Senate Report 111-230 - TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2011

[Senate Report 111-230]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

Calendar No. 482
111th Congress Report
2d Session SENATE 111-230
=======================================================================

TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2011
_______

July 23, 2010.--Ordered to be printed

Filed under authority of the order of the Senate of January 6, 2009

_______

Mrs. Murray, from the Committee on Appropriations,
submitted the following

R E P O R T

[To accompany S. 3644]

The Committee on Appropriations, to which was referred the
bill (H.R. 0000) making appropriations for the Departments of
Transportation and Housing and Urban Development, and Related
Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2011, and for
other purposes, reports the same with an amendment and
recommends that the bill as amended do pass. deg.
The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 3644)
making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation and
Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2011, and for other purposes,
reports favorably thereon and recommends that the bill do pass.

Amounts of new budget (obligational) authority for fiscal year 2011

Total of bill as reported to the Senate................. $67,888,173,000
Amount of 2010 appropriations........................... 67,898,457,000
Amount of 2011 budget estimate.......................... 68,836,693,000
Bill as recommended to Senate compared to--
2010 appropriations................................. -10,284,000
2011 budget estimate................................ -948,520,000

C O N T E N T S

----------
Page

Program, Project, and Activity................................... 3
Reprogramming Guidelines......................................... 3
Congressional Budget Justifications.............................. 3
Title I: Department of Transportation:
Office of the Secretary...................................... 6
Federal Aviation Administration.............................. 27
Federal Highway Administration............................... 47
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.................. 62
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration............... 73
Federal Railroad Administration.............................. 81
Federal Transit Administration............................... 89
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation................ 102
Maritime Administration...................................... 104
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration....... 109
Research and Innovative Technology Administration............ 113
Bureau of Transportation Statistics.......................... 115
Office of Inspector General.................................. 116
Surface Transportation Board................................. 118
General Provisions--Department of Transportation............. 119
Title II: Department of Housing and Urban Development:
Executive Direction.......................................... 122
Administration, Operations, and Management................... 124
Personnel Compensation and Benefits.......................... 125
Public and Indian Housing.................................... 132
Community Planning and Development........................... 145
Housing Programs............................................. 163
Federal Housing Administration............................... 170
Government National Mortgage Association..................... 173
Policy Development and Research.............................. 174
Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity........................... 175
Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control.............. 177
Management and Administration................................ 178
Administrative Provisions.................................... 182
Title III: Independent Agencies:
Access Board................................................. 185
Federal Maritime Commission.................................. 186
National Railroad Passenger Corporation: Office of the
Inspector
General.................................................... 187
National Transportation Safety Board......................... 189
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation........................ 190
United States Interagency Council on Homelessness............ 192
Title IV: General Provisions--This Act........................... 195
Compliance With Paragraph 7, Rule XVI, of the Standing Rules of
the Sen-
ate............................................................ 197
Compliance With Paragraph 7(c), Rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules
of the Senate.................................................. 198
Compliance With Paragraph 12, Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of
the Senate..................................................... 199
Budgetary Impact of Bill......................................... 207
Disclosure of Congressionally Directed Spending Items............ 207
Comparative Statement of Budget Authority........................ 240

PROGRAM, PROJECT, AND ACTIVITY

During fiscal year 2011, for the purposes of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law
99-177), as amended, with respect to appropriations contained
in the accompanying bill, the terms ``program, project, and
activity'' [PPA] shall mean any item for which a dollar amount
is contained in appropriations acts (including joint
resolutions providing continuing appropriations) or
accompanying reports of the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations, or accompanying conference reports and joint
explanatory statements of the committee of conference. This
definition shall apply to all programs for which new budget
(obligational) authority is provided, as well as to
discretionary grants and discretionary grant allocations made
through either bill or report language. In addition, the
percentage reductions made pursuant to a sequestration order to
funds appropriated for facilities and equipment, Federal
Aviation Administration, shall be applied equally to each
budget item that is listed under said account in the budget
justifications submitted to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations as modified by subsequent appropriations acts
and accompanying committee reports, conference reports, or
joint explanatory statements of the committee of conference.

