 
and modernization. Examples of capital modernization projects 
include replacing roofs and windows, improving common spaces, 
upgrading electrical and plumbing systems, and renovating the 
interior of an apartment.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a total funding level of 
$2,438,964,000, the same as the level provided in fiscal year 
2007 and an increase of $414,964,000 above the budget request. 
Within the amounts provided the committee directs that:
    --$17,000,000 is made available for Emergency Capital 
needs; the Committee continues last year's language to ensure 
that funds are used only for repairs needed due to an 
unforeseen and unanticipated emergency event or natural 
disaster that occurs during fiscal year 2008;
    --$38,000,000 is directed to the Resident Opportunity and 
Supportive Services; the Committee recognizes the importance of 
this program, which assists public housing residents in 
achieving self-sufficiency. The Committee is concerned about 
the large unexpended balance in this account and the fact that 
HUD denied funding to a large majority of the applications due 
to technical issues that agencies should have been allowed to 
correct. The Committee directs HUD to issue a timely Notice of 
Funding Availability for these funds and to report by March 1, 
2008 on the number of applicants for these funds, the grants 
awarded, and the Department's plan for expending the remaining 
balances in this program.
    --No more than $15,345,000 is directed to support the 
ongoing Public Housing Financial and Physical Assessment 
activities of the Real Estate Assessment Center;
    --$10,890,000 is for Technical Assistance. The Department 
is expected to cover the costs of the fair market rents (FMR) 
surveys from funds remaining available in this account;
    --$8,820,000 is directed to the support of administrative 
and judicial receiverships; the Committee is concerned about 
the length of time that several PHAs have been in receivership, 
with little proven improvement. While the Committee recognizes 
that it is a complex process to remediate the problems at these 
agencies, the Committee is troubled that agencies have been in 
receivership for as long as 22 years and that some cycle in and 
out without improvement. The Committee directs HUD to report to 
the Committee by January 1, 2008 the status of all PHAs in 
receivership and the technical assistance provided, as well as 
the demonstrated achievements by each PHA; and
    --Up to $10,000,000 for transfer to the Working Capital 
Fund to support the development of and modifications to, 
information technology systems which support Public and Indian 
Housing (PIH) programs. This reflects the Committee's continued 
concern that investments must be made to correct deficiencies 
in PIH information technology systems to improve PIH's ability 
to conduct appropriate financial and management oversight of 
its programs.
    As requested, the recommendation does not designate a 
separate set-aside for the Neighborhood Networks grants because 
such activities are already an eligible use of capital funds.
    The Department is directed to continue to provide quarterly 
detailed reports on those Public Housing Authorities with 
obligation rates of less than 90 percent.
    The Committee recognizes that the capital fund needs are 
great, and fully believes that investments made to the valuable 
asset of public housing should be made in a sustainable manner. 
The Committee directs HUD to report to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations methods for improving sustainable 
rehabilitation and building practices in the capital fund 
account.

                         Housing Operating Fund


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......................    $3,864,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008......................     4,000,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................     4,200,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...................      +336,000,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................      +200,000,000
    The Public Housing Operating Fund subsidizes the costs 
associated with operating and maintaining public housing. This 
subsidy supplements funding received by public housing 
authorities (PHA) from tenant rent contributions and other 
income. In accordance with section 9 of the United States 
Housing Act of 1937, as amended, funds are allocated by formula 
to public housing authorities for the following purposes: 
utility costs; anticrime and anti-drug activities, including 
the costs of providing adequate security; routine maintenance 
cost; administrative costs; and general operating expenses.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $4,200,000,000 for the Federal 
share of PHA operating expenses. This amount is $336,000,000 
above the enacted level for fiscal year 2007 and is 
$200,000,000 above the budget request. The Committee does not 
include funds to be used for the ``Housing Self-Sufficiency 
Award.'' The Committee does not provide funding for the Asset-
Based Management Transition Fund, as the Committee does not 
believe it should fund HUD's transition to asset management 
when the PHAs making the transition are getting no such 
assistance from HUD.
    The Committee is deeply concerned about the implementation 
of asset management for public housing. While most parties 
agree that asset management is a worthy endeavor that can be 
beneficial to public housing in the long run, HUD's overly 
restrictive implementation of this new system contradicts the 
stated goals of asset management. In particular, there are 
concerns about the potential negative consequences of the 
guidance HUD has issued given the regulatory and funding 
differences between public housing and private housing. The 
conversion to asset-based management has led to new regulatory 
restrictions on public housing that the public housing industry 
claims will lessen the quality of the housing and services 
provided to the tenants. The most contentious of these new 
restrictions are HUD-imposed management and related fees, which 
can limit the flexibility of an agency in managing its 
portfolio of housing projects. The Committee is concerned about 
the impact of these new rules on the over one million families 
living in public housing. The Final Rule requires HUD to 
convene a meeting in 2009 in accordance with the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act. The Final Rule states that this meeting 
will ``review the methodology to evaluate'' public housing 
Property Expense Levels ``based on actual cost data.'' The 
Committee believes that this meeting is an excellent 
opportunity to address the related methodological issue of 
management fees. Because it is crucial to the success of asset 
management that management fees for PHAs be set at appropriate 
levels, the Committee directs HUD to include the topic of 
management fees in the meeting required by the Final Rule in 
2009.
    In addition, the Committee is aware that HUD is undertaking 
an administrative reform initiative to examine and possibly 
revise regulations and guidance related to public housing. This 
initiative will be particularly important as it coincides with 
the implementation of asset management. The Committee supports 
this initiative and encourages the Department to solicit input 
from a variety of stakeholders in this critical effort.
    The Committee instructs the HUD Inspector General to 
investigate the implementation of asset management, especially 
the issue of management fees, and to report its findings to the 
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by March 15, 
2008.
    The Committee also continues a provision, carried in prior 
years, prohibiting funds from being used for section 9(k) 
activities.

          The Committee is concerned about reports that some 
        Public Housing Authorities are requiring residents to 
        declaw their pet cats, although HUD regulations do not 
        contain such a requirement. Declawing is a painful 
        procedure for pets which is almost never medically or 
        behaviorally necessary. The Committee urges HUD to 
        notify all PHAs that declawing is not required in 
        public housing under HUD policy. The Committee further 
        encourages HUD to consider adding an additional 
        provision to section 960.707(c) of HUD's regulations 
        (24 C.F.R. 960.707(c)) that would prohibit PHAs from 
        requiring declawing.

         Revitalization of Severely Distressed Public Housing 
                               (Hope VI)

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......................       $99,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008......................       -99,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       120,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...................       +21,000,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................      +219,000,000
    The Revitalization of Severely Distressed Public Housing 
program, also known as HOPE VI, provides competitive grants to 
public housing authorities to revitalize entire neighborhoods 
adversely impacted by the presence of badly deteriorated public 
housing projects. In addition to developing and constructing 
new affordable housing, the program provides PHAs with the 
authority to demolish obsolete projects and to provide self-
sufficiency services for families who reside in and around the 
facility.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee rejects the budget request for no new funding 
for HUD's Revitalization of Severely Distressed Public Housing 
program (HOPE VI) and provides $120,000,000 for the HOPE VI 
program for fiscal year 2008, $21,000,000 above last year's 
enacted level and $219,000,000 above the budget request. 
Language proposed to rescind funds appropriated for fiscal year 
2007 is not included.
    The HOPE VI program grew out of the findings and 
recommendations made by the National Commission on Severely 
Distressed Public Housing. In 1992, the Commission reported 
that many public housing developments were plagued by crime, 
limited neighborhood employment opportunities, crumbling and 
unsafe physical infrastructure, and federal programs that did 
little to help residents.
    In response to the Commission's report, the HOPE VI program 
(also known as the Urban Revitalization Demonstration program 
from 1993 to 1998) was created in fiscal year 1993 to 
revitalize severely distressed public housing developments and 
improve the quality of life for public housing residents. HOPE 
VI program funds are used to leverage outside investment and 
replace severely distressed public housing with new mixed 
income developments, revitalize and improve surrounding 
neighborhoods, reduce poverty, and provide community and 
support services for public housing residents.
    Since its inception, $5,830,000,000 in HOPE VI 
revitalization grants have been awarded to public housing 
authorities (PHAs). According to an analysis of HUD data by the 
Congressional Research Service (CRS), from inception to June 
2004, HOPE VI grantees planned to demolish 134,572 units of 
public housing, and rebuild or renovate 94,725 units of new 
housing.
    The Committee strongly supports continued funding for the 
HOPE VI program. The Committee believes that the federal 
government should continue to demolish severely distressed 
public housing that is unsafe and often uninhabitable and 
replace it with affordable housing units through the assistance 
of programs like HOPE VI.
    Completed HOPE VI projects have been credited with helping 
transform and revitalize communities across the United States. 
Studies have linked HOPE VI communities with improved living 
environments for residents, reduced crime, and better 
employment opportunities.
    The Committee remains concerned, however, about the slow 
expenditure of HOPE VI funds, especially among some of the 
earliest grantees, and insists that HUD take a much more 
proactive role in ensuring that HOPE VI funds are obligated and 
that projects are completed in a timely fashion. In that 
regard, the Committee strongly believes that HUD bears a 
significant responsibility to facilitate these projects to 
their successful completion. HUD's role does not end with the 
selection of HOPE VI grantees.
    The Committee notes that under the HOPE VI authorizing law, 
the Secretary may use up to 2 percent of appropriated funds for 
technical assistance or contract expertise. The Committee 
disagrees with HUD's decision to eliminate technical assistance 
to most HOPE VI grantees, except in cases where the grantee is 
at-risk. For example, HUD previously assigned each new grantee 
a private sector expert in finance and real estate development, 
but stopped this practice in fiscal year 2001. The Committee 
believes that technical assistance can be an immensely valuable 
tool to help smaller communities around the country manage 
their HOPE VI projects. HUD should actively help HOPE VI 
grantees succeed by providing proactive technical assistance 
before they become at-risk.
    The Committee expects HUD to be a better partner in helping 
communities rehabilitate and revitalize their distressed public 
housing and directs HUD to issue its fiscal year 2008 HOPE VI 
Notice of Funding Availability within 60 days of enactment and 
to provide adequate technical assistance, both for new grantees 
and for previous awardees whose projects are not yet completed, 
particularly those awarded before 2001. The Committee also 
directs HUD to report back to the Congress by February 15, 2008 
on the status and living arrangements for displaced residents 
of public housing units involved in HOPE VI projects, and the 
number of HOPE VI projects located within a half mile of public 
transit.
    Further, as one of the most innovative programs in HUD, the 
Committee believes that the large scale, catalytic 
redevelopment that the HOPE VI Program makes possible is 
especially well suited for a broad approach to green building, 
which includes smart site planning near public transportation 
and retail centers, water conservation, energy efficiency, and 
the use of environmentally beneficial building materials. 
Accordingly, the Committee strongly encourages HUD to require 
new HOPE VI affordable housing projects to meet Green 
Communities or the LEED for Homes building standards. Both 
Green Communities and the LEED rating system are nationally 
recognized standards for green building. The criteria were 
developed by leading experts in building design and 
construction, public health, smart growth and environmental 
protection. Both Green Communities and LEED for Homes also 
provide strong incentives to locate affordable housing close to 
public transportation, which is a priority for the Committee.

                  Native American Housing Block Grants


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......................      $623,700,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008......................       626,965,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       626,965,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...................        +3,265,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................             - - -
    The Native American Housing Block Grants program provides 
funds to Indian tribes and their Tribally Designated Housing 
Entities (TDHE) to address housing needs within their 
communities. The block grant is designed to fund TDHE operating 
requirements and capital needs.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $626,965,000 for the Native 
American Block Grant and the Indian Community Development Block 
Grant Fund. This is the same as the budget request and 
$3,265,000 more than the enacted amount in fiscal year 2007.
    In 2003, when HUD began using the new 2000 Census data, HUD 
shifted the basis for the needs portion of the formula 
distribution of funds from single-race to multi-race. The 
Committee continues language from last year instructing HUD to 
distribute funds on the basis of single race or multi race 
data, which ever is the higher amount for each recipient.
    Recognizing that the shift to multi-race data has adversely 
impacted many Native American tribes, the Committee directs GAO 
to conduct a study to analyze the impact of these funding 
changes and report its findings to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations by March 14, 2008.
    Of the amounts made available under this heading:
          --$1,831,000 is included for Section 601 loan 
        guarantees. However, the Department is advised that 
        loan level activity must be monitored to ensure that 
        sufficient grant funds are available as collateral for 
        new loans;
          --$3,465,000 is for Technical Assistance training and 
        associated travel; and
          --$148,500 is transferred to the Department Salary 
        and Expenses account.
    The Committee is concerned about HUD's slow expenditure of 
Technical Assistance grants in this account and directs HUD to 
report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by 
February 1, 2008 its plans for providing technical assistance 
to the Indian tribes and the Tribally Designated Housing 
Entities. It is clear to the Committee that HUD has not made a 
serious effort to build tribal capacity and technical expertise 
to carry out affordable housing programs. HUD should be far 
more proactive in working with the Indian communities to 
address their needs and is directed to prepare a report to 
Congress on this issue by March 15, 2008.
    Additionally, the Committee expects the Department to 
continue to provide resources to the National American Indian 
Housing Council, if authorized.

                  Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......................        $8,727,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008......................         5,940,000
Recommended in the bill...............................         8,727,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...................             - - -
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................        +2,787,000
    The Hawaiian Homelands Homeownership Act of 2000 created 
the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant program to provide 
grants to the State of Hawaii Department of Hawaiian Home Lands 
for housing and housing related assistance to develop, maintain 
and operate affordable housing for eligible low income Native 
Hawaiian families.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $8,727,000 for this program, the 
same as the amount provided in fiscal year 2007, and $2,787,000 
above the budget request. Of the amounts provided, $299,211 is 
for technical assistance.
    The Committee is concerned about the slow expenditures in 
formula grants and directs HUD to award these funds in a more 
efficient, effective manner. The Committee directs HUD to 
submit a letter to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations by February 1, 2008 on the status of grants 
expended in this account.

           Indian Housing Loan Guarantee fund Program Account


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
 Program account:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......................        $6,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008......................         7,450,000
Recommended in the bill...............................         7,450,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...................        +1,450,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................             - - -
Limitation on direct loans:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......................      $251,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008......................       367,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       367,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...................      +116,000,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................
    Section 184 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 
1992 establishes a loan guarantee program for Native Americans 
to build or purchase homes on trust land. This program provides 
access to sources of private financing for Indian families and 
Indian housing authorities that otherwise cannot acquire 
financing because of the unique legal status of Indian trust 
land. This financing vehicle enables families to construct new 
homes or to purchase existing properties on reservations.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $7,450,000 in new credit subsidy 
for the Section 184 loan guarantee program, $1,450,000 above 
the fiscal year 2007 enacted level and the same as the budget 
request. The Committee strongly supports the program of loan 
guarantees for the purchase, construction or rehabilitation of 
single-family homes on trust or restricted lands. Of the 
amounts made available, $248,000 is transferred to Salaries and 
Expenses.

      Native Hawaiian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund Program Account


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
 Program account:......................................
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......................          $891,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008......................         1,044,000
Recommended in the bill...............................         1,044,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...................          +153,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................             - - -
Limitation on direct Loans:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......................       $35,714,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008......................        41,504,255
Recommended in the bill...............................        41,504,255
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...................        +5,790,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................
    The Hawaiian Homelands Homeownership Act of 2000 created 
the Native Hawaiian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund program to 
provide loan guarantees for native Hawaiian individuals and 
their families, the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, the 
Office of Hawaiian Affairs, and private, nonprofit 
organizations experienced in the planning and in the 
development of affordable housing for Native Hawaiians for the 
purchase, construction, and/or rehabilitation of single-family 
homes on Hawaiian Home Lands. This program provides access to 
private sources of financing that would otherwise not be 
available because of the unique legal status of Hawaiian Home 
Lands.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $1,044,000 for this program, the 
same amount as requested and $153,000 above fiscal year 2007 to 
guarantee a total loan volume of $41,504,255, the full amount 
requested. Language is included transferring $35,000 to 
Salaries and Expenses for administrative expenses.
    The Committee is concerned about the slow expenditure of 
credit subsidy in this account. In this regard, the Committee 
directs the Department to submit a plan to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations by February 1, 2008 that details 
HUD's plan to increase the efficiency and utilization of this 
program.

                   Community Planning and Development


              HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......................      $286,110,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008......................       300,100,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       300,100,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...................       +13,990,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................             - - -
    The Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) 
program is authorized by the Housing Opportunities for Persons 
with AIDS Act. This program provides States and localities with 
resources and incentives to devise long-term comprehensive 
strategies to meet the housing needs of persons with HIV/AIDS 
and their families. Ninety percent of funding is distributed by 
formula to qualifying States and metropolitan areas on the 
basis of the cumulative number and incidences of AIDS reported 
to the Centers for Disease Control. The remaining 10 percent of 
funding is distributed through a national competition. 
Government recipients are required to have a HUD-approved 
Comprehensive Plan or Comprehensive Housing Affordability 
Strategy (CHAS).

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    For fiscal year 2007, the Committee recommends 
$300,100,000, an increase of $13,990,000 over the enacted 
levels for fiscal year 2007, and the same as the budget 
request. Within the total amount provided, $1,485,000 is for 
technical assistance, training and oversight as requested and 
$1,485,000 is transferred to the Working Capital Fund. Within 
the funds provided, the Department should continue to give 
priority to creating new housing opportunities for persons with 
AIDS.
    The Committee continues language which requires the 
Secretary to renew expiring permanent supportive housing 
contracts previously funded under the national competition, 
which meet all program requirements, before awarding new 
competitive grants.
    Since the Committee has not received information on HUD's 
proposal to change the funding formula for the HOPWA program, 
HUD is directed to continue to use the current formula in 
awarding grants. While the Committee recognizes the value in 
evaluating a formula that is twenty years old, this is an issue 
best determined with input from a variety of stakeholders, and 
should not be undertaken in a budget request.

                 RURAL HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......................       $16,830,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008......................             - - -
Recommended in the bill...............................        16,830,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...................             - - -
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................       +16,830,000
    This account provides funding to rural non-profit 
organizations, community development corporations, Indian 
tribes, State housing finance agencies, State economic 
development and Federally recognized community development 
agencies.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $16,830,000 for the Rural Housing 
and Economic Development account, the same as the enacted level 
for fiscal year 2007 and $16,830,000 above the budget request. 
The Committee does not agree that the activities of this 
account are best performed through the Community Development 
Block Grant or the HOME programs.

