|
Off-site Links To Legislation and Other Information |
THOMAS.gov Bill Data--The Library of Congress |
Non-partisan Budget & Spending Information |
The White House |
National and International Resources We Use |
Does Your Opinion Match the Polls? |
|
Legislation News & Report (TM) TheWeekInCongress.com (TM) Managing America: Appropriations |
|||||||||||||||
|
TheWeekInCongress.com (TM) Week Ending July 27, 2007
H.R.3074 Making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes.
The bill provides funding and direction to programs relating to transportation and housing along with a few agencies that deal with homeless, accessibility by handicapped persons to buildings, the National Transportation Safety Board and the Maritime Commission.
In addition to setting funding levels on various programs the Committee looked at demographic and other changes that will impact housing and transportation and energy needs over the next ten years. For example, the Committee noted that some regions and areas are growing and others are losing population thereby creating different tax bases that can be used for changing housing and transportation needs.
Existing transportation infrastructure, roads, rail and mass transit, is in need of restoration and expansion and newly populated areas need to increase those infrastructures as the US population increases to the expected to grow to 365 million in 2030. States such as Florida, Arizona, California and Georgia have grown by 50% between 1990 and 2005. Other large cities by 20%, the Committee said. Use of highways has doubled to 3 trillion miles traveled in 2005. Continued use will cost $53.6 billion per year to maintain the roads. Traffic delays for commuters in 2003 used an extra 2.3 billion gallons of fuel totaling $63 billion.
Aviation spending continues to grow carrying 739 million passengers in 2005 with expectation to grow to 1 billion passengers by 2015 putting strains on an already strained air traffic control system.
Housing is a challenge that will increase over the next ten years. With 14 million households at 50% below the median income needed for assistance only 25% are receiving it. Affordable housing vouchers are reaching only 2 million of the 8 million qualified to receive them in part because there is a sever shortage of affordable housing. Despite efforts, public housing needs can not be sustained by the private market and a good bit of what was built before 1970 has degenerated to below standards of occupation. The 2.6 million residents will need sizable capital investment to improve existing units.
The bill begins moving Federal funds and programs in the direction of acting on the insight 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.” The effort is to be made to plan affordable housing projects closer to public transportation thereby lowering the need for private vehicles and reducing energy demand in general. The bill creates an inter-agency working group to address approaches to interconnecting transportation and housing.
The bill also looks to build on current programs through public-private investments in affordable housing that increase rewards for energy efficiency in the construction and operation of affordable housing projects.
Transportation Spending Increases To accomplish the goals of improving aging and stressed transportation infrastructure and aging and insufficient affordable housing the bill increases spending for highway infrastructure to $40.2 billion. A $1.25 billion increase. The Federal Transit Administration gains $782 million to spend $9.7 billion.
Capital Investment Grants for rail and light rail systems with the aim of increasing public use of mass transit thereby reducing traffic congestion, gasoline use and pollution the bill. Grants are increased by $134 million and are expected to yield jobs. Clean Fuel Grants for technology improvements are increased by $75 million. AMTRAK gets a $106 million bump to $1.4 billion. Intercity passenger rail systems will receive matching grants of $50 million for planning and improvement
Airport safety and efficiency is to be improved with a. $85.5 million increase to $3.6 billion to increase infrastructure in anticipation of increased passengers. The plan is to reduce rail traffic on freight lines. And another $35 million goes to relocate rail lines that created safety problems when cities and towns grew up around them.
The bill also increases by 57 FAA inspectors and other necessary to assure safer air travel.
Housing Spending Increases To maintain and rehabilitate existing public housing the bill funds at the same level as last year with $2.4 billion. The spending is expected to generate $8.2 billion in economic activities such as jobs and small businesses growing in improved communities.
Community Development Block grants, the popular program that aids cities and towns with improving areas in need thereby stimulating economic development is raised $228 million to $4 billion. HOPE VI, slated for elimination by the President continues with $120 million to provide competitive grants to public housing authorities to revitalize or demolish deteriorating public housing and rebuild.