REPROGRAMMING GUIDELINES

The Committee includes a provision (sec. 405) establishing
the authority by which funding available to the agencies funded
by this act may be reprogrammed for other purposes. The
provision specifically requires the advanced approval of the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations of any proposal
to reprogram funds that: (1) creates a new program; (2)
eliminates a program, project, or activity [PPA]; (3) increases
funds or personnel for any PPA for which funds have been denied
or restricted by the Congress; (4) proposes to redirect funds
that were directed in such reports for a specific activity to a
different purpose; (5) augments an existing PPA in excess of
$5,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less; (6) reduces an
existing PPA by $5,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less; or
(7) creates, reorganizes, or restructures offices different
from the congressional budget justifications or the table at
the end of the Committee report, whichever is more detailed.
The Committee retains the requirement that each agency
submit an operating plan to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations not later than 60 days after enactment of this
act to establish the baseline for application of reprogramming
and transfer authorities provided in this act. Specifically,
each agency should provide a table for each appropriation with
columns displaying the budget request; adjustments made by
Congress; adjustments for rescissions, if appropriate; and the
fiscal year enacted level. The table shall delineate the
appropriation both by object class and by PPA. The report must
also identify items of special congressional interest.
The Committee expects the agencies and bureaus to submit
reprogramming requests in a timely manner and to provide a
thorough explanation of the proposed reallocations, including a
detailed justification of increases and reductions and the
specific impact the proposed changes will have on the budget
request for the following fiscal year. Except in emergency
situations, reprogramming requests should be submitted no later
than June 30.
The Committee expects each agency to manage its programs
and activities within the amounts appropriated by Congress. The
Committee reminds agencies that reprogramming requests should
be submitted only in the case of an unforeseeable emergency or
a situation that could not have been anticipated when
formulating the budget request for the current fiscal year.
Further, the Committee notes that when a Department or agency
submits a reprogramming or transfer request to the Committees
on Appropriations and does not receive identical responses from
the House and Senate, it is the responsibility of the
Department to reconcile the House and Senate differences before
proceeding, and if reconciliation is not possible, to consider
the request to reprogram funds unapproved.
The Committee would also like to clarify that this section
applies to Working Capital Funds, and that no funds may be
obligated from such funds to augment programs, projects or
activities for which appropriations have been specifically
rejected by the Congress, or to increase funds or personnel for
any PPA above the amounts appropriated by this act.

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET JUSTIFICATIONS

Budget justifications are the primary tool used by the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations to evaluate the
resource requirements and fiscal needs of agencies. The
Committee is aware that the format and presentation of budget
materials is largely left to the agency within presentation
objectives set forth by OMB. In fact, OMB Circular A-11, part 6
specifically states that the ``agency should consult with your
congressional committees beforehand to ensure their awareness
of your plans to modify the format of agency budget
documents.'' The Committee expects that all agencies funded
under this act will heed this directive. The Committee expects
all the budget justification to provide the data needed to make
appropriate and meaningful funding decisions.
While the Committee values the inclusion of performance
data and presentations, it is important to ensure that vital
budget information that the Committee needs is not lost.
Therefore, the Committee directs that justifications submitted
with the fiscal year 2011 budget request by agencies funded
under this act contain the customary level of detailed data and
explanatory statements to support the appropriations requests
at the level of detail contained in the funding table included
at the end of the report. Among other items, agencies shall
provide a detailed discussion of proposed new initiatives,
proposed changes in the agency's financial plan from prior year
enactment, and detailed data on all programs and comprehensive
information on any office or agency restructurings. At a
minimum, each agency must also provide adequate justification
for funding and staffing changes for each individual office and
materials that compare programs, projects, and activities that
are proposed for fiscal year 2011 to the fiscal year 2010
enacted level.
The Committee is aware that the analytical materials
required for review by the Committee are unique to each agency
in this act. Therefore, the Committee expects that the each
agency will coordinate with the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations in advance on its planned presentation for its
budget justification materials in support of the fiscal year
2011 budget request.

TITLE I

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Extension of Transportation Programs and the Solvency of
the Highway Trust Fund.--For the second year in a row, the
Committee notes that it is in the position of recommending
funding levels for the highway, transit, and highway and motor
carrier safety programs without any certainty that the
necessary contract authority will be available for the whole of
fiscal year 2011.
The administration still has not produced a proposal for
the reauthorization of Federal surface transportation programs,
but Congress has begun the work of developing legislation to
reauthorize these important programs. Unfortunately, proposals
and draft legislation do not produce the kind of stability that
is required to keep these programs working. The use of short
term extensions has only served to exacerbate the insecurity
felt by State and local governments that rely on Federal
transportation programs for investing in their communities.
In the meantime, the Committee again must fulfill its
responsibility to recommend appropriate funding levels for
offices and programs at the Department of Transportation. In
order to put forward realistic funding recommendations, the
Committee is assuming that the transportation programs will be
extended through fiscal year 2011 at the levels authorized
under the current extension law. This assumption is especially
relevant for those programs that relay on contract authority
provided in the authorization acts, including the Federal-aid
highway program, the formula and bus transit programs, the
programs of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration,
and most funding for the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration.