                       COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......................    $3,771,900,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008......................     3,036,570,000
Recommended in the bill...............................     4,180,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...................      +408,100,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................    +1,143,430,000
    The Community Development Fund provides funding to State 
and local governments, and to other entities that carry out 
community and economic development activities under various 
programs.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a total of $4,180,000,000 for the 
Community Development Fund account, an increase of $408,100,000 
from the amount provided in fiscal year 2007 and an increase of 
$1,143,430,000 above the fiscal year 2008 budget request.
    Of the amounts made available:
          --$3,929,300,000 is for the formula grants and the 
        state share. HUD is instructed to use the same 
        methodology as used in fiscal year 2007 to distribute 
        these funds;
          --$62,000,000 is for the Native American Housing and 
        Economic Development Block Grant;
          --$160,000,000 is for economic development initiative 
        activities and $20,000,000 is for neighborhood 
        initiative activities;
          --$1,584,000 is for the working capital fund; and
          --$7,100,000 is for insular areas.
    The Committee does not include funds, nor is the Department 
authorized to use funds for the proposed Challenge Grants.
    Beginning in fiscal year 2009, the Committee intends to 
require that all Economic Development Initiative and 
Neighborhood Initiative funds awarded to grantees will be 
matched by 25 percent in funding by each grantee. This is an 
effort to stretch limited Federal funds to projects that have 
strong community support.
    The Committee includes modified language making technical 
corrections to certain targeted economic development initiative 
and neighborhood initiative grants funded under this heading in 
prior Appropriations Acts.
    The Committee directs HUD to implement the Economic 
Development Initiative program as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.041

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.042

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.043

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.044

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.045

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.046

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.047

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.048

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.049

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.050

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.051

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.052

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.053

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.054

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.055

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.056

    The Committee directs HUD to implement the Neighborhood 
Initiatives program as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.057

    Additionally, the Committee has maintained the formula 
program at the highest possible level for fiscal year 2008. The 
Committee continues to believe that effort has been complicated 
by what can only be described as the Administration's annual 
arbitrary cut to the CDBG program. The Administration has 
justified the proposed reduced funding level as part of a 
reform of the program to be coupled with a change to the 
formula for distributing funds. Yet despite months of lead time 
prior to the submission of the Administration's budget request, 
it has failed to deliver a reform proposal in time to be 
considered and acted on by the relevant committees of 
jurisdiction.

         COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LOAN GUARANTEES PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
 Program cost:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......................        $3,713,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008......................             - - -
Recommended in the bill...............................         3,713,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...................             - - -
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................        +3,713,000
Limitation on Guaranteed loans:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......................      $137,500,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008......................             - - -
Recommended in the bill...............................       137,500,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...................             - - -
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................      +137,500,000
    The Section 108 Loan Guarantees program underwrites private 
market loans to assist local communities in the financing of 
the acquisition and rehabilitation of publicly-owned real 
property, rehabilitation of housing, and certain economic 
development projects.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $3,713,000 for the Section 108 
loan Guarantees program, the same as the enacted level of 
fiscal year 2007 and $3,713,000 above the level in the budget 
request. The Committee does not agree that the activities of 
this account are best performed through the Community 
Development Block Grant program.

                       BROWNFIELDS REDEVELOPMENT
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......................        $9,900,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008......................             - - -
Recommended in the bill...............................         9,900,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...................             - - -
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................        +9,900,000
    The Brownfields Redevelopment program provides competitive 
economic development grants in conjunction with section 108 
loan guarantees for qualified Brownfields projects. Grants are 
made in accordance with section 108(q) selection criteria. The 
goal of the program is to return contaminated sites to 
productive uses with an emphasis on creating substantial 
numbers of jobs for lower-income people in physically and 
economically distressed neighborhoods.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $9,900,000 for the Brownfields 
Redevelopment program, the same as the level enacted for fiscal 
year 2007 and $9,900,000 above the amount in the budget 
request. The Committee does not agree that the activities 
funded under the Brownfields Redevelopment program are 
duplicative of EPA programs, and encourages HUD to address the 
problem of slow expenditure of funds. As one of the only 
programs in HUD to address commercial and industrial sites, the 
Committee views the Brownfields Redevelopment program as a 
vital part of this Committee's efforts to address the 
environmental sustainability of facilities built and 
rehabilitated with HUD funds.

                  HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......................    $1,757,250,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008......................     1,966,640,000
Recommended in the bill...............................     1,757,250,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...................             - - -
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................      -209,390,000
    The HOME investment partnerships program uses formula 
allocations to provide grants to States, units of local 
government, Indian tribes, and insular areas for the purpose of 
expanding the supply of affordable housing in the jurisdiction. 
Upon receipt, State and local governments develop a 
comprehensive housing affordability strategy that enables them 
to acquire, rehabilitate, or construct new affordable housing, 
or to provide rental assistance to eligible families.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $1,757,250,000 for activities 
funded under this account, the same as the level enacted in 
fiscal year 2007 and $209,390,000 below the budget request. 
Funds are provided as follows:
          --Formula Grants: $1,701,398,000 for formula grants 
        for participating jurisdictions (States, units of local 
        government and consortia of units of local government) 
        and insular areas, $24,750,000 above the amount enacted 
        for fiscal year 2007 and $198,044,000 below the amount 
        requested. Of the amount provided, pursuant to the 
        authorizing statute, at least 15 percent of each 
        participating jurisdiction's allocation is reserved for 
        housing that is developed, sponsored, or owned by 
        Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDOs);
          --HOME/CHDO Technical Assistance: $9,900,000 for 
        technical assistance activities for State and local 
        participating jurisdictions and non-profit CHDOs. The 
        Committee notes that the HOME statute authorizes 
        technical assistance to be provided through contracts 
        with eligible non-profit intermediaries as well as with 
        other organizations recommended by participating 
        jurisdictions and therefore directs HUD to use 
        $3,500,000 to contract with qualified non-profit 
        intermediaries to provide CHDO, technical assistance in 
        fiscal year 2008;
          --Insular Areas: $3,382,000;
          --Working Capital Fund: no less than $990,000 for 
        transfer to the Working Capital Fund to support the 
        development and modification of information technology 
        systems that serve programs and activities under 
        Community Planning and Development.
          --American Dream Down Payment Assistance Initiative: 
        funds are not included, as it is duplicative of 
        eligible activities under the HOME Program and does not 
        necessitate a set-aside. Participating jurisdictions 
        are already performing down-payment assistance for low-
        income families under the HOME formula grants, and the 
        Committee encourages them to continue these efforts; 
        and
          --Housing Counseling: $41,580,000.

                  SELF-HELP AND ASSISTED HOMEOWNERSHIP
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......................       $49,390,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008......................        69,700,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        59,700,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...................       +10,310,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................       -10,000,000
    Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program (SHOP) funds 
make competitive grants to national and regional nonprofit 
organizations and consortia that have experience in providing 
or facilitating self-help housing opportunities. Grant funds 
are used to develop housing for low-income families and to 
develop the capacity of nonprofit organizations for such 
development. In 2006, SHOP became a separate account. SHOP was 
previously funded as a set-aside within the Community 
Development Fund.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $59,700,000 for the Self Help and 
Assisted Homeownership Program. This account funds programs 
that previously have been funded as set asides within the 
Community Development Fund. This is $10,310,000 above the 
fiscal year 2007 enacted funding level and $10,000,000 below 
the budget request.
    Programs within this account provide a critical role 
promoting affordable housing and the ability to maximize the 
federal investment in these activities; a role that is all the 
more critical in the context of fiscal restraint and 
demonstrated results. Therefore language is included that 
provides:
          --$27,710,000 for the Self Help Homeownership 
        Program;
          --$31,000,000 for the National Community Development 
        Initiative (NCDI) for LISC and Enterprise Foundation;
          --$990,000 for Technical Assistance.
    The Committee also expects HUD to continue to provide 
resources to the Housing Assistance Council, the National 
Council of La Raza, the National American Indian Housing 
Council, and Habitat for Humanity International, if authorized.

                       HOMELESS ASSISTANCE GRANTS

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......................    $1,441,600,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008......................     1,585,990,000
Recommended in the bill...............................     1,560,990,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...................      +119,390,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................       -25,000,000
    The homeless assistance grants account provides funding for 
the following homeless programs under title IV of the McKinney 
Act: (1) the emergency shelter grants program; (2) the 
supportive housing program; (3) the section 8 moderate 
rehabilitation (Single Room Occupancy) program; and (4) the 
shelter plus care program. This account also supports 
activities eligible under the innovative homeless initiatives 
demonstration program.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends funding homeless programs at 
$1,560,990,000, an increase of $119,390,000 above the enacted 
level for 2007 and $25,000,000 less than the budget request. 
The recommendation includes no less than $320,000,000 for full 
funding of the costs associated with the renewal of all 
expiring Shelter Plus Care contracts. Language is included in 
the bill requiring funds to be made available for this purpose. 
Funding for the Prisoner Re-entry Initiative is not included 
and the consolidation proposal, including its version of the 
Samaritan bonus, is not adopted by this Committee, as that is a 
proposal best considered by the authorizing committee. The 
recommendation also includes $10,395,000 for technical 
assistance and data analysis, and no less than $2,475,000 for 
transfer to the Working Capital Fund for development and 
modifications of information technology systems that serve 
activities under Community Planning and Development. The 
Committee directs the Department to ensure to the largest 
extent possible that funding is made available for all eligible 
activities including permanent housing, transitional housing, 
and supportive service.
    Language is included in the bill that: (1) requires not 
less than 30 percent of the funds appropriated, excluding 
amounts made available for renewals under the shelter plus care 
program, be used for permanent housing; (2) requires the 
renewal of all expiring shelter plus care contracts; (3) 
requires funding recipients to provide a 25 percent match for 
social services activities; (4) requires all homeless programs 
to coordinate their programs with mainstream health, social 
services, and employment programs; and (5) provides two year 
availability for obligation of funds provided under this 
account, except that no year availability is provided for the 
portion of funding necessary to meet initial contract 
requirements for the Single Room Occupancy program.

                            Housing Programs


                    PROJECT-BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......................    $5,976,417,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008......................     5,813,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................     6,479,810,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...................      +503,393,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................      +666,810,000
    The Project-Based Rental Assistance account (PBRA) provides 
a rental subsidy to a private landlord tied to a specific 
housing unit so that the properties themselves, rather than the 
individual living in the unit, remain subsidized. Amounts 
provided in this account include funding for the renewal of 
expiring project-based contracts, including Section 8, moderate 
rehabilitation, and single room occupancy (SRO) contracts, 
amendments to Section 8 project-based contracts, and 
administrative costs for performance-based, project-based 
Section 8 contract administrators and costs associated with 
administering moderate rehabilitation and single room occupancy 
contracts.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee provides a total of $6,479,810,000 for the 
annual renewal of project-based contracts, of which not less 
than $238,728,000 but not to exceed $286,230,000 is for the 
costs of contract administrators and $1,960,000 is for the 
Working Capital Fund. This funding level is $503,393,000 above 
the enacted level for fiscal year 2007 and is $666,810,000 
above the budget request. The Committee's recommendation 
includes the use of project-based recaptures for the renewal of 
project-based contracts and amendments as well as for 
performance-based contract administrators in 2008.
    The Committee is deeply concerned about HUD's inability to 
calculate the actual funding needs of this program. Based on 
recent calculations on expiring contracts and the true annual 
voucher cost, the Department has put the Committee in the 
difficult position of correcting an undefined, seemingly 
unlimited shortfall. The Department is either unable or 
unwilling to report its recaptures in this account and seems to 
have lost track of its contracts. As this program is based on 
legal contracts, it seems reasonable that HUD should be able to 
calculate the true need of this program. The Committee 
understands that the Department has engaged a contractor to 
assess the needs of this program and anticipates getting 
accurate information from this report. The Department is 
instructed to provide the results of that report to the 
Committee and to discuss the results within one week of the 
issuance of the report.
    The Committee has funded the contract administrators at the 
highest level possible given the shortfall in the renewals 
account and has given HUD the ability to put additional 
resources into this account as the anticipated report 
identifies recaptures. The Committee recognizes the importance 
of the contract administrators and urges HUD to fully fund 
these administrators through recaptures. The program will not 
be successful without competent administrators, but as HUD was 
unable to identify the true need of either the administrator or 
renewal accounts, the Committee has made the best possible 
decision in light of imperfect information.
    The Committee also looks to the recently-released GAO 
report, ``Project-Based Rental Assistance: HUD Should Update 
Its Policies and Procedures to Keep Pace with the Changing 
Housing Market (GAO-07-290)'' for recommendations to the agency 
on improving this program. The Committee encourages HUD to 
implement the reforms suggested by GAO and looks forward to 
discussing these reforms with the Department when the 
aforementioned report on the needs of the program is released.
    The Department is directed to submit supporting 
documentation accompanying the fiscal year 2009 project-based 
Section 8 budget request. This documentation is to include a 
project-by-project analysis that verifies the funding request 
for renewals and amendments.

                        HOUSING FOR THE ELDERLY

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......................      $734,580,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008......................       575,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       734,580,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...................             - - -
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................      +159,580,000
    The Housing for the Elderly (Section 202) program provides 
eligible private, non-profit organizations with capital grants 
to finance the acquisition, rehabilitation or construction of 
housing intended for low income elderly people. In addition, 
the program provides project-based rental assistance contracts 
(PRAC) to support operational costs for units constructed under 
the program.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $734,580,000 for the Section 202 
program for fiscal year 2008, the same as the level enacted for 
fiscal year 2007 and $159,580,000 above the request for fiscal 
year 2008. The recommendation allocates funding as follows:
          --$603,900,000 for new capital and project rental 
        assistance contracts (PRAC);
          --$44,550,000 for one year renewals of expiring PRAC 
        payments;
          --$59,400,000 for service coordinators and the 
        continuation of congregate services grants;
          --$24,750,000 for grants to convert section 202 
        projects to assisted living facilities; the Committee 
        intends that the Assisted Living Conversion Program 
        funds be made available to cover the cost of conversion 
        of existing affordable housing sites to assisted 
        living, substantial capital repairs and emergency 
        capital repair grants, not just conversions and 
        emergency repairs; and
          --No less than $1,980,000 to be transferred to the 
        Working Capital Fund to support the development of and 
        modifications to information technology systems, which 
        support programs and activities for the elderly.
    The Committee continues language relating to the initial 
contract and renewal terms for assistance provided under this 
heading. Language is also included to allow these funds to be 
used for inspections and analysis of data by HUD's Real Estate 
Assessment Center (REAC).
    The Committee acknowledges that HUD has requested funding 
for a mixed financing demonstration project, combining Section 
202 funding with low income housing tax credit allocations. The 
Committee recognizes that HUD already has the authority to 
award mixed finance projects, therefore the Committee has not 
set aside separate funding for the demonstration. Like HUD, the 
Committee believes that the use of tax credits with Section 202 
will result in a greater number of affordable senior housing 
units built, but that the complexity of mixed financing and 
delays involved have limited its use. The Committee recommends 
that where mixed finance Section 202 projects are awarded, that 
HUD permit the state allocating agency to process the Section 
202 funding, subject to HUD's final approval provided within a 
specified time frame.
    The Committee is concerned that there continue to be delays 
in the distribution of project rental assistance (PRAC 
payments) which provide operational subsidies, affecting the 
financial and physical soundness of the properties. The 
Committee encourages HUD to assess the effectiveness of its 
internal systems and processes for estimating and allocating 
PRAC funds. The Committee directs the Department to submit a 
plan to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by 
March 15, 2008 detailing the status of PRAC funding.
    Given the demographic trends of the nation, and the studies 
recently released by Policy Development and Research, the 
Committee recognizes the immense value of and need for the 
Section 202 program and is disappointed that the Department 
continually proposes cuts to this program. The Congressionally-
mandated Commission on Affordable Housing and Health Facility 
Needs for Seniors in the 21st Century stated in its 2002 final 
report that an additional 730,000 rent-assisted units will be 
needed by 2020 for limited income seniors 65 and older. But the 
Section 202 program is able to fund fewer and fewer units each 
year: 5,500 units in fiscal year 2004; 4,700 units in 2005; and 
4,300 units in 2006. The Department's request expects to 
support the construction of 3,000 new affordable senior units 
across the nation, the lowest amount ever proposed in one year. 
In addition, the Joint Center for Housing found that for every 
unit of affordable housing built for seniors, two are lost 
either by the conversion of affordable housing to market-rate 
housing or by sponsors of Section 202 housing opting out of the 
program when their contracts expire. Finally, for every one 
unit of elderly housing that becomes available, 10 seniors are 
on the waiting list, according to the AARP. The Committee is 
dedicated to the current and future needs of the nation's 
senior citizens. The Department should be, as well.

                 HOUSING FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......................      $236,610,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008......................       125,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       236,610,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...................             - - -
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................      +111,610,000
    The Housing for Persons with Disabilities (Section 811) 
program provides eligible private, non-profit organizations 
with capital grants to finance the acquisition, rehabilitation 
or construction of supportive housing for disabled persons and 
provides project-based rental assistance (PRAC) to support 
operational costs for such units.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $236,610,000 for Section 811 
activities, the same as the fiscal year 2007 enacted level, and 
$111,610,000 above the budget request. In doing so, the 
Committee rejects the proposal to all but eliminate funding for 
the construction of facilities that accommodate low income 
disabled individuals. The Committee finds that, in fact, there 
is universal agreement at all levels of analysis that facility 
construction is needed for this program in fiscal year 2008. 
The recommendation allocates funding as follows:
          --Up to $145,875,000 for capital grants and PRAC;
          --$74,745,000 for renewals or amendments of expiring 
        tenant-based rental assistance;
          --$15,000,000 for PRAC renewals;
          --$990,000 for transfer to the Working Capital Fund 
        for the development and maintenance of information 
        technology systems for programs and activities for 
        housing for persons with disabilities programs; and
          --No funds are provided for ``mainstream'' vouchers 
        in fiscal year 2008.
    The Committee continues language allowing these funds to be 
used for inspections and analysis of data by HUD's REAC program 
office.
    The Committee has included no funding for new 811 tenant-
based assistance. This is based on continuing concerns 
regarding HUD's mismanagement of the mainstream tenant-based 
program. The Committee is concerned that funds that were 
appropriated for this program for fiscal years 2005 and 2006 
were never actually awarded to applicant agencies in response 
to the Notices of Funding Availability. This is also in 
recognition of HUD's failure to issue programmatic guidance to 
ensure that rental assistance is targeted to people with 
disabilities in need of supportive housing. In addition, HUD 
has performed ineffective oversight of local agencies' 
obligation to ensure that rental assistance remains targeted to 
the intended population upon turnover.
    The Committee directs HUD to report to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations by March 1, 2008, the number of 
non-elderly disabled vouchers that are still in circulation and 
are being used by non-elderly disabled individuals.