Housing for the elderly is funded at last years’ $734.5 million and housing for the disabled is also level at last years $236.6 million.
Various HUD programs that provide rent vouchers for the poor and non-elderly veterans, improves administration of housing programs, maintenance and anti-crime activities, rural housing and economic development and Inspector General oversight of HUD projects received increases this year.
Extra money would be spent to maintain and develop air service to rural communities
Spending Cuts and Transfers The bill also cut spending in some programs: AMTRAK EIG is eliminated and operating grants are cut due to improvements AMTRAK has made in operations. Funds for some FAA programs are transferred to higher priority programs as is Down Payment Assistance for first home buyers that can function from funds in other programs
Sponsor: Rep. John W. Olver (D-MA-1st) Vote: The bill passed the House July 25, 2007 268 to 183 RC 715. The Minority Motion to Recommit the bill with instructions failed 201 to 220 RC 714
The Motion to Recommit The Committee
on Appropriations: to report the bill promptly with an amendment to
prohibit the Department of Housing and Urban Development from deriving any
portion of the $1,300,000,000 rescission included in title II of the bill
from recaptures or other reductions of funds previously appropriated for
the following:
The motion sponsor explained that rescinded funds in the bill must be taken from the Section 8 program that provides rent and other assistance to low income and elderly.
Opposition to the motion held that the wording of the motion would kill the bill: "The motion instructs the committee to report the bill back promptly rather than forthwith. Unlike a motion to recommit with instructions to report back forthwith, a motion with other than forthwith instructions proposes to take the bill from the floor without reaching the question of passage."
On the question of where HUD will rescind the money, this was offered "the bill before us includes a rescission of $1.3 billion, which is exactly the same size that the President proposed for the 2008 budget and which is, in fact, lower than what was rescinded last year. HUD refuses to tell specifically where it will take the rescission from, but the President obviously believes that HUD can meet the rescission." Opposition held further that the accounts the motion supporters fear will be tapped for the money are not traditionally the accounts HUD goes to for rescissions. The Minority Motion to Recommit the bill with instructions failed 201 to 220 RC 714
Cost to the taxpayers: $50.7 billion. $3.2 billion over last year, $2.8 billion over the President’s request. Earmark Certification: The bill contains earmarks. ## All Rights Reserved. © 2007 TheWeekInCongress.com(TM) No reproduction, language translation or distribution without written permission from TheWeekInCongress.com.(TM)
MORE INFORMATION COMMITTEE COMMENTS ON THE BILL
COMMITTEE COMMENTS ON THE BILL---Major Challenges facing Transportation and Housing over ten years---Traffic Congestion---Air transportation---Affordable housing near transportation hubs---Public Housing---Connecting housing, transportation and energy savings---Projects and earmarks----Highway Trust Fund---The effects of guaranteed spending---Operating plan and reprogramming---Relationship with Budget Office---Budget considerations.
TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
MAJOR CHALLENGES FACING TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING OVER THE NEXT DECADEEarlier 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.
Traffic Congestion 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.
Affordable housing near transportation hubs 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.
Connecting housing, transportation and energy savings 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.
PROJECTSCongress 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. Earmarks 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 FUNDThe 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 SPENDINGNearly 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 PROCEDURESThe 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 OFFICESThrough 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.
PROGRAM, PROJECT, AND ACTIVITYDuring 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 Transportation planning and research Minority Business Resource Center Payments to Air Carriers and Committee Recommendations Compensation to Ari Carriers regarding 9-11 Federal Aviation Administration Commercial Space Transportation Engineering, Test and Development Research, Engineering and Development Federal Highway Administration Federal Aid to Highways---Allotment to States Federal Motor Carrier Administration Federal Rail Road Administration Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Surface Transportation Safety Board
The bill provides $90,678,000 for the salaries and expenses of the various offices comprising the office of the secretary. The Committee will continue to closely monitor the Department's progress in filling staff vacancies to determine whether additional resources will be needed.
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.
Transportation Planning, research and development 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.
Minority Business Resource Center The Committee recommends $893,000 for the minority business Resource 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. The Committee provides $2,970,000 for minority business outreach..
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 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 to Air Carriers Regarding 9-11 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. 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
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.
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. FAA is facing some serious challenges. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
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.
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.
Trust Fund Share of the 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.
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. 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.
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.
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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
The bill provides $1,076,103,000 for aviation safety, an increase of $20,000,000 above the budget request. 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. Further, the Committee provides another $4,000,000 to hire critical safety staff. 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. AVS safety workforce plan.--The FAA delivered its first aviation safety workforce plan to Congress on May 10, 2007.
Commercial Space Transportation 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.
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.
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
Engineering, Test and Development 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. 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.
Modernization of ATC systems 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. 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 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.
Facility power distribution links.--The Committee understands that a significant number of facilities require upgraded power distribution links Flight Service 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. 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. 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. Te project has been plagued by delays apparently associated with intracontractual issues. 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. Research, Engineering and Development 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 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. 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 to Airports 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. 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. 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.
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. 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. Thecombined 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.
Federal Aid to Highways 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 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. Alabama ---------------------------------- 666,198 Alaska ----------------------------------- 292,449 Arizona ----------------------------------- 657,870 Arkansas ---------------------------------- 414,679 California ----------------------------- 2,897,828 Colorado -------------------------------- 443,604 Connecticut -------------------------------428,461 Delaware ------------------------------ 131,605 District of Columbia ---------------------- 134,649 Florida -------------------------------- 1,715,180 Georgia --------------------------------- 1,181,100 Hawaii ------------------------------------ 137,676 Idaho ------------------------------------ 247,139 Illinois -------------------------------- 1,115,853 Indiana ----------------------------------- 859,149 Iowa -------------------------------------- 365,296 Kansas ------------------------------------- 333,733 Kentucky -------------------------------- 577,697 Louisiana --------------------------------- 508,406 Maine ------------------------------------- 150,822 Maryland ---------------------------------- 542,824 Massachusetts ------------------------------ 543,713 Michigan ------------------------- ------ 1,004,257 Minnesota ---------------------------------- 523,871 Mississippi ----------------------------- 398,273 Missouri -------------------------------- 772,064 Montana -------------------------------- 318,858 Nebraska -------------------------------- 247,769 Nevada ----------------------------- 233,909 New Hampshire - - 148,592 New Jersey 911,085 New Mexico - 313,841 New York 1,474,199 North Carolina 965,751 North Dakota 209,637 Ohio 1,204,163 Oklahoma 508,683 Oregon 377,536 Pennsylvania 1,465,865 Rhode Island 165,184 South Carolina 567,762 South Dakota 219,932 Tennessee 730,369 Texas 2,855,031 Utah 244,807 Vermont 139,312 Virginia 902,486 Washington 574,286 West Virginia 357,214 Wisconsin 649,495 Wyoming 218,199 Subtotal 33,048,358 High priority projects 2,841,869 Allocated programs 4,325,824 Total limitation 40,216,051
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
Federal Motor Carrier 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. The FMCSA's motor carrier safety grants program $300,000,000. The Committee recommends $228,000,000 in liquidating cash for the operations and research activities of the FMCSA 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. New car assessment program (NCAP).--Within the funds provided, the Committee recommends $7,893,000 for NCAP. 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 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. The Committee recommends a total of $125,000,000 for operations and research funding as an appropriation from the general fund
Federal Rail Road 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. 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.
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.
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 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 AMTRAKIndustrialized 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. 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 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 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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. 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.
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.
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. 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 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. 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. 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 Committee recommends $17,000,000 for ship disposal, $3,000,000 below the budget request. 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. 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. 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. 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.
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.
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.
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. 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.
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. The Committee has provided an obligation limitation of $28,318,000 for the emergency preparedness grant program.
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. 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. 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. 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.