                           HOUSING COUNSELING
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......................             - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2008......................       $50,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................             - - -
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...................             - - -
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................       -50,000,000
    Section 106 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 
1968 authorized HUD to provide housing counseling services to 
homebuyers, homeowners, low and moderate income renters, and 
the homeless.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee does not recommend the creation of a separate 
account for housing counseling activities, but instead has 
provided $41,580,000 for this activity as a set-aside within 
the HOME Investments Partnership Program account.

                         FLEXIBLE SUBSIDY FUND

                          (TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

    The Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 authorized 
HUD to establish a revolving fund into which rental collections 
in excess of the established basic rents for units in Section 
236 subsidized projects are deposited. Subject to approval in 
appropriations acts, the Secretary is authorized under the 
Housing and Community Development Amendment of 1978 to transfer 
excess rent collections received after 1978 to the Troubled 
Projects Operating Subsidy program, renamed the Flexible 
Subsidy Fund.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends that the account continue to serve 
as a repository of excess rental charges appropriated from the 
Rental Housing Assistance Fund. Although these resources will 
not be used for new reservations, they will continue to offset 
flexible subsidy outlays and other discretionary expenditures 
to support affordable housing projects.
    The Committee's recommendation includes language identical 
to language carried in prior years, to allow surplus funds 
derived from rental collections which were in excess of 
allowable rent levels to be returned to project owners only for 
the purposes of rehabilitating and renovating those properties.

                  MANUFACTURED HOUSING FEES TRUST FUND
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......................       $13,000,000
Offsetting collections................................        13,000,000
Budget request, 2008..................................        16,000,000
Offsetting collections................................        16,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        16,000,000
Offsetting collections................................        16,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...................        +3,000,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................             - - -
    The National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety 
Standards Act of 1974, as amended by the Manufactured Housing 
Improvement Act of 2000, authorized the Secretary to establish 
Federal manufactured home construction and safety standards for 
the construction, design, and performance of manufactured 
homes.
    All manufactured homes are required to meet the Federal 
standards, and fees are charged to producers to cover the costs 
of administering the Act.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends up to $16,000,000 for the 
manufactured housing standards programs to be derived from fees 
collected and deposited in the Manufactured Housing Fees Trust 
Fund established pursuant to the Manufactured Housing 
Improvement Act of 2000. The amount recommended is the same as 
the budget request and $3,000,000 above the fiscal year 2007 
enacted level. Language contained in previous Acts is continued 
to ensure that the net expenditures do not exceed fee 
collections at the end of the fiscal year.
    In addition, the Committee includes language allowing the 
Department to collect fees from program participants for the 
dispute resolution and installation programs. These fees are to 
be deposited into the trust fund and may be used by the 
Department subject to the overall cap placed on the account.

                    OTHER ASSISTED HOUSING PROGRAMS

                       RENTAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......................       $26,136,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008......................        27,600,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        27,600,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...................        +1,464,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................             - - -
    The Rental Housing Assistance account provides amendment 
funding for housing assisted under a variety of HUD housing 
programs.

                               RECISSION
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......................            $- - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2008......................       -27,600,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       -27,600,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...................       -27,600,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................             - - -
                     Federal Housing Administration


               MUTUAL MORTGAGE INSURANCE PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Limitation of        Limitations of       Administrative
                                                       direct loans       guaranteed loans         expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007..................          $50,000,000     $185,000,000,000         $351,450,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................           50,000,000      185,000,000,000          351,450,000
Recommended in the bill..........................           50,000,000      185,000,000,000          351,450,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007..............                - - -                - - -                - - -
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008.............                - - -                - - -                - - -
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Federal Housing Administration's (FHA) mutual mortgage 
insurance program account includes the mutual mortgage 
insurance (MMI) and cooperative management housing insurance 
funds. This program account covers unsubsidized programs, 
primarily the single-family home mortgage program, which is the 
largest of all the FHA programs. The cooperative housing 
insurance program provides mortgages for cooperative housing 
projects of more than five units that are occupied by members 
of a cooperative housing corporation.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends the following limitations on loan 
commitments in the MMI program account: $185,000,000,000 for 
loan guarantees and $50,000,000 for direct loans. The 
recommendation also includes $428,850,000 for administrative 
expenses, of which $347,500,000 is transferred to Salaries and 
Expenses, and $4,000,000 is transferred to the Office of 
Inspector General. In addition, $77,400,000 is provided for 
non-overhead administrative contract expenses, including 
$5,000,000 for consumer education and of which $25,600,000 is 
transferred to the Working Capital Fund for development and 
modifications to information technology systems that serve 
programs or activities under the Office of Housing or the 
Federal Housing Administration. The Committee continues 
language, as requested, appropriating additional administrative 
expenses in certain circumstances.
    The Committee has also lifted the cap on the number of Home 
Equity Conversion Mortgages that the Department may issue until 
September 30, 2008. In addition, the Committee has lifted the 
multifamily loan limit in order to permit more FHA loans to 
occur in fiscal year 2008. However, the Committee has not 
carried several other proposals of the Administration, as the 
Committee on Financial Services is in the process of 
modernizing FHA and is the best arbiter of these complicated 
issues.

                GENERAL AND SPECIAL RISK PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Limitation of      Limitations of     Administrative
                                         direct loans     guaranteed loans       expenses        Program costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.....        $50,000,000    $45,000,000,000       $229,086,000         $8,712,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008....         50,000,000     35,000,000,000        229,086,000          8,600,000
Recommended in the bill.............         50,000,000     45,000,000,000        229,086,000          8,712,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.              - - -              - - -              - - -              - - -
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008              - - -    +10,000,000,000              - - -           +112,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Federal Housing Administration's (FHA) general and 
special risk insurance (GI and SRI) program account includes 17 
different programs administered by FHA. The GI fund includes a 
wide variety of insurance programs for special purpose single 
and multi-family loans, including loans for property 
improvements, manufactured housing, multi-family rental 
housing, condominiums, housing for the elderly, hospitals, 
group practice facilities, and nursing homes. The SRI fund 
includes insurance programs for mortgages in older, declining 
urban areas that would not be otherwise eligible for insurance, 
mortgages with interest reduction payments, mortgages for 
experimental housing, and for high-risk mortgagors who would 
not normally be eligible for mortgage insurance without housing 
counseling.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends the following limitations on loan 
commitments for the general and special risk insurance program 
account as requested: $45,000,000,000 for loan guarantees and 
$50,000,000 for direct loans.
    As requested, the recommendation includes $8,712,000 in 
direct appropriations for credit subsidy. The recommendation 
also includes $229,086,000 for administrative expenses, of 
which $209,286,000 is transferred to Salaries and Expenses and 
$19,800,000 is transferred to the Office of Inspector General. 
An additional $78,111,000 is provided for non-overhead 
administrative expenses, of which no less than $10,692,000 is 
transferred to the Working Capital Fund for development and 
modifications to information technology systems that serve 
activities under the Office of Housing or the Federal Housing 
Administration.
    The Committee recognizes the importance of below market 
sales of HUD multi-family properties and loans in foreclosure 
through first refusal and negotiated purchase rights. The 
Committee believes that the ability of local governments to 
exercise their statutory right of first refusal is an essential 
tool to preserving affordability and improving the condition of 
properties that have often fallen into disrepair. When valuing 
properties or loans for a noncompetitive sale to States or 
units of local governments, the Committee directs the 
Department to consider, but not be limited to, industry 
standard appraisal practices. The Department must take into 
consideration affordability restrictions and the cost of 
repairs needed to bring the property to at least minimum State 
and local code standards. Further, the Committee directs the 
Department to conduct a study on the impact that these sales 
have on the FHA fund by March 14, 2008.

                Government National Mortgage Association


GUARANTEES OF MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
 Limitation of guaranteed loans:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...................      $200,000,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................       100,000,000,000
Recommended in the bill...........................       200,000,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...............                 - - -
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..............      +100,000,000,000
Administrative expenses:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...................           $10,700,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................            11,000,000
Recommended in the bill...........................            10,700,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...............                 - - -
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..............              -300,000
    The guarantee of mortgage-backed securities program 
facilitates the financing of residential mortgage loans insured 
or guaranteed by the Federal Housing Administration, the 
Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Rural Housing Services 
program. The Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA) 
guarantees the timely payment of principal and interest on 
securities issued by private service institutions such as 
mortgage companies, commercial banks, savings banks, and 
savings and loan associations that assemble pools of mortgages, 
and issues securities backed by the pools. In turn, investment 
proceeds are used to finance additional mortgage loans. 
Investors include non-traditional sources of credit in the 
housing market such as pension and retirement funds, life 
insurance companies, and individuals.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The recommendation includes a $200,000,000,000 limitation 
on loan commitments for mortgage-backed securities as 
requested, the same as the level provided in fiscal year 2007. 
The Committee also recommends $10,700,000 for administrative 
expenses to be transferred to Salaries and Expenses.
    The Committee once again rejects the budget proposal to 
charge issuers an upfront fee to offset the administrative 
expenses of the program. No detailed explanation has been 
provided to justify this change from prior years or its likely 
adverse effect on volume and affordable rental housing 
production. Raising program costs can only diminish the 
contribution of GNMA in expanding lower cost housing 
opportunities. In the face of the growing nationwide shortage 
of affordable housing, and the goal of increased homeownership, 
imposing this change to the way GNMA conducts business makes 
little sense.

                    Policy Development and Research


                        RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......................       $50,087,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008......................        65,040,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        58,087,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...................        +8,000,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2007..................        -6,953,000
    The Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970 directs the 
Secretary to undertake programs of research, studies, testing, 
and demonstrations related to the HUD mission. These functions 
are carried out internally through contracts with industry, 
non-profit research organizations, and educational institutions 
and through agreements with State and local governments and 
other Federal agencies.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $58,087,000 for the Office of 
Policy Development and Research. This is $8,000,000 above the 
level of funding as enacted for fiscal year 2007 and $6,953,000 
below the budget request. Of the amounts made available, 
language is included to designate:
          --$29,693,000 for basic research;
          --$22,394,000 for grants to institutions of higher 
        education funded under Section 107 including Alaska 
        Native Serving Institutions, Native Hawaiian Serving 
        Institutions, tribal colleges and universities, 
        Historically Black Colleges and Universities and 
        Hispanic Serving Institutions. In addition, the 
        Committee is concerned that the Asian American and 
        Pacific Islander (AAPI) community has significantly 
        higher rates of poverty and rent burden than national 
        average. The Committee encourages HUD to investigate 
        ways to serve this community through the grants awarded 
        under Section 107 or the University Partnership Program 
        and to report to the House and Senate Committees on 
        Appropriations regarding the Department's plans to do 
        so; and
          --$5,000,000 for the PATH program. The Committee does 
        not continue language that exempts 50 percent of the 
        funds provided from competition. All funds are to be 
        competitively awarded, and the Committee instructs that 
        the PATH funds will be directed toward energy 
        efficiency in low-income housing. It is appropriate 
        that all research initiatives focus on low-and 
        moderate-income populations, not the general population 
        or the market to which most housing development is 
        geared. The Committee agrees with the proposal to 
        administer this program within Policy Development and 
        Research.
    The Committee believes that the preservation of affordable 
housing should become an integral part of transit oriented 
development policies. The Committee commends both the Federal 
Transit Administration and Department of Housing and Urban 
Development (HUD) for jointly sponsoring the recently published 
study ``Realizing the Potential: Expanding Housing 
Opportunities Near Transit.'' The Committee believes the study 
provides a number of valuable recommendations for federal, 
state, and local policy makers to promote affordable housing 
near transit. On the federal level, the Committee hopes that 
the cooperation between FTA and HUD on the study will be the 
beginning of a new partnership on transit oriented development. 
Accordingly, the Committee includes $1,000,000 within the funds 
provided for the FTA and HUD to establish a new interagency 
working group on transit oriented development and affordable 
housing. The new working group should follow up on 
recommendations made in the jointly sponsored HUD and FTA study 
mentioned above. The working group should also create an action 
plan with specific recommendations on how HUD and the FTA can 
improve policy coordination and provide incentives through 
existing programs to further promote affordable housing near 
transit corridors. The HUD and FTA action plan for mixed income 
affordable housing near transit should be submitted to the 
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within six months 
of enactment.
    Additionally, the Committee requires the Office of Policy 
Development and Research, via research and the PATH program, to 
investigate ways to incorporate green, sustainable housing 
construction and rehabilitation practices in HUD's programs. 
Much like PATH has encouraged the Department to incorporate 
steel into its construction programs, the Committee encourages 
the Office of Policy Development and Research to investigate 
green building and report on how new, sustainable technologies 
can be incorporated into each of HUD's programs.
    The Committee is disappointed that HUD has refused to share 
information about the Moving to Opportunity program with 
scholars and researchers and instructs HUD to make this 
information available while protecting confidentiality. The 
results of this demonstration are critical to future policy 
decisions in the Housing Choice Voucher program, and should be 
scrutinized by a variety of academic researchers.

                   Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity


                        FAIR HOUSING ACTIVITIES
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......................       $45,540,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008......................        45,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        45,540,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...................             - - -
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................          +540,000
    The Fair Housing Act, title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 
1968, as amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, 
prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental and financing of 
housing and authorizes assistance to State and local agencies 
in administering the provision of fair housing statutes. The 
Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) assists State and local 
fair housing enforcement agencies that are certified by HUD as 
``substantially equivalent'' to HUD with respect to enforcement 
policies and procedures. FHAP assures prompt and effective 
processing of complaints filed under title VIII that are within 
the jurisdiction of State and local fair housing agencies. The 
Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP) alleviates housing 
discrimination by providing support to private nonprofit 
organizations, State and local government agencies and other 
nonfederal entities for the purpose of eliminating or 
preventing discrimination in housing, and to enhance fair 
housing opportunities.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a total of $45,540,000 for this 
account, the same as the fiscal year 2007 enacted level and 
$540,000 above the Administration's budget request. Of this 
amount, $24,820,000 is for FHAP and $20,180,000 is for FHIP.
    The Committee expects HUD to continue to provide quarterly 
reports on obligation and expenditure of these funds, 
delineated by each program and activity.

                     Office of Lead Hazard Control


                         LEAD HAZARD REDUCTION
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......................      $150,480,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008......................       116,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       130,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...................       -20,480,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................       +14,000,000
    The Lead Hazard Reduction Program, authorized under the 
Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, provides grants 
to State and local governments to perform lead hazard reduction 
activities in housing occupied by low income families. The 
program also provides technical assistance, undertakes research 
and evaluations of testing and cleanup methodologies, and 
develops technical guidance and regulations in cooperation with 
the Environmental Protection Agency.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $130,000,000 for this account, 
$14,000,000 above the budget request. Amounts provided are to 
be allocated as follows:
          --$92,600,000 for the lead-based paint hazard control 
        grant program to provide assistance to State and local 
        governments and Native American tribes for lead-based 
        paint abatement in private low income housing;
          --$8,712,000 for Operation LEAP (Lead Elimination 
        Action Program), which provides competitive grants to 
        non-profit organizations and the private sector for 
        activities, which leverage funds for local lead hazard 
        control programs;
          --$5,742,000 for technical assistance and support to 
        State and local agencies and private property owners; 
        and
          --$8,712,000 for the Healthy Homes Initiative for 
        competitive grants for research, standards development, 
        and education and outreach activities to address lead-
        based paint poisoning and other housing-related 
        diseases and hazards.
          --$14,234,000 for the Lead Hazard Demonstration 
        Project. While the Committee recognizes the value of 
        this demonstration project, budgetary constraints limit 
        the amount of funding the Committee can dedicate to 
        this project.
    The Committee continues language delegating the authority 
and responsibility for performing environmental review for the 
Healthy Homes Initiative, LEAP, and Lead Technical Studies 
projects and programs to governmental entities that are 
familiar with local environmental conditions, trends and 
priorities.
    The Committee reminds the Department that all funding 
provided under this heading is to be competitively awarded as 
required under the HUD Reform Act of 1989 and Section 305 of 
the Administrative Provisions under this title.

                     Management and Administration


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......................      $581,108,000
Transfers FHA/GNMA....................................       574,285,000
  Total...............................................     1,155,393,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008......................       654,092,000
Transfers.............................................       563,908,000
  Total...............................................     1,218,000,000
Recommended in this bill..............................       642,730,000
Transfers.............................................       568,649,650
  Total...............................................     1,211,379,650
Bill compared with:
  Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.....................       +55,986,650
  Budget request, fiscal year 2008....................        -6,620,350
    This account finances all salaries and related costs 
associated with administering the programs of the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development, except for the Office of 
Inspector General and the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise 
Oversight. These activities include housing, mortgage credit 
and secondary market programs, community planning and 
development programs, departmental management, legal services, 
field direction and administration.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends total funding of $1,211,379,650 
for the salaries and expenses of the Department. This is 
$55,986,650 above the fiscal year 2007 enacted amount and 
$6,620,350 below the budget request.
    The Department is limited to the object class levels that 
are described in the fiscal year 2008 Congressional Budget 
Submission. This is the distribution that HUD must use unless 
changes are granted as part of the Department's Operating Plan.
    Language is included to allow the Department to transfer up 
to $15,000,000 from Salaries and Expenses to the Working 
Capital Fund after receipt and approval of an Operating Plan 
change detailing the uses of the transfers and the object 
classes being reduced in this account.
    Funding for indemnities is at the budget request level but 
is further limited to non-programmatic litigation and is 
restricted to the payment of attorney fees only. Program-
related litigation must be paid from the individual program 
office Salaries and Expenses allocation. The budget submission 
must include program-related litigation costs as a separate 
line item request.
    Operating Plans/Reprogramming Requirements.--All 
Departments within the Subcommittee's jurisdiction are required 
to submit operating plans and reprogramming letters and 
reorganization proposals for Committee approval. HUD is 
reminded that operating plans or reprogramming requirements 
apply to any reallocation of resources totaling more than 
$500,000 among any program, project or activity as well as to 
any significant reorganization within offices or the proposed 
creation or elimination of any program or office, regardless of 
the dollar amount involved and any reorganization, regardless 
of the dollar amount involved. Object class changes above 
$500,000 also are subject to operating plan or reprogramming 
requirements. Unless otherwise specified in this Act or the 
accompanying report, the approved level for any program, 
project, or activity is that amount detailed for that program, 
project, or activity in the Department's annual detailed 
Congressional submission. These requirements apply to all funds 
provided to the Department. The Department is expected to make 
any necessary changes during fiscal year 2008 to its current 
procedures and systems to ensure that it is able to meet the 
necessary operating plan and reprogramming requirements applied 
to other agencies funded in the bill.
    Budget Submission.--The Committee expects the Department's 
fiscal year 2009 submission to be submitted in the identical 
format and continues its direction that strategic planning 
documents, formats or materials are not to be incorporated into 
the submission. The Committee continues language under General 
Provisions setting forth such requirements.
    Language is included in the bill, similar to language 
carried in prior Acts, which designates amounts provided from 
various accounts for Salaries and Expenses and which requires 
the Department to implement appropriate funds control and 
financial management procedures.