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARDThe 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 Committee recommends a total appropriation of $26,495,000, an increase of $3,410,000 above the budget request
General Provisions 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. 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 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 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 Housing Programs-Committee comments Revitalization of Severely Distressed Public Housing Native American and Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grants Community Planning and Development Rural Housing and Economic Development Community Development Loan Guarantee Home Investments Partnership Program Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program Housing for Persons with Disabilities Manufactured Housing Fees Trust Fund Other Assisted Housing Programs The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight
Sustainability in Housing Programs- Committee comments 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 COMMITTEEThe 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.
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
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. 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.] Public Housing Capital Fund 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. 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. --$38,000,000 is directed to the Resident Opportunity and Supportive Services. --$38,000,000 is directed to the Resident Opportunity and Supportive Services. --$10,890,000 is for Technical Assistance. --$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. --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.
Housing Operating Fund 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 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. Revitalization of Severely Distressed Public Housing 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. 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. 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 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. Native American Housing Block Grants 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. 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. --$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. 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. 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 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. 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.
Community Planning and Development 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). 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.
Rural Housing and Economic Development 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. 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.
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. 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. --$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. 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 Guarantee 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. 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.
The Brownfield 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. 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.
Home Investments Partnership Program 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. 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. HOME/CHDO Technical Assistance: $9,900,000 for technical assistance activities for State and local participating jurisdictions and non-profit CHDOs. 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 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. Housing Counseling: $41,580,000.
Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program 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. 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. --$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 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. 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.
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. 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 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. 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 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. 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. --$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.
Housing for Persons with Disabilities 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. 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. Housing Counseling 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. 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
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. 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.
Manufactured Housing Fees Trust Fund 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. 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.
Other Assisted Housing Programs Rental Housing Assistance-Funds Rescinded 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. 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 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. 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. Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA) 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. 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 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. 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. --$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. --$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. 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. 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. 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 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 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 --$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 --$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.
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. 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 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. 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. 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 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. 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. 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. Section 202 prohibits available funds from being used to investigate or prosecute lawful activities under the Fair Housing Act. Section 204 continues language requiring funds appropriated to be distributed on a competitive basis in accordance with the Department of Housing and Urban 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 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 224 continues language requiring priority consideration for Moving to Work Demonstration applications from Santa Clara, San Jose and San Bernardino. .
TITLE III---RELATED AGENCIES The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board The Federal Maritime Commission National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) The Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation Interagency Council on Homelessness
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 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 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.
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 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 (NTSB) 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. 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 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. 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. Interagency Council on Homelessness 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. 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 There are numerous general provisions in most bills of this size. Below are a few that relate to air carrier liability, qualifying for mortgage insurances, and direct aid to help Los Angeles deal with methane gas pockets obstructing the construction of a subway system. (f) EXTENSION OF POLICIES-
(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall extend through August 31, 2006, and
may extend through December 31, [Struck out->][ * * * * * * * 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,
[Struck out->][ * * * * * * * Sec. 44310. Ending effective date
The authority of the Secretary of Transportation to provide insurance and
reinsurance under this chapter is not effective after [Struck out->][
(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 [Struck out->][
(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 [Struck out->][
(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 [Struck out->][
(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 [Struck out->][
(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 [Struck out->][
(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
[Struck out->][ 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. [Struck out->][
MINORITY VIEWS OF JERRY LEWIS AND JOSEPH K. KNOLLENBERGThe 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.
AMENDMENTS
Amendments For H.R.30741.
H.AMDT.597 to
H.R.3074 An amendment to reduce funding (by transfer) for the Office
of the Secretary Salaries and Expenses account by $6,200,000. 2.
H.AMDT.598 to
H.R.3074 An amendment to strike the proviso pertaining to the Highway
Trust Fund account. 3.
H.AMDT.599 to
H.R.3074 An amendment to reduce funding (by transfer) for Operating
Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation account by
$106,000,000. 4.
H.AMDT.600 to
H.R.3074 An amendment to strike the $475 million appropriation for the
Operating Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation account.
5.
H.AMDT.601 to
H.R.3074 An amendment to reduce the Capital and Debt Service Grants to
the National Railroad Passenger Corporation account by $425 million. 6.