                          Working Capital Fund


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......................      $195,356,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008......................       220,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       125,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...................       -70,356,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................       -95,000,000
    The Working Capital Fund was established pursuant to 42 
U.S.C. 3535 to provide necessary capital for the development 
of, modifications to, and infrastructure for Department-wide 
information technology systems, and for the continuing 
operation of both Department-wide and program-specific 
information technology systems.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee remains concerned about HUD's information 
technology capacity. To a large extent, both HUD's and 
Congress' ability to oversee the effectiveness of HUD's 
programs is undermined due to the failure of HUD's information 
systems to provide the information necessary to assess program 
performance and ensure effective resource management. The 
Committee recommends $125,000,000 in direct appropriation for 
the Working Capital Fund to support Department-wide information 
technology system activities, $70,356,000 below the fiscal year 
2007 level and $95,000,000 below the budget request. In 
addition to the direct appropriation for Department-wide 
systems, funds are transferred from various accounts to be used 
exclusively for program-specific information technology 
requirements.
    The Committee has included language that precludes the use 
of these or any other funds appropriated previously to the 
Working Capital Fund or program offices for transfer to the 
Working Capital Fund that would be used or transferred to any 
other entity in HUD or elsewhere for the purposes of 
implementing the Administration's ``e-Gov'' initiative without 
the Committee's approval in HUD's operating plan. The Committee 
directs that funds appropriated for specific projects and 
activities should not be reduced or eliminated in order to fund 
other activities inside and outside of HUD without the 
expressed approval of the Committee. HUD is not to contribute 
or participate in activities that are specifically precluded in 
legislation, unless the Committee agrees to a change.
    The Department is advised that the Committee is concerned 
about HUD's insufficient and ineffective information systems, 
but the Committee is not assured by the budget submission that 
additional appropriations will improve the situation. Until a 
thorough analysis is done of the current systems and the true 
needs of the Department are assessed, the Committee will not 
appropriate funds for yet more inefficient information systems. 
The Inspector General is instructed to report to the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations as to the status of current 
information systems and future needs by June 1, 2008.

                      Office of Inspector General


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
                                                                   Appropriation     FHA funds         TotalAppropriation, fiscal year 2007.................................     $88,853,000     $23,760,000    $112,613,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008................................      88,240,000      23,760,000     112,000,000
Recommended in the bill.........................................      90,000,000      23,760,000     113,760,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.............................      +1,147,000           - - -      +1,147,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008............................           - - -           - - -      +1,760,000
    The Office of Inspector General (IG) provides agency-wide 
audit and investigative functions to identify and correct 
management and administrative deficiencies that create 
conditions for existing or potential instances of waste, fraud, 
and mismanagement. The audit function provides internal audit, 
contract audit, and inspection services. Contract audits 
provide professional advice to agency contracting officials on 
accounting and financial matters relative to negotiation, 
award, administration, re-pricing, and settlement of contracts. 
Internal audits evaluate all facets of agency operations. 
Inspection services provide detailed technical evaluations of 
agency operations. The investigative function provides for the 
detection and investigation of improper and illegal activities 
involving programs, personnel, and operations.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $113,760,000 for the Office of 
Inspector General, an increase of $1,147,000 above the amount 
provided in fiscal year 2007 and $1,760,000 above the budget 
request. Of this amount, $23,760,000 is derived from transfers 
from Federal Housing Administration funds.
    Language is included in the bill which: (1) designates 
amounts available to the Inspector General from other accounts; 
and (2) clarifies the authority of the Inspector General with 
respect to certain personnel issues.
    In the fiscal year 2008 appropriations bill, the Committee 
has made significant and necessary funding allocations to the 
Section 8 and Public Housing programs. In order to ensure that 
these increased allocations are spent efficiently and 
effectively, the Committee has also provided additional funds 
for the Office of the Inspector General. The Committee is 
confident that the Inspector General can provide the oversight 
necessary to ensure that this funding is properly utilized.
    The Committee directs the IG to report on its audits and 
investigative efforts either in place or currently planned, 
related to the use of Departmental funds in the rebuilding 
efforts in the Gulf Coast in the aftermath of the 2005 
hurricanes. The Committee notes that the Community Development 
Block Grant funds that were provided to the Gulf States have 
been spent at a slow rate. The Committee requests that the IG 
provide an update on their oversight on the allocation and 
distribution of these funds no later than January 1, 2008.

  Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight Salaries and Expenses


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......................       $66,150,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008......................        66,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        66,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...................          -150,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................          -150,000
    The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) 
was established in 1992 to regulate the financial safety and 
soundness of the two housing government-sponsored enterprises 
(GSEs)--the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) 
and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac). 
The office was authorized in the Federal Housing Enterprises 
Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, which also provided 
enhanced authority to enforce these standards. In addition to 
financial regulation, the OFHEO monitors the GSEs compliance 
with affordable housing goals that were contained in the Act.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $66,000,000 for OFHEO, $150,000 
below fiscal year 2007 and the budget request, to be derived 
from fees assessed to the GSEs and deposited into the Federal 
Housing Enterprises Oversight Fund.

    General Provisions--Department of Housing and Urban Development

    Section 201 relates to the division of financing adjustment 
factors.
    Section 202 prohibits available funds from being used to 
investigate or prosecute lawful activities under the Fair 
Housing Act.
    Section 203 continues language to correct an anomaly in the 
HOPWA formula that results in the loss of funds for certain 
States.
    Section 204 continues language requiring funds appropriated 
to be distributed on a competitive basis in accordance with the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989.
    Section 205 continues language, carried in previous years, 
regarding the availability of funds subject to the Government 
Corporation Control Act and the Housing Act of 1950.
    Section 206 continues language, carried in previous years, 
regarding allocation of funds in excess of the budget 
estimates.
    Section 207 continues language, carried in previous years, 
regarding the expenditure of funds for corporations and 
agencies subject to the Government Corporation Control Act.
    Section 208 continues language, carried in previous years, 
requiring submission of a spending plan for technical 
assistance, training and management improvement activities 
prior to the expenditure of funds.
    Section 209 continues language requiring the Secretary to 
provide quarterly reports on uncommitted, unobligated and 
excess funds in each departmental program and activity.
    Section 210 extends a technical amendment included in the 
fiscal year 2000 appropriations Act relating to the allocation 
of HOPWA funds in the Philadelphia and Raleigh-Cary 
metropolitan areas. A proviso is added to allow a state to 
administer the HOPWA program in the event that a local 
government is unable to undertake the HOPWA grants management 
functions.
    Section 211 continues language requiring HUD to submit an 
annual report to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations on the number of Federally assisted units under 
lease and the per unit cost of these units.
    Section 212 continues language setting certain requirements 
for the Department's annual congressional justification of 
appropriations.
    Section 213 continues language carried in previous years 
elsewhere in this title requiring public housing authorities to 
continue to reserve incremental vouchers funded in previous 
years for persons with disabilities upon turnover.
    Section 214 relates to state authority regarding 
participation on housing boards.
    Section 215 authorizes the transfer of project-based 
assistance in specific circumstances.
    Section 216 continues language in previous acts specifying 
the allocation of Indian Block grants to Native Alaskan 
recipients.
    Section 217 continues language carried in previous years 
elsewhere in this title requiring public housing authorities to 
continue to reserve incremental vouchers funded in previous 
years for family unification upon turnover.
    Section 218 prohibits the IG from changing the basis on 
which the audit of GNMA is conducted.
    Section 219 clarifies eligibility for students in the 
Section 8 program.
    Section 220 lifts the cap on Home Equity Conversion 
Mortgages until September 30, 2008.
    Section 221 increases the FHA multifamily loan limit. The 
Committee does not recommend several new administrative 
provisions proposed in the budget to amend various housing 
authorization statutes.
    Section 222 continues language authorizing the Secretary to 
waive certain requirements related to an assisted living pilot 
project.
    Section 223 continues language clarifying that the projects 
selected by HUD for Section 202b assistance prior to December 
1, 2003 are aslo eligible to use the limited partnership 
ownership structure. No more than three commercial properties 
are authorized to receive grants under section 202b of the 
Housing Act of 1959.
    Section 224 continues language requiring priority 
consideration for Moving to Work Demonstration applications 
from Santa Clara, San Jose and San Bernardino.

                      TITLE III--RELATED AGENCIES


       Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......................        $5,914,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008......................         6,150,000
Recommended in the bill...............................         6,150,000
Bill compared with:...................................
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...................          +236,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................             - - -
    The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance 
Board (Access Board) was established by section 502 of the 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The Access Board is responsible for 
developing guidelines under the Americans with Disabilities 
Act, the Architectural Barriers Act, and the Telecommunications 
Act. These guidelines ensure that buildings and facilities, 
transportation vehicles, and telecommunications equipment 
covered by these laws are readily accessible to and usable by 
people with disabilities. The Access Board is also responsible 
for developing standards under section 508 of the 
Rehabilitation Act for accessible electronic and information 
technology used by Federal agencies. In addition, the Access 
Board enforces the Architectural Barriers Act, and provides 
training and technical assistance on the guidelines and 
standards it develops.
    The Access Board also has additional responsibilities under 
the Help America Vote Act. The Access Board serves on the Board 
of Advisors and the Technical Guidelines Development Committee, 
which helps the Election Assistance Commission develop 
voluntary guidelines and guidance for voting systems, including 
accessibility for people with disabilities.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $6,150,000 for the operations of 
the Access Board, an increase of $236,000 over fiscal year 2007 
and the same as the budget request.

                      Federal Maritime Commission


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......................        20,428,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008......................        22,322,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        22,072,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...................        +1,894,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................          -250,000
    The Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) was established in 
1961 as an independent government agency, responsible for the 
regulation of international waterborne commerce of the United 
States. In addition, FMC has responsibility for licensing and 
bonding ocean transportation intermediaries and assuring that 
vessel owners or operators establish financial responsibility 
to pay judgment for death or injury to passengers, or 
nonperformance of a cruise, on voyages from U.S. ports. It 
monitors the activities of ocean common carriers, who operate 
in the U.S./foreign commerce to ensure just and reasonable 
practices, maintains a trade monitoring and enforcement 
program, monitors the laws and practices of foreign governments 
which could have a discriminatory or other impacts on shipping 
conditions in the U.S., among other activities. The principal 
shipping statutes administered by the FMC are the Shipping Act 
of 1984 (46 U.S.C. app. 1710 et seq.), the Foreign Shipping 
Practices Act of 1988 (46 U.S.C. app. 1701 et seq.), and 
section 19 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 U.S.C. app. 
876).

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $22,072,000 for the Federal 
Maritime Commission, which is $1,644,000 above the amount 
provided in fiscal year 2007 and $250,000 below the budget 
request. The reduction below the budget request is due to 
overall budget constraints and is implemented without 
prejudice.

                  National Transportation Safety Board


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......................       $79,338,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008......................        83,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        85,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...................        +5,662,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................        +2,000,000
    Initially established along with the Department of 
Transportation (DOT), the National Transportation Safety Board 
(NTSB) commenced operations on April 1, 1967, as an independent 
federal agency charged by Congress with investigating every 
civil aviation accident in the United States as well as 
significant accidents in the other modes of transportation--
railroad, highway, marine and pipeline--and issuing safety 
recommendations aimed at preventing future accidents. Although 
it has always operated independently, NTSB relied on DOT for 
funding and administrative support until the Independent Safety 
Board Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-633) severed all ties between 
the two organizations effective April of 1975.
    In addition to its investigatory duties, NTSB is 
responsible for maintaining the government's database of civil 
aviation accidents and also conducts special studies of 
transportation safety issues of national significance. 
Furthermore, in accordance with the provisions of international 
treaties, NTSB supplies investigators to serve as U.S. 
Accredited Representatives for aviation accidents overseas 
involving U.S.-registered aircraft, or involving aircraft or 
major components of U.S. manufacture. NTSB also serves as the 
``court of appeals'' for any airman, mechanic or mariner 
whenever certificate action is taken by the Administrator of 
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) or the U.S. Coast 
Guard Commandant, or when civil penalties are assessed by FAA. 
In addition, the NTSB operates the NTSB Academy in Ashburn, 
Virginia.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $85,000,000 for salaries and 
expenses, an increase of $5,662,000 above fiscal year 2007 and 
$2,000,000 above the budget request. The NTSB had 424 employees 
in fiscal year 2005 and has received funding to maintain a 
staff level of 396 since fiscal year 2006. The additional 
amount funds eleven safety critical staff, to result in a total 
staffing level of 407. Furthermore, the Committee directs that 
none of these additional funds shall be used for the Academy.
    The Committee notes that NTSB violated and continues to be 
in violation of the Antideficiency Act because it did not 
obtain or have budget authority to cover the net present value 
of the entire 20-year training center lease obligation at the 
time the capital lease agreement was signed in 2001. To ensure 
the NTSB can satisfy it contractual obligations, the Committee 
includes language allowing the NTSB to use its fiscal year 2008 
appropriation on the lease payments due in fiscal year 2008.

                 Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation


          PAYMENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT CORPORATION
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......................      $116,820,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008......................       119,800,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       119,800,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...................        +2,980,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................             - - -
    The Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation was created by 
the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation Act (title VI of the 
Housing and Community Development Amendments of 1978, Public 
Law 95-557, October 31, 1978). Neighborhood Reinvestment 
Corporation now operates under the trade name ``NeighborWorks 
America.'' NeighborWorks America helps local communities 
establish working efficient and effective partnerships between 
residents and representatives of the public and private 
sectors. These partnership-based organizations are independent, 
tax-exempt, community-based nonprofit entities, often referred 
to as NeighborWorks organizations.
    Neighborhood Reinvestment also provides grants to 
Neighborhood Housing Services of America (NHSA), the 
NeighborWorks network's national secondary market. The mission 
of NHSA is to utilize private sector support to replenish local 
NeighborWorks organizations' revolving loan funds. These loans 
are used to back securities that are placed with private sector 
social investors.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a funding level of $119,800,000 
for fiscal year 2008, the same amount as the budget request and 
an increase of $2,980,000 when compared to the fiscal year 2007 
appropriation. The Committee commends the Neighborhood 
Reinvestment Corporation for its commitment to building green, 
sustainable affordable housing and encourages the Corporation 
to continue its technical assistance and grant activities in a 
way that promotes more sustainable building practices in the 
field of affordable housing.

           United States Interagency Council on Homelessness


                           OPERATING EXPENSES
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......................        $1,788,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008......................         2,320,000
Recommended in the bill...............................         2,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...................          +212,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................          -320,000
    The Committee recommends $2,000,000 for operating expenses 
of the Interagency Council on Homelessness, $212,000 above the 
enacted amount for fiscal year 2007 and $320,000 below the 
requested amount. The continued lack of cooperation between the 
Council and the Department of Housing and Urban Development 
remains a concern for the Committee. In addition, the failure 
of the Administration to put forth a comprehensive funding plan 
for the elimination of chronic homelessness which includes 
other mainstream programs in multiple Departments indicates 
that the Council is not being successful in developing a 
government-wide response to this national problem. Therefore, 
the Council is instructed to work closely with the Departments 
that administer homeless assistance programs to develop 
comprehensive policies that make more efficient use of Federal 
dollars. While the Committee commends the Council for its role 
in encouraging local jurisdictions to develop 10-year plans to 
end homelessness, there must be a recognition that better 
Federal coordination and collaboration will lead to more 
effective strategies at the local level. As much, if not more, 
time and energy must be spent to pull together Federal 
resources in a complementary manner than extensive travel to 
reach more and more small jurisdictions. Local jurisdictions 
will benefit more from greater Federal coordination than from 
plans that rely on poorly integrated sources of revenue at the 
Federal and state levels. The Council must present to the House 
and Senate Appropriations Committees no later than March 15, 
2008 a comprehensive funding strategy that demonstrates that 
the President's initiative to end chronic homelessness will 
achieve its result within the 10-year timeframe originally 
stated.

                 TITLE IV--GENERAL PROVISIONS, THIS ACT


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

    Section 401. The Committee continues the provision 
requiring pay raises to be funded within appropriated levels in 
this Act or previous appropriations Acts.
    Section 402. The Committee continues the provision 
prohibiting pay and other expenses for non-Federal parties in 
regulatory or adjudicatory proceedings funded in this Act.
    Section 403. The Committee continues the provision 
prohibiting obligations beyond the current fiscal year and 
prohibits transfers of funds unless expressly so provided 
herein.
    Section 404. The Committee continues the provision limiting 
consulting service expenditures of public record in procurement 
contracts.
    Section 405. The Committee continues the provision 
specifying reprogramming procedures by subjecting the 
establishment of new offices and reorganizations to the 
reprogramming process.
    Section 406. The Committee continues the provision 
providing that fifty percent of unobligated balances may remain 
available for certain purposes.
    Section 407. The Committee continues the provision 
requiring agencies and departments funded herein to report on 
sole source contracts.
    Section 408. The Committee continues a provision 
prohibiting Federal training not directly related to the 
performance of official duties.

              HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORT REQUIREMENTS

    The following items are included in accordance with various 
requirements of the Rules of the House of Representatives:

                        Constitutional Authority

    Clause 3(d)(1) of the rule XXIII of the Rules of the House 
of Representatives states:

          Each report of a committee on a bill or joint 
        resolution of a public character, shall include a 
        statement citing the specific powers granted to the 
        Congress in the Constitution to enact the law proposed 
        by the bill or joint resolution.

    The Committee on Appropriations bases its authority to 
report this legislation from clause 7 of section 9 of Article I 
of the Constitution of the United States of America which 
states:

          No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in 
        consequence of Appropriations made by law * * *

    Appropriations contained in this Act are made pursuant to 
this specific power granted by the Constitution.

         Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following is a statement of 
general performance goals and objectives for which this measure 
authorizes funding:
    The Committee on Appropriations considers program 
performance, including a program's success in developing and 
attaining outcome-related goals and objectives, in developing 
funding recommendations.

                  Appropriations Not Authorized by Law

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following table lists the 
appropriations in the accompanying bill that are not authorized 
by law:

                                             [Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Appropriations in
               Program                   Last year of      Authorization       last year of    Amount of program
                                        authorization          level          authorization       or new fees
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Title I--Department of
     Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration:
    Operations......................               2007          8,064,000          8,374,217          8,176,606
    Facilities and Equipment........               2007          3,110,000          2,516,520          2,515,000
    Research, Engineering and                      2007            356,261            130,234            140,000
     Development....................
    Grants-in-Aid for Airports......               2007          3,700,000          3,514,500          3,514,500
Federal Railroad Administration:
    Safety and Operations...........               1998                 --                 --            148,472
    Railroad Research and                          1998             20,758                 --             33,250
     Development....................
    Grants to the National Passenger               2002            955,000            826,476          1,350,000
     Railroad Corp..................
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
 Safety Administration:
    Administrative Expenses.........                n/a                n/a                n/a             18,130
Research and Innovative Technology
 Administration:
    Research and Development........                n/a                n/a                n/a             12,000
Surface Transportation Board........               1998             12,000             13,850             26,495
    Title II--Department of Housing
     and Urban Development
Rental Assistance:
    Section 8 Contract Renewals and                1994          8,446,173          5,458,106          6,386,810
     Administrative Expenses........
    Section 441 Contracts...........               1994            109,410            150,000             54,100
    Section 8 Preservation,                        1994            759,259            541,000                 --
     Protection, and Family
     Unification....................
    Contract Administrators.........                 --                 --                 --            145,728
    Public Housing Capital Fund.....               2003          3,000,000          2,712,255          2,438,964
    Public Housing Operating Fund...               2003          2,900,000          3,576,600          4,200,000
Native American Housing Block
 Grants:
    Native American Housing Block                  2007             * SSAN            621,720            626,965
     Grants.........................
    Federal Guarantees..............               2007             * SSAN              1,980              1,044
Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund..               2007             * SSAN              6,000              7,450
Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant.               2005                 --          8,928,000              8,727
Native Hawaiian Housing Loan                       2005                 --            992,000              1,010
 Guarantee Fund.....................
Housing Opportunities for Persons                  1994            156,300            156,000            300,100
 with Aids..........................
Rural Housing and Economics                          --                 --                 --             16,830
 Development........................
Community Development Fund:
    Community Development Block                    1994          4,168,000          4,380,000          3,951,900
     Grant..........................
    Economic Development Initiatives                 --                 --                 --            160,000
    Neighborhood Initiatives........                 --                 --                 --             20,000
HOME Program:
    HOME Investment Partnership.....               1994          2,173,612          1,275,000          1,757,250
    Downpayment Assistance                         2007            200,000             24,750                 --
     Initiative.....................
HOPE VI.............................               2007              SSAN*             99,000            100,000
Brownfields Redevelopment...........                 --                 --                 --              9,900
Self Help and Assisted Homeownership
 Opportunity:
    Capacity Building...............               1994             25,000             20,000             31,000
    Housing Assistance Council......                 --                 --                 --                 --
    Self-Help Homeownership                        2000                 --             20,000             27,710
     Opportunity Program............
    National Housing Development                     --                 --                 --                 --
     Corporation....................
    Homeless Assistance Grants......               1994            465,774            599,000          1,560,990
    Housing for the Elderly.........               2003                 --            783,286            734,580
    Housing for Persons with                       2003                 --            250,515            236,610
     Disabilities...................
FHA General and Special Risk Program
 Account:
    Limitation on Guaranteed Loans..               1995                 --       (20,885,072)       (45,000,000)
    Limitation on Direct Loans......               1995                 --          (220,000)       (50,000,000)
    Credit Subsidy..................               1995                 --            188,395              8,600
    Administrative Expenses.........               1995                 --            197,470            229,086
GNMA Mortgage Backed Securities Loan
 Guarantee Program Account:
    Limitation on Guaranteed Loans..               1996      (110,000,000)      (110,000,000)      (200,000,000)
    Administrative Expenses.........               1996                 --              9,101             11,000
    Policy Development and Research.               1994             36,470             35,000             58,087
    Fair Housing Activities, Fair                  1994             26,000             20,481             45,540
     Housing Program................
    Lead Hazards Reduction Program..               1994            276,000            185,000            130,000
    Salaries and Expenses...........               1994          1,029,496            916,963          1,160,638
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*SSAN: Such sums as necessary.

                           Transfer of Funds

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following statement is submitted 
describing the transfers of funds provided in the accompanying 
bill.

            Appropriation Transfers Recommended in the Bill


              Under Title I--Department of Transportation


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Account from which
Account to which the transfer is    the transfer is         Amount
              made                       made
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Secretary.........  Office of the       SSAN* Subject to
                                   Secretary.          certain
                                                       conditions
OST: Minority Business Outreach.  OST:Salaries and    Unexpended funds
                                   Expenses.
Essential Air Service Program...  Payments to Air     SSAN*
                                   Carriers.
FMCSA: Motor Carrier Safety       FHWA: Federal-aid   To be determined
 Grants.                           highways.
FAA: Operations.................  FAA: Operations...  2% of Certain
                                                       Funds Subject to
                                                       conditions
FTA: any new account............  FTA: any old        Available funding
                                   account.
FTA: Administrative Expenses....  FTA:                SSDAN* Subject to
                                   Administrative      Congressional
                                   Expenses.           Approval
Operations and Training.........  Maritime            $3,526,000**
                                   Guaranteed Loan
                                   (Title XI)
                                   Program Account.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* SSAN--Such Sums as Necessary.
** Up to this amount is available to be transferred.

      Under Title II--Department of Housing and Urban Development


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Account from which the transfer
     Account to which the transfer is made                    is made                          Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Working Captial Fund...........................  Tenant-Based Rental Assistance...                    $6,494,000
Working Capital Fund...........................  Project-Based Rental Assistance..                     1,960,000
Working Capital Fund...........................  Public Housing Capital Fund......                  * 10,000,000
Working Capital Fund...........................  Community Development Fund.......                    $1,584,000
Working Capital Fund...........................  Home Investment Partnerships                            990,000
                                                  Program.
Working Capital Fund...........................  Homeless Assistance Grants.......                     2,475,000
Working Capital Fund...........................  Housing for the Elderly..........                     1,980,000
Working Capital Fund...........................  Housing for Persons with                                990,000
                                                  Disabilities.
Working Capital Fund...........................  FHA: Mutual Mortgage Insurance                       25,550,000
                                                  Program Account.
Working Capital Fund...........................  FHA: General and Special Risk                        15,692,000
                                                  Program Account.
Working Capital Fund...........................  Salaries and Expenses............                  * 15,000,000
Working Capital Fund...........................  Housing Opportunities of People                       1,485,000
                                                  with AIDS.
Salaries and Expenses..........................  Native American Housing Block                         * 148,500
                                                  Grants.
Salaries and Expenses..........................  Indian Housing Loan Guarantee                         * 247,500
                                                  Fund Program.
Salaries and Expenses..........................  Native Hawaiian Housing Loan                           * 34,650
                                                  Guarantee Fund.
Salaries and Expenses..........................  Community Development Loan                              743,000
                                                  Guarantees.
Salaries and Expenses..........................  FHA: Mutual Mortgage Insurance                    * 347,490,000
                                                  Program Account.
Salaries and Expenses..........................  FHA: General and Special Risk                       209,286,000
                                                  Program Account.
Salaries and Expenses..........................  GNMA: Guarantees of Mortgage-                        10,700,000
                                                  Backed Securities Loan Guarantee
                                                  program Account.
Office of the Inspector General................  FHA: Mutual Mortgage Insurance                      * 3,960,000
                                                  Program Account.
Office of the Inspector General................  FHA: General and Special Risk                        19,800,000
                                                  Program Account.
Flexible Subsidy Fund..........................  Flexible Subsidy Fund............                        ** TBD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Up to this amount is available to be transferred.
** Subject to the level of uncommitted balances of excess rental charges of Public Housing Authorities.

          Compliance With Rule XIII, Cl. 3(e) (Ramseyer Rule)

    In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

          Compliance With Rule XIII, Cl. 3(e) (Ramseyer Rule)

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

TITLE 49, UNITED STATES CODE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SUBTITLE VII--AVIATION PROGRAMS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


PART A--AIR COMMERCE AND SAFETY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SUBPART III--SAFETY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 443--INSURANCE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 44302. General authority

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (f) Extension of Policies.--
          (1) In general.--The Secretary shall extend through 
        August 31, 2006, and may extend through December 31, 
        [2006] 2008, the termination date of any insurance 
        policy that the Department of Transportation issued to 
        an air carrier under subsection (a) and that is in 
        effect on the date of enactment of this subsection on 
        no less favorable terms to the air carrier than existed 
        on June 19, 2002; except that the Secretary shall amend 
        the insurance policy, subject to such terms and 
        conditions as the Secretary may prescribe, to add 
        coverage for losses or injuries to aircraft hulls, 
        passengers, and crew at the limits carried by air 
        carriers for such losses and injuries as of such date 
        of enactment and at an additional premium comparable to 
        the premium charged for third-party casualty coverage 
        under such policy.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 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, [2006] 2008, the Secretary may 
certify that the air carrier was a victim of an act of 
terrorism and in the Secretary's judgment, based on the 
Secretary's analysis and conclusions regarding the facts and 
circumstances of each case, shall not be responsible for losses 
suffered by third parties (as referred to in section 
205.5(b)(1) of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations) that 
exceed $100,000,000, in the aggregate, for all claims by such 
parties arising out of such act. If the Secretary so certifies, 
the air carrier shall not be liable for an amount that exceeds 
$100,000,000, in the aggregate, for all claims by such parties 
arising out of such act, and the Government shall be 
responsible for any liability above such amount. No punitive 
damages may be awarded against an air carrier (or the 
Government taking responsibility for an air carrier under this 
subsection) under a cause of action arising out of such act. 
The Secretary may extend the provisions of this subsection to 
an aircraft manufacturer (as defined in section 44301) of the 
aircraft of the air carrier involved.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 44310. Ending effective date

  The authority of the Secretary of Transportation to provide 
insurance and reinsurance under this chapter is not effective 
after [March 30, 2008] December 31, 2008.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


NATIONAL HOUSING ACT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE II--MORTGAGE INSURANCE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                        rental housing insurance

      Sec. 207. (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

      (c) To be eligible for insurance under this section a 
mortgage on any property or project shall involve a principal 
obligation in an amount--
          (2) * * *
          (3)(A) not to exceed, for such part of the property 
        or projects as may be attributable to dwelling use 
        (excluding exterior and land improvements as defined by 
        the Secretary), $38,025 per family unit without 
        bedroom, $42,120 per family unit with one bedroom, 
        $50,310 per family unit with two bedrooms, $62,010 per 
        family unit with three bedrooms, and $70,200 per family 
        unit with four or more bedrooms, or not to exceed 
        $17,460 per space; except that as to projects to 
        consist of elevator-type structures the Secretary may, 
        in his discretion, increase the dollar amount 
        limitations per family unit to not to exceed $43,875 
        per family unit without a bedroom, $49,140 per family 
        unit with one bedroom, $60,255 per family unit with two 
        bedrooms, $75,465 per family unit with three bedrooms, 
        and $85,328 per family unit with four or more bedrooms, 
        as the case may be, to compensate for the higher costs 
        incident to the construction of elevator type 
        structures of sound standards of construction and 
        design; and except that the Secretary may, by 
        regulation, increase any of the foregoing dollar amount 
        limitations contained in this paragraph by not to 
        exceed [140 percent] 170 percent in any geographical 
        area where the Secretary finds that cost levels so 
        require and by not to exceed [140 percent] 170 percent, 
        or [170 percent in high cost areas] 215 percent in high 
        cost areas, where the Secretary determines it necessary 
        on a project-by-project basis, but in no case may any 
        such increase exceed 90 percent where the Secretary 
        determines that a mortgage purchased or to be purchased 
        by the Government National Mortgage Association in 
        implementing its special assistance functions under 
        section 305 of this Act (as such section existed 
        immediately before November 30, 1983) is involved.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                     cooperative housing insurance

      Sec. 213. (a) * * *
      (b) To be eligible for insurance under this section a 
mortgage on any property or project of a corporation or trust 
of the character described in paragraph numbered (1) of 
subsection (a) of this section shall involve a principal 
obligation in an amount--
          (2)(A) not to exceed, for such part of the property 
        or project as may be attributable to dwelling use 
        (excluding exterior land improvements as defined by the 
        Secretary), $41,207 per family unit without a bedroom, 
        $47,511 per family unit with one bedroom, $57,300 per 
        family unit with two bedrooms, $73,343 per family unit 
        with three bedrooms, and $81,708 per family unit with 
        four or more bedrooms, and not to exceed 98 per centum 
        of the amount which the Secretary estimates will be the 
        replacement cost of the property or project when the 
        proposed physical improvements are completed: Provided, 
        That as to projects to consist of elevator-type 
        structures the Secretary may, in his discretion, 
        increase the dollar amount limitations per family unit 
        to not to exceed $43,875 per family unit without a 
        bedroom, $49,710 per family unit with one bedroom, 
        $60,446 per family unit with two bedrooms, $78,197 per 
        family unit with three bedrooms, and $85,836 per family 
        unit with four or more bedrooms, as the case may be, to 
        compensate for the higher cost incident to the 
        construction of elevator-type structures of sound 
        standards of construction and design; (B)(i) the 
        Secretary may, by regulation, increase any of the 
        dollar amount limitations in subparagraph (A) (as such 
        limitations may have been adjusted in accordance with 
        section 206A of this Act) by not to exceed [140 
        percent] 170 percent in any geographical area where the 
        Secretary finds that cost levels so require and by not 
        to exceed [140 percent] 170 percent, or [170 percent in 
        high cost areas] 215 percent in high cost areas, where 
        the Secretary determines it necessary on a project-by-
        project basis, but in no case may any such increase 
        exceed 90 percent where the Secretary determines that a 
        mortgage purchased or to be purchased by the Government 
        National Mortgage Association in implementing its 
        special assistance functions under section 305 of this 
        Act (as such section existed immediately before 
        November 30, 1983) is involved; and (ii) in the case of 
        a mortgagor of the character described in paragraph (3) 
        of subsection (a) the mortgage shall involve a 
        principal obligation in an amount not to exceed 90 per 
        centum of the amount which the Secretary estimates will 
        be the replacement cost of the property or project when 
        the proposed physical improvements are completed; and 
        (iii) upon the sale of a property or project by a 
        mortgagor of the character described in paragraph (3) 
        of subsection (a) to a nonprofit cooperative ownership 
        housing corporation or trust within two years after the 
        completion of such property or project the mortgage 
        given to finance such sale shall involve a principal 
        obligation in an amount not to exceed the maximum 
        amount computed in accordance with this subparagraph 
        (B)(i)..

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


     rehabilitation and neighborhood conservation housing insurance

      Sec. 220. (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

      (d) To be eligible for insurance under this section a 
mortgage shall meet the following conditions:
      (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

      (3) The mortgage shall--
          (A) * * *
          (B)(ii) * * *
          (iii)(I) not to exceed, for such part of the property 
        or project as may be attributable to dwelling use 
        (excluding exterior land improvements as defined by the 
        Secretary), $38,025 per family unit without a bedroom, 
        $42,120 per family unit with one bedroom, $50,310 per 
        family unit with two bedrooms, $62,010 per family unit 
        with three bedrooms, and $70,200 per family unit with 
        four or more bedrooms, except that as to projects to 
        consist of elevator-type structures the Secretary may, 
        in his discretion, increase the dollar amount 
        limitations per family unit not to exceed $43,875 per 
        family unit without a bedroom, $49,140 per family unit 
        with one bedroom, $60,255 per family unit with two 
        bedrooms, $75,465 per family unit with three bedrooms, 
        and $85,328 per family unit with four or more bedrooms, 
        as the case may be, to compensate for the higher costs 
        incident to the construction of elevator-type 
        structures of sound standards of construction and 
        design; and (II) with respect to rehabilitation 
        projects involving not more than five family units, the 
        Secretary may by regulation increase by 25 per centum 
        any of the dollar amount limitations in subparagraph 
        (B)(iii)(I) (as such limitations may have been adjusted 
        in accordance with section 206A of this Act) which are 
        applicable to units with two, three, or four or more 
        bedrooms; (III) the Secretary may, by regulation, 
        increase the dollar amount limitations contained in 
        subparagraph (B)(iii)(I) (as such limitations may have 
        been adjusted in accordance with section [206A of this 
        Act)) by not to exceed 110 percent in any geographical 
        area where the Secretary finds that cost levels so 
        require and by not to exceed 140 percent where the 
        Secretary determines it necessary on a project-by-
        project basis] 206A of this Act) by not to exceed 170 
        percent in any geographical area where the Secretary 
        finds that cost levels so require and by not to exceed 
        170 percent, or 215 percent in high cost areas, where 
        the Secretary determines it necessary on a project-by-
        project basis, but in no case may any such increase 
        exceed 90 percent where the Secretary determines that a 
        mortgage purchased or to be purchased by the Government 
        National Mortgage Association in implementing its 
        special assistance functions under section 305 of this 
        Act (as such section existed immediately before 
        November 30, 1983) is involved); (IV) That nothing 
        contained in this subparagraph (B)(iii)(I) shall 
        preclude the insurance of mortgages covering existing 
        multifamily dwellings to be rehabilitated or 
        reconstructed for the purposes set forth in subsection 
        (a) of this section; (V) the Secretary may further 
        increase any of the dollar limitations which would 
        otherwise apply to such projects by not to exceed 20 
        per centum if such increase is necessary to account for 
        the increased cost of the project due to the 
        installation therein of a solar energy system (as 
        defined in subparagraph (3) of the last paragraph of 
        section 2(a) of this Act) or residential energy 
        conservation measures (as defined in section 210(11)(A) 
        through (G) and (I) of Public Law 95-619) in cases 
        where the Secretary determines that such measures are 
        in addition to those required under the minimum 
        property standards and will be cost-effective over the 
        life of the measure; and

           housing for moderate income and displaced families

      Sec. 221. (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

      (d) To be eligible for insurance under this section, a 
mortgage shall--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (3) if executed by a mortgagor which is a public body 
        or agency (and, except with respect to a project 
        assisted or to be assisted pursuant to section 8 of the 
        United States Housing Act of 1937, which certifies that 
        it is not receiving financial assistance from the 
        United States exclusively pursuant to such Act), a 
        cooperative (including an investor-sponsor who meets 
        such requirements as the Secretary may impose to assure 
        that the consumer interest is protected), or a limited 
        dividend corporation (as defined by the Secretary), or 
        a private nonprofit corporation or association, or 
        other mortgagor approved by the Secretary, and 
        regulated or supervised under Federal or State laws or 
        by political subdivisions of States, or agencies 
        thereof, or by the Secretary under a regulatory 
        agreement or otherwise, as to rents, charges, and 
        methods of operation, in such form and in such manner 
        as in the opinion of the Secretary will effectuate the 
        purposes of this section--
                  (ii)(I) not exceed, for such part of the 
                property or project as may be attributable to 
                dwelling use (excluding exterior land 
                improvements as defined by the Secretary), 
                $42,048 per family unit without a bedroom, 
                $48,481 per family unit with one bedroom, 
                58,469 per family unit with two bedrooms, 
                $74,840 per family unit with three bedrooms, 
                and $83,375 per family unit with four or more 
                bedrooms; except that as to projects to consist 
                of elevator-type structures the Secretary may, 
                in his discretion, increase the dollar amount 
                limitations per family unit to not to exceed 
                $44,250 per family unit without a bedroom, 
                $50,724 per family unit with one bedroom, 
                $61,680 per family unit with two bedrooms, 
                $79,793 per family unit with three bedrooms, 
                and $87,588 per family unit with four or more 
                bedrooms, as the case may be, to compensate for 
                the higher costs incident to the construction 
                of elevator-type structures of sound standards 
                of construction and design; (II) the Secretary 
                may, by regulation, increase any of the dollar 
                amount limitations in subclause (I) (as such 
                limitations may have been adjusted in 
                accordance with section 206A of this Act) by 
                not to exceed [140 percent] 170 percent in any 
                geographical area where the Secretary finds 
                that cost levels so require and by not to 
                exceed [140 percent] 170 percent, or [170 
                percent in high cost areas] 215 percent in high 
                cost areas, where the Secretary determines it 
                necessary on a project-by-project basis, but in 
                no case may any such increase exceed 90 percent 
                where the Secretary determines that a mortgage 
                purchased or to be purchased by the Government 
                National Mortgage Association in implementing 
                its special assistance functions under section 
                305 of this Act (as such section existed 
                immediately before November 30, 1983) is 
                involved; and

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (4) if executed by a mortgagor and which is approved 
        by the Secretary--
                  (ii)(I) not exceed, or such part of the 
                property or project as may be attributable to 
                dwelling use (excluding exterior land 
                improvements as defined by the Secretary), 
                $37,843 per family unit without a bedroom, 
                $42,954 per family unit with one bedroom, 
                $51,920 per family unit with two bedrooms, 
                $65,169 per family unit with three bedrooms, 
                and $73,846 per family unit with four or more 
                bedrooms; except that as to projects to consist 
                of elevator-type structures the Secretary may, 
                in his discretion, increase the dollar amount 
                limitations per family unit to not to exceed 
                $40,876 per family unit without a bedroom, 
                $46,859 per family unit with one bedroom, 
                $56,979 per family unit with two bedrooms, 
                $73,710 per family unit with three bedrooms, 
                and $80,913 per family unit with four or more 
                bedrooms, as the case may be, to compensate for 
                the higher costs incident to the construction 
                of elevator-type structures of sound standards 
                of construction and design; (II) the Secretary 
                may, by regulation, increase any of the dollar 
                limitations in subclause (I) (as such 
                limitations may have been adjusted in 
                accordance with section 206A of this Act) by 
                not to exceed [140 percent] 170 percent in any 
                geographical area where the Secretary finds 
                that cost levels so require and by not to 
                exceed [140 percent] 170 percent, or [170 
                percent in high cost areas] 215 percent in high 
                cost areas, where the Secretary determines it 
                necessary on a project-by-project basis, but in 
                no case may any such increase exceed 90 percent 
                where the Secretary determines that a mortgage 
                purchased or to be purchased by the Government 
                National Mortgage Association in implementing 
                its special assistance functions under section 
                305 of this Act (as such section existed 
                immediately before November 30, 1983) is 
                involved;

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                      housing for elderly persons

      Sec. 231. (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

      (c) To be eligible for insurance under this section, a 
mortgage to provide housing for elderly persons shall--
          (2)(A) not to exceed, for such part of the property 
        or project as may be attributable to dwelling use 
        (excluding exterior land improvement as defined by the 
        Secretary), $35,978 per family unit without a bedroom, 
        $40,220 per family unit with one bedroom, $48,029 per 
        family unit with two bedrooms, $57,798 per family unit 
        with three bedrooms, and $67,950 per family unit with 
        four or more bedrooms; except that as to projects to 
        consist of elevator-type structures the Secretary may, 
        in his discretion, increase the dollar amount 
        limitations per family unit to not to exceed $40,876 
        per family unit without a bedroom, $46,859 per family 
        unit with one bedroom, $56,979 per family unit with two 
        bedrooms, $73,710 per family unit with three bedrooms, 
        and $80,913 per family unit with four or more bedrooms, 
        as the case may be, to compensate for the higher costs 
        incident to the construction of elevator-type 
        structures of sound standards of construction and 
        design; (B) the Secretary may, by regulation, increase 
        any of the dollar limitations in subparagraph (A) (as 
        such limitations may have been adjusted in accordance 
        with section 206A of this Act) by not to exceed [140 
        percent] 170 percent in any geographical area where the 
        Secretary finds that cost levels so require and by not 
        to exceed [140 percent] 170 percent, or [170 percent in 
        high cost areas] 215 percent in high cost areas, where 
        the Secretary determines it necessary on a project-by-
        project basis, but in no case may any such increase 
        exceed 90 percent where the Secretary determines that a 
        mortgage purchased or to be purchased by the Government 
        National Mortgage Association in implementing its 
        special assistance functions under section 305 of this 
        Act (as such section existed immediately before 
        November 30, 1983) is involved; (C) the Secretary may, 
        by regulation, increase any of the dollar limitations 
        in subparagraph (A) (as such limitations may have been 
        adjusted in accordance with section 206A of this Act) 
        by not to exceed 20 per centum if such increase is 
        necessary to account for the increased cost of the 
        project due to the installation therein of a solar 
        energy system (as defined in subparagraph (3) of the 
        last paragraph of section 2(a) of this Act) or 
        residential energy conservation measures (as defined in 
        section 210(11) (A) through (G) and (I) of Public Law 
        95-619) in cases where the Secretary determines that 
        such measures are in addition to those required under 
        the minimum property standards and will be cost-
        effective over the life of the measure;

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                  mortgage insurance for condominiums

      Sec. 234. (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

      (e) To be eligible for insurance, a blanket mortgage on 
any multi-family project of a mortgagor of the character 
described in subsection (d) shall involve a principal 
obligation in an amount--
          (2) * * *
          (3)(A) not to exceed, for such part of the project as 
        may be attributable to dwelling use (excluding exterior 
        land improvements as defined by the Secretary), $42,048 
        per family unit without a bedroom, $48,481 per family 
        unit with one bedroom, $58,469 per family unit with two 
        bedrooms, $74,840 per family unit with three bedrooms, 
        and $83,375 per family unit with four or more bedrooms; 
        except that as to projects to consist of elevator-type 
        structures the Secretary may, in his discretion, 
        increase the dollar amount limitations per family unit 
        to not to exceed $44,250 per family unit without a 
        bedroom, $50,724 per family unit with one bedroom, 
        $61,680 per family unit with two bedrooms, $79,793 per 
        family unit with three bedrooms, and $87,588 per family 
        unit with four or more bedrooms, as the case may be, to 
        compensate for higher costs incident to the 
        construction of elevator-type structures of sound 
        standards of construction and design; (B) the Secretary 
        may, by regulation, increase any of the dollar 
        limitations in subparagraph (A) (as such limitations 
        may have been adjusted in accordance with section 206A 
        of this Act) by not to exceed [140 percent] 170 percent 
        in any geographical area where the Secretary finds that 
        cost levels so require and by not to exceed [140 
        percent] 170 percent, or [170 percent in high cost 
        areas] 215 percent in high cost areas, where the 
        Secretary determines it necessary on a project-by-
        project basis, but in no case may any such increase 
        exceed 90 percent where the Secretary determines that a 
        mortgage purchased or to be purchased by the Government 
        National Mortgage Association in implementing its 
        special assistance functions under section 305 of this 
        Act (as such section existed immediately before 
        November 30, 1983) is involved; and

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


MCKINNEY-VENTO HOMELESS ASSISTANCE ACT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE II--INTERAGENCY COUNCIL ON THE HOMELESS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 209. TERMINATION.

  The Council shall cease to exist, and the requirements of 
this title shall terminate, on October 1, [2006] 2008.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


 SECTION 321 OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1986

  Sec. 321. The Urban Mass Transportation Administration shall 
enter into a contract with the Southern California Rapid 
Transit District to conduct a study of the potential methane 
gas risks relating to the proposed alignment of the Metro Rail 
project beyond the Minimum Operable Segment, MOS-1. [None of 
the funds described in section 320 may be made available for 
any segment of the downtown Los Angeles to San Fernando Valley 
Metro Rail project unless and until the Southern California 
Rapid Transit District officially notifies and commits to the 
Urban Mass Transportation Administration that no part of the 
Metro Rail project will tunnel into or through any zone 
designated as a potential risk zone or high potential risk zone 
in the report of the City of Los Angeles dated June 10, 1985, 
entitled ``Task Force Report on the March 24, 1985 Methane Gas 
Explosion and Fire in the Fairfax Area''.] Funds for this 
study, in an amount not to exceed $1,000,000, shall be made 
available from funds previously allocated for the MOS-1 
project, commencing within 30 days of enactment.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                              Rescissions

    Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII 
of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the following 
table is submitted describing the rescissions recommended in 
the accompanying bill:

                 Title I--Department of Transportation
 Office of the Secretary, Compensation for Air               -$22,000,000
 Carriers............................................
Federal Aviation Administration, Grants-in-Aid              -185,500,000
 Highways............................................
Federal Highway Administration, Federal-Aid Highways.     -3,000,000,000
Federal Highway Administration.......................    -390,050,734.53
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Motor            -3,469,553
 Carrier Safety Operations and Programs..............
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Motor           -11,260,214
 Carrier Safety Grants...............................
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, National        -32,187,720
 Motor Carrier Safety................................
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, National         -5,212,858
 Motor Carrier Safety Program........................
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,           -12,197,113.60
 Operations and Research.............................
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,              -119,914.61
 National Driver Register............................
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,              -10,528,958
 Highway Traffic Safety Grants.......................
Federal Transit Administration, Formula and Bus              -28,660,920
 Grants..............................................
Federal Transit Administration, Capital Investment           -17,760,000
 Grants..............................................
Maritime Administration, Ship Construction...........         -3,526,000
         Title II--Department of Housing and Urban Development
 Housing Certificate Fund...........................      -$1,300,000,000
Rental Housing Assistance..........................          -27,600,000
               Changes in the Application of Existing Law

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1)(A) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the following statements are 
submitted describing the effect of provisions proposed in the 
accompanying bill which may be considered, under certain 
circumstances, to change the application of existing law, 
either directly or indirectly. The bill provides that 
appropriations shall remain available for more than one year 
for a number of programs for which the basic authorizing 
legislation does not explicitly authorize such extended 
availability. The bill provides, in some instances, for funding 
of agencies and activities where legislation has not yet been 
finalized. In addition, the bill carries language, in some 
instances, permitting activities not authorized by law, or 
exempting agencies from certain provisions of law, but which 
has been carried in appropriations acts for many years.
    The bill includes limitations on official entertainment, 
reception and representation expenses for the Secretary of 
Transportation, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development 
and the National Transportation Safety Board. Similar 
provisions have appeared in many previous appropriations Acts. 
The bill includes a number of limitations on the purchase of 
automobiles, motorcycles, or office furnishings. Similar 
limitations have appeared in many previous appropriations Acts. 
Language is included in several instances permitting certain 
funds to be credited to the appropriations recommended.
    The bill continues a number of general provisions applying 
to agencies covered by the bill as well as certain provisions 
applying government-wide. These provisions have been carried in 
the prior year appropriations bill, and some have been carried 
for many years. Additionally, the Committee includes a number 
of new general provisions.