H.AMDT.602 to
H.R.3074 An amendment to insert a new section pertaining to the
Surface Transportation Board of the Department of Transportation and the
transportation of solid waste. 7.
H.AMDT.603 to
H.R.3074 An amendment to reduce by $330 million the appropriation for
Public and Indian Housing account. 8.
H.AMDT.604 to
H.R.3074 An amendment numbered 26 printed in the Congressional Record
to redirect appropriations for the Public Housing Operating Fund by $20
million. 9.
H.AMDT.605 to
H.R.3074 An amendment numbered 14 printed in the Congressional Record
to strike the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant program. 10.
H.AMDT.606 to
H.R.3074 An amendment numbered 5 printed in the Congressional Record
inserting a heading in title II of Public Law 107-73 deemed to be amended
with respect to the item relating to the City of Maitland,Florida, by
striking"for a senior citizens center" and inserting "for the Minihaha
Park development. 11.
H.AMDT.607 to
H.R.3074 An amendment to redirect appropriations for the Brownfields
Redevelopment by $1 million. 12.
H.AMDT.608 to
H.R.3074 An amendment numbered 2 printed in the Congressional Record
to increase the funding (by transfer) for the Home Investment Partnerships
Program account by $6,760,000. 13.
H.AMDT.609 to
H.R.3074 An amendment numbered 6 printed in the Congressional Record
to increase funding for the Fair Housing and Equal Opportuntity account by
$5,820,000 and decrease the Working Capital Fund by $5,820,000. 14.
H.AMDT.610 to
H.R.3074 An amendment to increase funding (by transfer) for the Office
of Lead Hazard Control account by $10,000,000. 15.
H.AMDT.611 to
H.R.3074 An amendment to add a new section pertaining to the
authorization for additional Moving to Work Demonstration agreements. 16.
H.AMDT.612 to
H.R.3074 An amendment numbered 15 printed in the Congressional Record
to limit the use of funds to used to support Amtrak's route with the
highest loss, measured by passenger per mile cost as based on the National
Railroad Passenger Corporation's September 2006 Financial Performance of
Routes Report. 17.
H.AMDT.613 to
H.R.3074 An amendment to strike the $300,000 appropriation in the bill
for the Belmont Complex in Armstrong County, Pennsylvania. 18.
H.AMDT.614 to
H.R.3074 An amendment to strike the $250,000 appropriation in the bill
for the Walter Clore Wine and Culinary Center in Prosser, Washington. 19.
H.AMDT.615 to
H.R.3074 An amendment to strike the $400,000 appropriation in the bill
for the North Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission in Wausau,
Wisconsin. 20.
H.AMDT.616 to
H.R.3074 An amendment to strike the $50,000 appropriation in the bill
for the National Forest Recreation Association in Woodlake, California.
21.
H.AMDT.617 to
H.R.3074 An amendment to limit the use of funds for the Huntsville
Museum of Art in Huntsville, Alabama. 22.
H.AMDT.618 to
H.R.3074 An amendment to prohibit the use of funds to be used to
implement or enforce the requirement under section 12(c) of the United
States Housing Act of 1937. 23.
H.AMDT.619 to
H.R.3074 An amendment to limit the use of funds for the Hunting and
Fishing Museum of Pennsylvania in Tionesta, Pennsylvania. 24.
H.AMDT.620 to
H.R.3074 An amendment to limit the use of funds for the Friends of the
Cheat Rails to Trails Program. 25.
H.AMDT.621 to
H.R.3074 An amendment to limit the use of funds for the Houston Zoo,
in Houston, Texas. 26.
H.AMDT.622 to
H.R.3074 An amendment numbered 25 printed in the Congressional Record
to prohibit the use of funds by the Federal Aviation Administration to
eliminate, consolidate, de-consolidate, co-locate, execute inter-facility
reorganization, or plan for the consolidation/deconsolidation,
inter-facility reorganization, or co-location of any FAA air traffic
control facility or service, with exception of the reversal of the
transfer of the radar functions from the Palm Springs Terminal Radar
Approach Control (TRACON) to the Southern California TRACON. 27.