                 TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

    Language is included under Office of the Secretary, 
``Salaries and expenses'' specifying certain amounts for 
individual offices of the Office of the Secretary and official 
reception and representation expenses, and specifying transfer 
authority among offices.
    Language is included under Office of the Secretary, 
``Salaries and expenses'' which would allow crediting the 
account with up to $2,500,000 in user fees; prohibits 
establishment of Assistant Secretary of Public Affairs. 
Language is included for the Office of Civil Rights.
    Language is included under Office of the Secretary, 
``Transportation planning, research, and development'' which 
provides funds for conducting transportation planning, 
research, systems development, development activities and 
making grants, and makes funds available until expended.
    Language is included that limits operating costs and 
capital outlays of the Working Capital Fund for the Department 
of Transportation; provides that services shall be provided on 
a competitive basis, except for non-DOT entities; restricts the 
transfer for any funds to the Working Capital Fund with 
approval; and limits special assessments or reimbursable 
agreements levied against any program, project or activity 
funded in this Act to only those assessments or reimbursable 
agreements that are presented to and approved by the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations.
    Language is included under the Office of the Secretary, 
``Minority business resource center'' which limits the amount 
of loans that can be subsidized, and provides funds for 
administrative expenses.
    Language is included under Office of the Secretary, 
``Minority business outreach'' specifying that funds may be 
used for business opportunities related to any mode of 
transportation, and limits the availability of funds.
    Language is included under the Office of the Secretary, 
``Payments to air carriers'' that provides funds from the 
Airport and Airway Trust Fund, allows the Secretary of 
Transportation to consider subsidy requirements when 
determining service to a community, and allows the Secretary to 
repay any funds borrowed from the Federal Aviation 
Administration to fund the essential air service program.
    Language is included under Office of the Secretary, 
``Compensation for air carriers'' which rescinds funds.
    Section 101. The Committee continues a provision allowing 
the Secretary of Transportation to transfer unexpended sums 
from ``Office of the Secretary, Salaries and Expenses'' to 
``Minority Business Outreach''.
    Section 102. The Committee continues a provision 
prohibiting the Office of the Secretary of Transportation from 
approving assessments or reimbursable agreements pertaining to 
funds appropriated to the modal administrations in this Act, 
unless such assessments or agreements have completed the normal 
reprogramming process for Congressional notification.
    Section 103. The Committee continues a provision 
prohibiting the use of funds to implement an essential air 
service local cost participation program.
    Language is included under the Federal Aviation 
Administration, ``Operations'' that provides funds for 
operations, safety activities, staff offices and research 
activities related to commercial space transportation, 
administrative expenses for research and development, 
establishment of air navigation facilities, the operation 
(including leasing) and maintenance of aircraft, subsidizing 
the cost of aeronautical charts and maps sold to the public, 
lease or purchase of passenger motor vehicles for replacement; 
funds for certain aviation program activities; and specifies 
transfer authority among offices.
    Language is included under the Federal Aviation 
Administration, ``Operations'' that prohibits funds to plan, 
finalize, or implement any regulation that would promulgate new 
aviation user fees not specifically authorized by law after the 
date of enactment of this Act.
    Language is included under the Federal Aviation 
Administration, ``Operations'' that credits funds received from 
States, counties, municipalities, foreign authorities, other 
public authorities, and private sources for expenses incurred 
in the provision of agency services.
    Language is included under the Federal Aviation 
Administration, ``Operations'' permitting the use of funds to 
enter into a grant agreement with a nonprofit standard setting 
organization to develop aviation safety standards.
    Language is included under the Federal Aviation 
Administration, ``Operations'' that provides $8,500,000 for the 
contract tower cost sharing program.
    Language is included under the Federal Aviation 
Administration, ``Operations'' permitting transfer of funds, as 
specified.
    Language is included under the Federal Aviation 
Administration, ``Operations'' that prohibits the use of funds 
for new applicants of the second career training program.
    Language is included under the Federal Aviation 
Administration, ``Operations'' that prohibits the use of funds 
for Sunday premium pay unless an employee actually performed 
work during the time corresponding to the premium pay.
    Language is included under the Federal Aviation 
Administration, ``Operations'' that prohibits funds for 
conducting and coordinating activities on aeronautical charting 
and cartography through the Working Capital Fund.
    Language is included under the Federal Aviation 
Administration, ``Operations'' that prohibits the use of funds 
to purchase store gift cards or gift certificates through a 
government-issued credit card.
    Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 
``Facilities and equipment'' that provides funds for 
acquisition, establishment technical support services, 
improvement by contract or purchase, and hire of air navigation 
and experimental facilities and equipment; engineering and 
service testing, construction and furnishing of quarters and 
related accommodations at remote localities; and the purchase, 
lease, or transfer of aircraft.
    Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 
``Facilities and equipment'' that provides funds from the 
Airport and Airway Trust Fund and limits the availability of 
funds.
    Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 
``Facilities and equipment'' that allows certain funds received 
for expenses incurred in the establishment and modernization of 
air navigation facilities to be credited to the account.
    Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 
``Facilities and equipment'' that requires the Secretary of 
Transportation to transmit a comprehensive capital investment 
plan for the Federal Aviation Administration.
    Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 
``Research, engineering, and development'' that provides funds 
from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund for research, 
engineering, and development, including construction of 
experimental facilities and acquisition of necessary sites by 
lease or grant; and limits the availability of funds.
    Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 
``Research, engineering, and development'' that allows certain 
funds received for expenses incurred in research, engineering 
and development to be credited to the account.
    Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 
``Grants-in-aid for airports'' that provides funds from the 
Airport and Airway Trust Fund for airport planning and 
development; noise compatibility planning and programs; 
procurement, installation, and commissioning of runway 
incursion prevention devices and systems; grants authorized 
under section 41743 of title 49, U.S.C.; and inspection 
activities and administration of airport safety programs; and 
limits the availability of funds.
    Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 
``Grants-in-aid for airports'' that limits funds available for 
the planning or execution of programs with obligations in 
excess of $3,600,000,000.
    Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 
``Grants-in-aid for airports'' that prohibits funds for the 
replacement of baggage conveyor systems, reconfiguration of 
terminal baggage areas, or other airport improvements that are 
necessary to install bulk explosive detection systems.
    Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 
``Grants-in-aid for airports'' that provides $80,676,000 for 
administration.
    Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 
``Grants-in-aid for airports'' that specifies $10,000,000 for 
the airport cooperative research program, $18,712,000 for the 
airport technology research program and $10,000,000 for the 
Small Community Air Service Development Program.
    Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 
``Grants-in-aid for airports'' that rescinds contract authority 
above the obligation limitation.
    Section 110. The Committee retains a provision requiring 
FAA to accept landing systems, lighting systems, and associated 
equipment procured by airports, subject to certain criteria.
    Section 111. The Committee retains a provision limiting the 
number of technical workyears at the Center for Advanced 
Aviation Systems Development to 375 in fiscal year 2008.
    Section 112. The Committee retains a provision prohibiting 
FAA from requiring airport sponsors to provide the agency 
``without cost'' building construction, maintenance, utilities 
and expenses, or space in sponsor-owned buildings, except in 
the case of certain specified exceptions.
    Section 113. The Committee continues a provision that 
allowing reimbursement for fees collected and credited under 49 
U.S.C. 45303.
    Section 114. The Committee retains a provision allowing 
reimbursement of funds for providing technical assistance to 
foreign aviation authorities to be credited to the operations 
account.
    Section 115. The Committee continues a provision extending 
the current terms and conditions of FAA's aviation insurance 
program, commonly known as the ``war risk insurance'' program, 
for one additional year, from December 31, 2007 to December 31, 
2008. In addition it extends the underlying authorization until 
December 31, 2008.
    Section 116. The Committee retains a provision prohibiting 
funds to change weight restrictions or prior permission rules 
at Teterboro Airport, Teterboro, New Jersey.
    Language is included under the Federal Highway 
Administration, ``Limitation on administrative expenses'' that 
limit the amount to be paid together with advances and 
reimbursements received.
    Language is included under the Federal Highway 
Administration, ``Federal-aid highways'' that limits the 
obligations for Federal-aid highways and highway safety 
construction programs; limits the amount available for the 
implementation or execution of programs for transportation 
research, which shall not apply to any authority previously 
made available for obligation; authorizes funds and obligation 
limitation associated with a portion of revenue aligned budget 
authority for the motor carrier safety grant program to be 
transferred to the Federal motor Carrier Safety Administration; 
allows the Secretary to charge, collect and spend fees for loan 
applications and that such amounts are in addition to 
administrative expenses and are not subject to any obligation 
limitation or limitation on administrative expenses under 
section 608 of title 23, U.S.C., and which are available until 
expended.
    Language is included under the Federal Highway 
Administration, ``Federal-aid highways'' that liquidates 
contract authority and rescinds unobligated balances with 
certain limitations.
    Section 120. The Committee includes a provision that 
distributes obligation authority among federal-aid highway 
programs.
    Section 121. The Committee continues a provision that 
credits funds received by the Bureau of Transportation 
Statistics to the federal-aid highways account.
    Section 122. The Committee includes a provision that 
rescinds unobligated balances associated with completed 
demonstration or high priority projects from the Intermodal 
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, Public Law 102-
240.
    Section 123. The Committee includes a provision that 
rescinds unobligated balances associated with completed high 
priority projects from the Transportation Equity Act for the 
21st Century, Public Law 105-178.
    Section 124. The Committee includes a provision that 
rescinds unobligated funds authorized for the TIFIA program.
    Section 125. The Committee includes a provision that 
rescinds unobligated contract authority authorized for 
administrative expenses of the FHWA that will not be available 
for obligation because of the limitation on administrative 
expenses imposed in this Act and prior Acts.
    Section 126. The Committee includes a provision that 
rescinds unobligated contract authority authorized for 
transportation research under title 5 of Public Law 109-59 that 
will not be available for obligation because of the limitation 
on obligations imposed on those funds in this Act and prior 
Acts.
    Section 127. The Committee includes a provision that 
rescinds unobligated balances made available for highway 
related safety grants in prior appropriations Acts.
    Section 128. The Committee includes a provision that 
rescinds unobligated balances associated with completed 
demonstration or high priority projects from previous 
appropriations acts.
    Section 129. The Committee includes a provision that 
provides additional funding to the transportation, community, 
and system preservation program.
    Language is included under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration, ``Motor carrier safety grants'' that provides a 
limitation on obligations and liquidation of contract 
authorization, including specifying amounts available for the 
commercial driver's license improvements program, border 
enforcement grants program, the performance and registration 
information system management program, the commercial vehicle 
information systems and networks deployment program, the safety 
data improvement program, and the commercial driver's license 
information system modernization program; specifies amount for 
new entrant audits; and rescinds unobligated balances from 
prior years.
    Language is included under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration, ``Motor Carrier Safety Operations and 
Programs'', that provides a limitation on obligations and 
liquidation of contract authorization, including specifying 
amounts available for research and technology programs and 
commercial motor vehicle operator's grants; prohibits funds for 
outreach and education from being transferred; and rescinds 
unobligated balances from prior years.
    Language is included under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration, ``Motor Carrier Safety'' that rescinds 
unobligated balances from prior appropriations Acts.
    Language is included under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration, ``National Motor Carrier Safety Program'' that 
rescinds unobligated balances from prior appropriations Acts.
    Section 130. The Committee continues a provision subjecting 
funds appropriated in this Act to the terms and conditions of 
section 350 of Public Law 107-87 and Section 6901 of Public Law 
110-28, including a requirement that the secretary submit a 
report on Mexico-domiciled motor carriers.
    Language is included under National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, ``Operations and research'' that limits the 
availability of funds and prohibits the planning or 
implementation of any rulemaking on labeling passenger car 
tires for low rolling resistance.
    Language is included under National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, ``Operations and research'' that provides a 
limitation on obligations, limits the availability of funds, 
and provides a liquidation of contract authorization from the 
Highway Trust Fund.
    Language is included under the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration ``National driver register'' that 
provides a limitation on obligations and a liquidation of 
contract authorization from the Highway Trust Fund.
    Language is included under the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration ``Highway traffic safety grants'' that 
provides a limitation on obligations, limits the availability 
of funds, specifies the amounts for certain programs and 
provides a liquidation of contract authorization from the 
Highway Trust Fund.
    Language is included under National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, ``Highway traffic safety grants'' prohibiting 
the use of funds for construction, rehabilitation or remodeling 
costs or for office furniture for state, local, or private 
buildings.
    Language is included under National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, ``Highway traffic safety grants'' that limits 
an evaluation for the High Visibility Enforcement Program to 
$750,000.
    Language is included under National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, ``Highway traffic safety grants'' limiting the 
amount of funds available for technical assistance to states 
under section 410.
    Section 140. The Committee continues a provision that 
provides funding for travel and related expenses for state 
management reviews and highway safety core competency 
development training.
     Section 141. The Committee includes a provision that 
rescinds unobligated contract authority authorized from the 
highway trust fund for NHTSA's operation and research 
activities that will not be available for obligation because of 
limitations on obligations imposed on those funds in previous 
acts.
    Section 142. The Committee includes a provision that 
rescind unobligated contract authority authorized for the 
national driver register that will not be available for 
obligation because of limitations on obligations imposed on 
those funds in previous acts.
    Section 143. The Committee includes a provision that 
rescind unobligated contract authority authorized from the 
highway trust fund for NHTSA's highway safety grant programs 
that will not be available for obligation because of 
limitations on obligations imposed on those funds in previous 
acts.
    Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration, 
``Safety and operations'' limiting the availability of funds.
    Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration, 
``Railroad research and development'' limiting the availability 
of funds.
    Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration, 
``Railroad rehabilitation and improvement program'' authorizing 
the Secretary to issue fund anticipation notes necessary to pay 
obligations under sections 511 and 513 of the Railroad 
Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act.
    Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration, 
``Railroad rehabilitation and improvement program'' that 
prohibits new direct loans or loan guarantee commitments using 
federal funds for credit risk premium under section 502 of the 
Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act.
    Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration 
for the ``Rail Line Relocation and Improvement Program'' as 
authorized by section 9002 of Public Law 109-59.
    Language is included under the Federal Railroad 
Administration, ``Operating subsidy grants to the National 
Railroad Passenger Corporation'' that allows the Secretary of 
Transportation to make quarterly grants to the National 
Railroad Passenger Corporation; allows the Secretary to approve 
funding only after receiving and reviewing a grant request for 
each train route; ensures that each grant request is 
accompanied by a detailed financial analysis, revenue 
projection, and capital expenditure projection; requires the 
Corporation to achieve savings through operational 
efficiencies; requires the Inspector General of the Department 
of Transportation to provide quarterly reports to the Congress 
on estimates of the savings due to operational reforms; 
requires the Corporation to submit to Congress the status of 
its plan to improve the financial performance of food and 
beverage service as well as first class service, including 
sleeper car service as well as a report on progress compared 
with its targets provided in its fiscal year 2007 plan; 
requires the Corporation to submit a detailed business plan 
that includes targets for ridership, revenues, and capital and 
operating expenses as well as monthly reports regarding the 
status of the business plan; requires that contracts entered 
into by the Corporation will be governed by the laws of the 
District of Columbia; requires the Corporation to follow the 
provisions the direct loan agreement; and prohibits funds to 
support any route with a discounted fare of more than 50 
percent off the normal peak fare, unless the operating loss is 
the result of a discount covered by a State.
    Language is included providing funds for Amtrak's Office of 
Inspector General.
    Language is included under the Federal Railroad 
Administration, ``Capital and Debt Service Grants to the 
National Railroad Passenger Corporation'' that allows the 
Secretary of Transportation to make grants to the National 
Railroad Passenger Corporation for the maintenance and repair 
of capital infrastructure and debt service; allows the 
Secretary to retain some funds to be used for oversight; bars 
funds under this section to be used for operating losses; 
restricts the use of funds unless they have been approved by 
the Secretary or are contained in the Corporation's business 
plan; provides financial incentives that can be used for 
capital improvements if the Corporation demonstrates 
operational savings and meets ridership and revenue targets; 
provides funds for the development and implementation of a 
managerial cost accounting system; and requires the 
establishment of a common definition for ``state of good 
repair'' on the Northeast Corridor.
    The Committee includes new language under Federal Railroad 
Administration, ``Intercity Passenger Rail Program'' as 
recommended in the President's budget that establishes and 
provides funding for an Intercity Passenger Rail Grant program.
    Section 150. The Committee continues a provision that 
allows FRA to purchase promotional items for Operation 
Lifesaver.
    Language is included under Federal Transit Administration, 
``Administrative Expenses'' specifying an amount for 
administrative expenses and requires approval for central 
account transfers.
    Language is included under Federal Transit Administration, 
``Administrative Expenses'' prohibiting funds for a permanent 
office of transit security; specifying the amount to reimburse 
the IG for certain costs, and directing the submission of the 
annual report on new starts.
    Language is included under Federal Transit Administration, 
``Formula and Bus Grants'' that provides a limitation on 
obligations from the Highway Trust Fund, liquidation of 
contract authorization for the operating expenses of the 
agency, limits the availability of funds, and rescinds 
unobligated balances.
    Language is included under Federal Transit Administration, 
``Research and University Centers'' that limits the 
availability of funds and specifies the amounts for certain 
offices and programs.
    Language is included under Federal Transit Administration, 
``Capital Investment Grants'' that limits the availability of 
funds, specifies certain amounts for specific projects, and 
rescinds unobligated balances.
    Section 160. The Committee continues the provision that 
exempts previously made transit obligations from limitations on 
obligations.
    Section 161. The Committee continues the provision that 
allows unobligated funds for projects under ``Capital 
Investment Grants'' and bus and bus facilities under ``Formula 
and Bus Grants'' in prior year appropriations Acts to be used 
in this fiscal year.
    Section 162. The Committee continues the provision that 
allows for the transfer of prior year appropriations from older 
accounts to be merged into new accounts with similar, current 
activities.
    Section 163. The Committee continues a provision that 
allows unobligated funds for projects under ``Capital 
Investment Grants'' to be used in this fiscal year for 
activities eligible in the year the funds were appropriated.
    Section 164. The Committee recommends a new provision as 
proposed in the budget request that allows FTA to provide 
grants for 100 percent of the net capital cost of a factory-
installed or retrofitted hybrid electric system in a bus.
    Section 165. The Committee includes a new provision for 
grants under the clean fuel Program.
    Section 166. The Committee includes a provision which 
repeals a fiscal year 1986 funding prohibition regarding a 
subway system in Los Angeles, CA.
    Language is included under the Saint Lawrence Seaway 
Development Corporation that authorizes expenditures, 
contracts, and commitments as may be necessary.
    Language is included under the Saint Lawrence Seaway 
Development Corporation ``Operations and Maintenance'' that 
provides funds derived from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
    Language is included under Maritime Administration, 
``Maritime Security Program'' that limits the availability of 
funds.
    Language is included under Maritime Administration, 
``Operations and Training'' that provides dedicated funds for 
salaries and benefits of employees of the United States 
Merchant Marine Academy, capital improvements at the United 
States Merchant Marine Academy, and the State Maritime Schools 
Schoolship Maintenance and Repair; and limits the availability 
of some funds.
    Language is included under Maritime Administration, ``Ship 
Disposal'' that limits the availability of funds.
    Language is included under Maritime Administration, 
``Maritime Guaranteed Loan (Title XI) Program Account'' that 
provides for the transfer to Operations and Training and 
rescinds unobligated balances.
    Language is included under Maritime Administration, ``Ship 
Construction Program'' that rescinds unobligated balances.
    Section 170. The Committee continues a provision that 
allows the Maritime Administration to furnish utilities and 
services and make repairs to any lease, contract, or occupancy 
involving government property under the control of MARAD and 
retal payments shall be covered into the Treasury as 
miscellaneous receipts.
    Section 171. The Committee continues a provision that 
prohibits obligations incurred during the current year from 
construction funds in excess of the appropriations contained in 
this Act or in any appropriations Act.
    Language is included under Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 
Safety Administration, ``Administrative expenses'' which 
specifies the amount derived from the Pipeline Safety Fund.
    Language is included under Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 
Safety Administration, ``Hazardous materials safety'' which 
limits the availability of a certain amount and allows up to 
$1,200,000 in fees collected under 49 U.S.C. 5108(g) to be 
deposited in the general fund of the Treasury as offsetting 
receipts.
    Language is included under Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 
Safety Administration, ``Hazardous materials safety'' that 
credits certain funds received for expenses incurred for 
training and other activities incurred in performance of 
hazardous materials exemptions and approval functions.
    Language is included under Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 
Safety Administration, ``Pipeline safety'' which specifies the 
amounts derived from the Pipeline Safety Fund and the Oil Spill 
Liability Trust Fund, and limits their period of availabilitiy.
    Language is included under Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 
Safety Administration, ``Pipeline safety'' that requires the 
agency to fund the one-call state grant program.
    Language is included under Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 
Safety Administration, ``Emergency Preparedness Grants'' which 
specifies the amount derived from the Emergency Preparedness 
Fund, limits the availability of some funds, and prohibits 
funds from being obligated by anyone other than the Secretary 
or his designee.
    Language is included under Research and Innovative 
Technology Administration, ``Research and development'' that 
limits the availability of funds and credits to the 
appropriation funds received from States and other sources for 
expenses incurred for training.
    Language is included under Office of Inspector General, 
``Salaries and expenses'' that provides the Inspector General 
with all necessary authority to investigate allegations of 
fraud by any person or entity that is subject to regulation by 
the Department of Transportation. Language is also included 
under Office of Inspector General, ``Salaries and expenses'' 
that authorizes the Office of Inspector General to investigate 
unfair or deceptive practices and unfair methods of competition 
by domestic and foreign air carriers and ticket agents.
    Language is included under Surface Transportation Board, 
``Salaries and expenses'' allowing the collection of $1,250,000 
in fees established by the Chairman of the Surface 
Transportation Board; and providing that the sum appropriated 
from the general fund shall be reduced on a dollar-for-dollar 
basis as such fees are received.
    Section 180. The Committee continues the provision allowing 
the Department of Transportation to use funds for aircraft; 
motor vehicles; liability insurance; uniforms; or allowances, 
as authorized by law.
    Section 181. The Committee continues the provision limiting 
appropriations for services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 to the 
rate for an Executive Level IV.
    Section 182. The Committee continues the provision 
prohibiting funds in this Act for salaries and expenses of more 
than 110 political and Presidential appointees in the 
Department of Transportation, and prohibits political and 
Presidential personnel assigned on temporary detail outside the 
Department of Transportation.
    Section 183. The Committee continues the provision 
prohibiting funds for the implementation of section 404 of 
title 23, United States Code.
    Section 184. The Committee continues the provision 
prohibiting recipients of funds made available in this Act from 
releasing personal information, including social security 
number, medical or disability information, and photographs from 
a driver's license or motor vehicle record, without express 
consent of the person to whom such information pertains; and 
prohibits the withholding of funds provided in this Act for any 
grantee if a state is in noncompliance with this provision.
    Section 185. The Committee continues the provision allowing 
funds received by the Federal Highway Administration, Federal 
Transit Administration, and the Federal Railroad Administration 
from states, counties, municipalities, other public 
authorities, and private sources to be used for expenses 
incurred for training may be credited to each agency's 
respective accounts.
    Section 186. The Committee continues the provision 
authorizing the Secretary of Transportation to allow issuers of 
any preferred stock to redeem or repurchase preferred stock 
sold to the Department of Transportation.
    Section 187. The Committee continues the provision 
prohibiting funds in Title I of this Act from being issued for 
any grant unless the Secretary of Transportation notifies the 
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations not less than 
three full business days before any discretionary grant award, 
letter of intent, or full funding grant agreement totaling 
$1,000,000 or more is announced by the department or its modal 
administrations.
    Section 188. The Committee continues a provision for the 
Department of Transportation allowing funds received from 
rebates, refunds, and similar sources to be credited to 
appropriations.
    Section 189. The Committee continues a provision allowing 
amounts from improper payments to a third party contractor that 
are lawfully recovered by the Department of Transportation to 
be available to cover expenses incurred in recovery of such 
payments.
    Section 190. The Committee includes a new provision that 
clarifies funding for a Monterey, California, highway bypass 
included in Public Law 102-143.
    Section 191. The Committee includes a new provision that 
clarifies funding for a Marlboro Township, New Jersey, highway 
project included in section 378 of Public Law 106-346.

         TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, ``Tenant-based rental assistance'', which 
designates funds for various programs, activities, and 
purposes, and specifies the uses and availability of such 
funds.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, ``Tenant-based rental assistance'', which 
specifies funds for certain programs and limits the use of 
certain funds; specifies the methodology for allocation of 
renewal funding; directs the Secretary to the extent possible 
to pro rate each public housing agency's (PHA) allocation; 
directs that those PHAs participating in Moving to Work, shall 
be funded according to that agreement; specifies the amount for 
additional rental subsidy due to unforeseen emergencies and 
portability; provides that additional tenant protection rental 
assistance costs be funded by prior year unobligated balances; 
provides funding for incremental vouchers for nonelderly 
disabled families and homeless veterans provides for the 
transfer of funds to the Working Capital Fund; specifies the 
amounts available to the Secretary to allocate to PHA that need 
additional funds and for fees; provides the criteria to 
allocate a portion of Administrative Fees; and directs that all 
funds shall be only for activities related to the provision of 
tenant-based rental assistance authorized under section 8.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, ``Housing certificate fund'', which rescinds prior 
year funds; allows the Secretary to rescind funds from other 
accounts if there are insufficient unobligated balances; and 
directs the Secretary to report where the rescission is taken.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, ``Public housing capital fund'', which limits the 
availability of funds; limits the delegation of certain waiver 
authorities and prohibits funds from being used for certain 
activities; specifies the total amount available for certain 
activities; prohibits funds from being used for certain 
purposes; and specifies the amount for grants, support 
services, service coordinators and congregate services, to 
support the costs of administrative and judicial receiverships, 
and to support the ongoing Public Housing Financial and 
Physical Assessment activities of the Real Estate Assessment 
Center.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, ``Public housing operating fund'', which sets the 
basis for the allocation of funds and prohibits the use of 
funds under certain conditions.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, ``Native American Housing Block Grants'', which 
limits the availability of funds; specifies the formula for 
allocation; specifies the amounts for technical assistance and 
capacity building, to support the inspection of Indian housing 
units, administrative expenses, to subsidize the total 
principal amount of any notes, and the cost of guaranteed 
notes, which are defined in section 502 of the Congressional 
budget Act of 1974.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, ``Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant'', which 
limits the availability of funds and specifies the amount for 
training and technical activities.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, ``Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund Program 
Account'', which limits the availability of funds; specifies 
how to define the costs of modifying loans; specifies the 
amount and availability of funds to subsidize total loan 
principal; and provides a dedicated amount for administrative 
expenses and allows for its transfer to ``Salaries and 
Expenses''.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, ``Native Hawaiian Loan Guarantee Fund Program 
Account'', which limits the availability of funds; specifies 
how to define the costs of modifying loans; specifies the 
amount and availability of funds to subsidize total loan 
principal; and provides a dedicated amount for administrative 
expenses and allows for its transfer to ``Salaries and 
Expenses''.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, ``Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS'', 
which limits availability of funds, sets forth certain 
requirements for the allocation and renewal of funds and 
contracts, and specifies funds available for training, 
oversight, and technical assistance activities, and the amount 
available for transfer to the Working Capital Fund.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, ``Community development fund'', which specifies 
the allocation of certain funds; limits the use and 
availability of certain funds; specifies the amount made 
available for grants to federally-recognized Indian tribes, 
emergencies, Economic Development Initiatives with certain 
restrictions, and neighborhood initiatives with certain 
restrictions.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, ``Home investment partnerships program'', which 
limits the availability of funds; specifies the allocation of 
certain funds for certain purposes; and provides for the 
transfer of funds to the Working Capital Fund.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, ``Self-Help and Assisted Homeownership Opportunity 
Program'', which limits the availability of funds and specifies 
the allocation of certain funds for certain purposes.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, ``Homeless assistance grants'', which limits the 
availability of funds; establishes certain minimum funding and 
matching requirements; specifies the allocation of certain 
funds for certain purposes; directs the Secretary to renew 
contracts under certain conditions; requires grantees to 
integrate homeless programs with other social service 
providers; and provides for the transfer of funds to the 
Working Capital Fund.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, ``Project-Based Rental Assistance'', which limits 
the availability of funds; specifies the amount for certain 
programs; specifies the allocation of certain funds for certain 
purposes; and provides for the transfer of funds to the Working 
Capital Fund.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, ``Housing for the elderly'', which specifies the 
allocation of certain funds; designates certain funds to be 
used only for certain grants; allows the Secretary to waive 
certain provisions governing contract terms; and provides for 
the transfer of funds to the Working Capital Fund.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, ``Housing for persons with disabilities'', which 
specifies the allocation of certain funds; allows funds to be 
used to renew certain contracts; allows the Secretary to waive 
certain provisions governing contract terms; and provides for 
the transfer of funds to the Working Capital Fund.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, ``Rental Housing Assistance'', which limits the 
availability of funds and rescinds funds.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, ``Manufactured housing fees trust fund'', which 
limits the availability of funds and permits fees to be 
assessed, modified, and collected, and permits temporary 
borrowing authority from the General Fund of the Treasury.
    Language is included under the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development, ``Mutual Mortgage Insurance Program 
Account'', which sets a loan principal limitation; limits the 
obligations to make direct loans; specifies funds for specific 
purposes; allows for the transfer of funds ``Salaries and 
Expenses'', ``Office of Inspector General'', and the Working 
Capital Fund; allows for additional contract expenses as 
guaranteed loan commitments exceed certain levels.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, ``General and Special Risk Program Account'', 
which limits the amount of commitments to guarantee loans; 
specifies funds for specific purposes; and allows for the 
transfer of funds ``Salaries and Expenses'', ``Office of 
Inspector General'', and the Working Capital Fund.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, ``Government National Mortgage Association'', 
which limits new commitments to issue guarantees, specifies 
amounts for administrative expenses, and allows for the 
transfer of funds to ``Salaries and Expenses''.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, ``Policy Development and Research'', which limits 
the availability of funds; specifies funds for the Partnership 
for Advancing Technology in Housing Initiative, and that 
related activities shall be administered by the Office of 
Policy Development and Research; and specifies the amount for 
grants.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, ``Fair housing and equal opportunity'', which 
limits the availability of funds, authorizes the Secretary to 
assess and collect fees, and places restrictions on the use of 
funds for lobbying activities.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, ``Office of Lead Hazard Control'', which limits 
the availability of funds, specifies the amount of funds for 
specific purposes, specifies the treatment of certain grants, 
and specifies recipient matching and application requirements.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, ``Management and Administration'', which specifies 
the allocation of funds; identifies the transfer to 
``Management and Administration''; sets forth certain 
authorities of, and requirements on, the office of the Chief 
Financial Officer; defines the point of obligation of funds; 
provides for funds to be transferred to the Working Capital 
Fund; and directs the Secretary to fill certain vacancies.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, ``Working Capital Fund'', which limits the purpose 
and availability of funds, including funds transferred.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, ``Office of Inspector General'', which specifies a 
certain amount provided from the various funds of the Federal 
Housing Administration, and directs that the IG shall have 
independent authority over all personnel issues within the 
office.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, ``Office of Federal Housing Enterprise 
Oversight'', which limits the availability of certain funds, 
specifies the amounts for certain activities, and permits 
temporary borrowing authority from the General Fund of the 
Treasury.
    Section 201 relates to the division of financing adjustment 
factors.
    Section 202 prohibits available funds from being used to 
investigate or prosecute lawful activities under the Fair 
Housing Act.
    Section 203 continues language to correct an anomaly in the 
HOPWA formula that results in the loss of funds for certain 
States.
    Section 204 continues language requiring funds appropriated 
to be distributed on a competitive basis in accordance with the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989.
    Section 205 continues language, carried in previous years, 
regarding the availability of funds subject to the Government 
Corporation Control Act and the Housing Act of 1950.
    Section 206 continues language, carried in previous years, 
regarding allocation of funds in excess of the budget 
estimates.
    Section 207 continues language, carried in previous years, 
regarding the expenditure of funds for corporations and 
agencies subject to the Government Corporation Control Act.
    Section 208 continues language, carried in previous years, 
requiring submission of a spending plan for technical 
assistance, training and management improvement activities 
prior to the expenditure of funds.
    Section 209 continues language requiring the Secretary to 
provide quarterly reports on uncommitted, unobligated and 
excess funds in each departmental program and activity.
    Section 210 extends a technical amendment included in the 
fiscal year 2000 appropriations Act relating to the allocation 
of HOPWA funds in the Philadelphia and Raleigh-Cary 
metropolitan areas. A proviso is added to allow a state to 
administer the HOPWA program in the event that a local 
government is unable to undertake the HOPWA grants management 
functions.
    Section 211 continues language requiring HUD to submit an 
annual report to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations on the number of Federally assisted units under 
lease and the per unit cost of these units.
    Section 212 continues language setting certain requirements 
for the Department's annual congressional justification of 
appropriations.
    Section 213 continues language carried in previous year 
elsewhere in this title requiring public housing authorities to 
continue to reserve incremental vouchers funded in previous 
years for persons with disabilities upon turnover.
    Section 214 relates to state authority regarding 
participation on housing boards.
    Section 215 authorizes the transfer of project-based 
assistance in specific circumstances.
    Section 216 continues language in precious acts specifying 
the allocation of Indian Block grants to Native Alaskan 
recipients.
    Section 217 continues language carried in previous years 
elsewhere in this title requiring public housing authorities to 
continue to reserve incremental vouchers funded in previous 
years for family unification upon turnover.
    Section 218 prohibits the IG from changing the basis on 
which the audit of GNMA is conducted.
    Section 219 clarifies eligibility for students in the 
Section 8 program.
    Section 220 lifts the cap on Home Equity Conversion 
Mortgages until September 30, 2008.
    Section 221 increases the FHA multifamily loan limit. The 
Committee does not recommend several new administrative 
provisions proposed in the budget to amend various housing 
authorization statutes.

                    TITLE III--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

    Language is included for the Architectural and 
Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, ``Salaries and 
Expenses'' that allows for the credit to the appropriation of 
funds received for publications and training expenses.
    Language is included for the Federal Maritime Commission, 
``Salaries and Expenses'' that provides funds for services 
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, the hire of passenger motor 
vehicles, uniforms and allowances, and official reception and 
representation expenses.
    Language is included under National Transportation Safety 
Board, ``Salaries and Expenses'' that provides funds for hire 
of passenger motor vehicles and aircraft, services authorized 
by 5 U.S.C. 3109, uniforms or allowances therefore, and 
official reception and representation expenses; and rescinds 
prior year unobligated balances.
    Language is included under National Transportation Safety 
Board, ``Salaries and Expenses'' that allows funds provided 
herein to be used to pay for FY08 costs associated with a 2001 
capital lease.
    Language is included for the United States Interagency 
Council on Homelessness, ``Operating Expenses'' that provides 
funds for salaries, travel, hire of passenger motor vehicles, 
rental of conference rooms, and the employment of experts and 
consultants.

                 TITLE IV--GENERAL PROVISIONS, THIS ACT

    Section 401. The Committee continues the provision 
requiring pay raises to be funded within appropriated levels in 
this Act or previous appropriations Acts.
    Section 402. The Committee continues the provision 
prohibiting pay and other expenses for non-Federal parties in 
regulatory or adjudicatory proceedings funded in this Act.
    Section 403. The Committee continues the provision 
prohibiting obligations beyond the current fiscal year and 
prohibits transfers of funds unless expressly so provided 
herein.
    Section 404. The Committee continues the provision limiting 
consulting service expenditures of public record in procurement 
contracts.
    Section 405. The Committee continues a provision specifying 
reprogramming procedures by subjecting the establishment of new 
offices and reorganizations to the reprogramming process.
    Section 406. The Committee continues the provision 
providing that fifty percent of unobligated balances may remain 
available for certain purposes.
    Section 407 continues a provision requiring a report from 
all agencies and departments funded under this Act to the 
Committees on Appropriations on all sole source contracts by no 
later than July 31, 2008.
    Section 408 continues the provision prohibiting federal 
training not directly related to the performance of official 
duties.
    Section 409. The Committee includes a provision prohibiting 
funds for contractors unless they participate in the basic 
pilot program described in section 403 (a) of 8 U.S.C. 1324a 
note.

                 Comparison With the Budget Resolution

    Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires an explanation of compliance with 
section 308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and 
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as 
amended, which requires that the report accompanying a bill 
providing new budget authority contain a statement detailing 
how that authority compares with the reports submitted under 
section 302 of the Act for the most recently agreed to 
concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal year from 
the Committee's section 302(a) allocation.

                      Five-Year Outlay Projections

    In compliance with section 308(a)(1)(B) of the 
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 
(Public Law 93-344), as amended, the following table contains 
five-year projections associated with the budget authority 
provided in the accompanying bill as provided to the Committee 
by the Congressional Budget Office.

          Financial Assistance to State and Local Governments

    In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the 
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 
(Public Law 93-344), as amended, the Congressional Budget 
Office has provided the following estimates of new budget 
authority and outlays provided by the accompanying bill for 
financial assistance to state and local governments.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.058

                                Earmarks

    Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House 
of Representatives, this bill, as reported, contains the 
following congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or 
limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9(d), 9(e), or 
9(f) of rule XXI.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.059

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.060

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.061

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.062

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.063

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.064

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.065

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.066

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.067

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.068

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.069

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.070

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.071

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.072

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.073

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.074

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.075

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.076

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.077

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.078

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.079

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.080

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.081

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.082

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.083

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.084

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.085

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.086

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.087

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.088

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.089

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.090

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.091

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.092

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.093

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.094

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.095

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.096

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.097

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.098

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.099

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.100

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.101

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.013

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.014

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.015

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.016

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.017

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.018

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.019

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.020


        MINORITY VIEWS OF JERRY LEWIS AND JOSEPH K. KNOLLENBERG

    The fiscal year 2008 Transportation, Housing and Related 
Agencies bill funds a number of important and popular programs, 
however, the largest programs--surface transportation, 
aviation, and assisted housing--all stand on the brink of 
bankruptcy or authorization. Both constituencies, housing and 
transportation, proclaim the need for Federal funding, yet 
neither is willing to consider how the relative spending for 
housing and transportation programs fit into the overall spend 
and tax plan, and neither is willing to face reform and 
reorganization in order to deliver the best programs 
efficiently and effectively.
    How dire is the situation? The Highway Trust Fund will be 
over $4 billion in the red by the end of fiscal year 2009. The 
new Section 8 bill which passed the House earlier this month 
will increase voucher spending by $2 billion over the next five 
years. These shortfalls and massive spending increases are not 
directed or caused by the Committee on Appropriations, but 
rather the spending for housing and transportation programs is 
directed by the authorizing committees of jurisdiction, and as 
usual, the Committee on Appropriations is left holding the bag. 
However, there is simply not enough money in the general 
Treasury to make up for the well predicted shortfall and 
demand, and still meet critical funding needs in other areas. 
We warn, that without sensible and major intervention, plus an 
overhaul of House Rule 21(3), this Committee cannot and will 
not simply write a blank check.
    Further, the Committee cannot continue to rely on 
rescissions of prior year funds to fund these programs. The 
Committee relies on a $3 billion rescission of prior year 
highway contract authority to bring the bill within the 302(b) 
allocation. While highway rescissions have been used in years 
past, never before has the outlook for the Highway Trust Fund 
been so catastrophic.
    Another major flaw in this bill is the inclusion of a $1.3 
billion rescission of prior year HUD appropriations. The bill 
includes this rescission in spite of the fact that HUD can not 
meet the requirement without severely cutting sensitive 
programs, including and specifically, the construction of 
facilities for elderly and disabled low income individuals.
    One principle reason is that the bill also includes 
language that prohibits the recapture of excess section 8 funds 
to be used toward meeting the rescission requirement, even 
though the amounts included for 2007 is significantly more than 
are needed to renew all estimated vouchers under the new 
methodology that the majority has adopted. HUD estimates that 
between $350 and $500 million in excess funding was enacted in 
2007.
    Project based renewals are also not available for the 
rescission. In fact, HUD has estimated that its current 2007 
contractual obligations with project owners are a minimum of 
$1.8 billion more than the funds available in 2007 and the 
project based section 8 program could be as much as $2.6 
billion short in 2007. Hence, as currently envisioned, none of 
the section 8 program funds, which in total is two-thirds of 
HOD's entire budget, are available for meeting the rescission.
    Therefore, HUD will have to reduce other programs with 
balances remaining from 2007 and prior year appropriations to 
meet the $1.3 billion rescission included in this bill. Because 
typically construction is a slow spend out program this means 
that programs such as elderly and disabled facility programs 
will have to be sacrificed to meet the rescission. This will be 
followed by reductions in Community Development Block Grants, 
HOPE VI grants and funds used to modernize public housing which 
also typically take more than one year to spend.
    However you look at it, this is a bad outcome and every 
measure must be taken to lessen or eliminate the reduction in 
these programs. First and foremost is the need to strike the 
preclusion of the recapture of clearly excess section 8 funds 
to renew vouchers that was included in this bill. What was 
clearly and deliberately provided by the Majority as excess 
funding in 2007 must be viewed as a lower priority than 
eliminating desperately needed low income elderly and disabled 
facilities.
    Second, the Congress needs to include language that allows 
HUD to fund project based contracts on an ``as needed'' basis 
rather than 100 percent up front funding as is now the 
practice. Many contracts cross two fiscal years and up front 
funding is simply not needed.
    If both of the Minority recommendations were adopted, the 
rescission could be met with a minimum of disruption to other 
programs and the shortfall for the project based program would 
be greatly diminished or eliminated.
    The argument that the rescission was proposed by the 
Administration and Congress is only implementing the 
Administration's proposal is disingenuous on two counts. First 
the Committee rejected every other Administration proposal to 
reduce funding and eliminate duplicative and low priority 
programs, all of which could have lessened the need for, or 
lowered the amount of, the rescission included to meet the 
Committee's target funding level.
    Second, the Administration's proposal was based on a very 
different methodology for renewing section 8 vouchers and 
project based contracts than was adopted by Congress long after 
the 2008 budget was submitted to Congress. This new methodology 
was airdropped at the last minute into the Continuing 
Resolution and radically altered the way in which funds are 
distributed.
    Finally as noted above, the funding levels for HUD are more 
than they should be or need to be. Many programs are 
duplicative of other programs, have a proven record of poor 
performance and have been eliminated or proposed for 
elimination for many years. Other critical programs could have 
been funded at higher levels or the reduction of prior year 
appropriations (rescission) could have been less had these 
programs been eliminated as proposed. We will continue to work 
to lessen the burden on the Committee to meet its target by 
emphasizing the need to eliminate low priority programs and 
focus scarce resources on high priority needs.

                                   Jerry Lewis.
                                   Joe Knollenberg.