H.AMDT.623 to
H.R.3074 An amendment to prohibit the use of funds by the Federal
Aviation Administration to implement its preferred alternative of the New
York/New Jersey/ Philadelphia Airspace Redesign project. 28.
H.AMDT.624 to
H.R.3074 An amendment to prohibit the use of funds to be used to
establish or implement a cross-border motor carrier demonstration or pilot
project or program to allow Mexico-domiciled motor carriers to operate
beyond the commercial zones on the United States-Mexico border. 29.
H.AMDT.625 to
H.R.3074 An amendment numbered 16 printed in the Congressional Record
to prohibit the use of funds to be used to take any action to issue a
final rule or notice based on, or otherwise implement, all or any part of
the proposed rule of the Department of Housing and Urban Development
published on Friday, May 11, 2007, relating to standards for mortgagor's
investment in mortgaged property. 30.
H.AMDT.626 to
H.R.3074 An amendment numbered 22 printed in the Congressional Record
to prohibit use of funds in the bill for the Edmunds Center for the Arts,
City of Edmunds, WA. 31.
H.AMDT.627 to
H.R.3074 An amendment numbered 21 printed in the Congressional Record
to prohibit use of funds in the bill for parking facilities. 32.
H.AMDT.628 to
H.R.3074 An amendment regarding energy efficient light bulbs. 33.
H.AMDT.629 to
H.R.3074 An amendment prohibiting the use of funds for tolling on I-80
in Pennsylvania. 34.
H.AMDT.630 to
H.R.3074 An amendment prohibiting the use of funds to participate in a
working group pursuant to the Security and Prosperity Partnership. 35.
H.AMDT.631 to
H.R.3074 An amendment to reduce the total amount appropriated in this
Act by $3.2 billion. 36.
H.AMDT.632 to
H.R.3074 An amendment numbered 20 printed in the Congressional Record
to reduce appropriations in this Act by $507,767,000. 37.
H.AMDT.633 to
H.R.3074 An amendment to reduce the total amount appropriated in this
Act by $253,690,000. 38.
H.AMDT.634 to
H.R.3074 An amendment to prohibit the use of funds for the mortgage
insurance programs under title II of the National Housing Act may be used
for any housing trust fund established under title II of the
Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act. 39.
H.AMDT.635 to
H.R.3074 An amendment to prohibit the use of funds be used by the
Department of Transportation to promulgate regulations based on race,
ethnicity, or sex. 40.
H.AMDT.636 to
H.R.3074 An amendment to prohibit funds to be used to provide
homeownership assistance for applicants described in 274A(h)(3) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324a(h)(3)). 41.
H.AMDT.637 to
H.R.3074 An amendment to prohibit funds to be used to employ workers
described in section 274A(h)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1324a(h)(3)). 42.
H.AMDT.638 to
H.R.3074 An amendment to prohibit the use of funds be used to
implement the provisions of subchapter IV of chapter 31 of title 40,
United States Code (relating to wage rate requirements; commonly known as
the Davis-Bacon Act). 43.
H.AMDT.639 to
H.R.3074 An amendment to express the sense of the House of
Representatives that any reduction in the amount appropriated by this Act
achieved as a result of amendments adopted by the House should be
dedicated to deficit reduction. 44.
H.AMDT.640 to
H.R.3074 An amendment to redirect $10 million in funding regarding for
"Grants-in-Aid for Airports" administered by the Federal Aviation
Administration for the Department of Transportation. 45.
H.AMDT.641 to
H.R.3074 An amendment to prohibit the use of funds be used in
violation of section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, with
respect to workers on federally-funded transportation projects. 46.
H.AMDT.642 to
H.R.3074 En bloc amendments regarding walkie talkies, and the
development of modular or manufactured temporary disaster housing.
## All Rights Reserved. © 2007 TheWeekInCongress.com.(TM) No reproduction, language translation or distribution without written permission from TheWeekInCongress.com.(TM)
|
|
||||||||||||||