Office of the Secretary

Section 3 of the Department of Transportation Act of
October 15, 1966 (Public Law 89-670) provides for establishment
of the Office of the Secretary of Transportation [OST]. The
Office of the Secretary is comprised of the Secretary and the
Deputy Secretary immediate and support offices; the Office of
the General Counsel; the Office of the Under Secretary of
Transportation for Policy, including the offices of the
Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs and
the Assistant Secretary for Transportation for Policy; three
Assistant Secretarial offices for Budget and Programs,
Governmental Affairs, and Administration; and the Offices of
Public Affairs, the Executive Secretariat, Small and
Disadvantaged Business Utilization, Intelligence, Security and
Emergency Response, and Chief Information Officer. The Office
of the Secretary also includes the Department's Office of Civil
Rights and the Department's Working Capital Fund.

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010.................................... $102,686,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 124,623,000
Committee recommendation................................ 113,961,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation finances the costs of policy development
and central supervisory and coordinating functions necessary
for the overall planning and direction of the Department. It
covers the immediate secretarial offices as well as those of
the assistant secretaries, and the general counsel.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total of $113,961,000 for
salaries and expenses of the Office of the Secretary of
Transportation, including $60,000 for reception and
representation expenses. The recommendation is $10,662,000 less
than the budget request and $11,275,000 more than the fiscal
year 2010 enacted level. The accompanying bill stipulates that
none of the funding provided may be used for the position of
Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs.
The accompanying bill authorizes the Secretary to transfer
up to 5 percent of the funds from any Office of the Secretary
to another. The Committee recommendation continues language
that permits up to $2,500,000 of fees to be credited to the
Office of the Secretary for salaries and expenses.
The following table summarizes the Committee's
recommendation in comparison to the fiscal year 2010 enacted
level and the budget estimate:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
2010 enacted 2011 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immediate Office of the Secretary............................ $2,631,000 $2,667,000 $2,667,000
Office of the Deputy Secretary............................... 986,000 1,000,000 1,000,000
Office of the General Counsel................................ 20,359,000 19,711,000 20,211,000
Office of the Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy... 11,100,000 13,568,000 16,568,000
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs.... 10,559,000 20,022,000 11,216,000
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs... 2,504,000 2,530,000 2,200,000
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration......... 25,520,000 25,695,000 25,695,000
Office of Public Affairs..................................... 2,055,000 2,240,000 1,800,000
Executive Secretariat........................................ 1,658,000 1,683,000 1,683,000
Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization....... 1,499,000 1,513,000 1,513,000
Office of Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response..... 10,600,000 10,999,000 10,999,000
Office of the Chief Information Officer...................... 13,215,000 22,995,000 18,409,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total, Salaries and Expenses........................... 102,686,000 124,623,000 113,961,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IMMEDIATE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Secretary of Transportation provides leadership and has
the primary responsibility to provide overall planning,
direction, and control of the Department.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $2,667,000 for fiscal year 2011
for the Immediate Office of the Secretary. The recommendation
is the same as the budget request and $36,000 greater than the
fiscal year 2010 enacted level.

IMMEDIATE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SECRETARY

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Deputy Secretary has the primary responsibility of
assisting the Secretary in the overall planning and direction
of the Department.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,000,000 for the Immediate
Office of the Deputy Secretary, which is identical to the
budget request and $14,000 greater than the fiscal year 2010
enacted level.

OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of the General Counsel provides legal services
to the Office of the Secretary, including the conduct of
aviation regulatory proceedings and aviation consumer
activities, and coordinates and reviews the legal work in the
chief counsels' offices of the operating administrations. The
General Counsel is the chief legal officer of the Department of
Transportation and the final authority within the Department on
all legal questions.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $20,211,000 for expenses of the
Office of the General Counsel for fiscal year 2011. The
recommended funding level is $500,000 more than the budget
request and $148,000 less than the fiscal year 2010 enacted
level.
Efforts To Protect the Rights of Airline Passengers.--The
Committee commends the Department for its efforts to protect
the rights of airline passengers. The work of the Office of the
General Counsel has resulted in significant enforcement actions
as well as new rules that address a wide variety of consumer
concerns, including tarmac delays, baggage fees, and bumped
flights. In order to build on this record, the Committee
recommendation includes an additional $500,000 for the Office
of the General Counsel. The Committee continues to encourage
the office to use its resources for activities that will most
effectively increase the protection for air travel consumers.
ADA Rulemaking.--For the past 4 years, the Department has
failed to issue final regulations to clarify compliance with
the Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA] for commuter and
intercity rail systems. In early 2006, the Department published
a notice of proposed rulemaking [NPRM] to determine if ADA
compliance requires commuter and intercity rail systems to
provide level boarding between rail cars and station platforms.
This NPRM represented a significant proposal by the Department
because setting a standard for level boarding would require
extensive investments by rail systems. It would affect systems
regulated by both the Federal Railroad Administration and the
Federal Transit Administration. The Department has never
followed its NPRM with a final rule.
The Committee acknowledges the proposed rule involves a
number of complex issues, but without greater certainty on this
matter, Amtrak and other rail systems will not be able to move
forward on ADA compliance. Last year, the Committee put forth
its expectation that all rail systems fully comply with the
requirements of ADA and urged the Department to make progress
on this issue. This year again, the Committee urges the
Department to reach a resolution on level boarding so that it
can publish a final regulation without further delay.

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION FOR POLICY

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Under Secretary for Policy is the chief policy officer
of the Department and is responsible to the Secretary for the
analysis, development, and review of policies and plans for
domestic and international transportation matters. The Office
administers the economic regulatory functions regarding the
airline industry and is responsible for international aviation
programs, the essential air service program, airline fitness
licensing, acquisitions, international route awards,
computerized reservation systems, and special investigations
such as airline delays.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

For fiscal year 2011, the Committee recommends $16,568,000
for the Office of the Under Secretary for Policy. The
recommended funding level is $3,000,000 more than the budget
request and $6,468,000 more than the fiscal year 2010 enacted
level.
Programmatic Increases.--The administration has requested
$2,304,000 for programmatic increases to the Office of the
Under Secretary for Transportation Policy. This funding
increase includes $804,000 for six additional FTE to support
the ongoing workload requirements of the office, including
oversight and implementation of the TIGER program. The
programmatic increase also includes $1,500,000 to staff the
Transportation Counsel at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul and the
Transportation Attache for the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.
In addition to requesting programmatic increases for the
Policy office, the administration has requested $20,000,000 to
establish a new Office of Livability within the Office of the
Secretary. This funding total for the livability office
includes $12,000,000 to provide grants and technical assistance
to help State and local governments plan and execute
transportation investments, $4,000,000 to develop benchmarks
and performance measures to study the impact of transportation
investments on livability, and $4,000,000 to cover the
administrative costs of establishing a new office. The
administration has requested 10 new positions for the new
office.
The Committee appreciates the Department's efforts
coordinate with the Environmental Protection Agency and the
Department of Housing and Urban Development, as well as the
Department's work to ensure that its programs support
livability and do not contradict the needs of communities
trying to achieve more livable results. The administration's
partnership on sustainability goes against the natural
tendencies of the Federal Government to segment its work into a
series of separate programs, even though State and local
governments do not have the luxury of thinking about housing,
transportation and the environment without understanding the
interaction among all of the issues.
The Committee also recognizes that the Policy office has
offered strong guidance for the Department's work on
sustainability. Because of this success, the Committee is not
convinced that establishing a new livability office would be a
responsible use of Federal funds. A distinct office for
livability would require replicating all of the administration
functions of the other OST offices, and it would also segregate
the policy guidance related to sustainability from all the
other guidance provided by the Policy office.
Although the Committee denies the Department's request for
a new livability office, the Committee recommendation includes
resources above the requested funding levels to support the
Policy office in addressing its current workload and developing
the sustainability initiative. Specifically, the Committee
recommendation includes increases of $804,000 and six FTE to
support the ongoing workload requirements of the office,
$1,500,000 to staff the U.S. Embassies in Kabul and Baghdad,
and $3,000,000 and five FTE to further the Department's
livability initiative and develop the benchmarks and
performance measures necessary to study the impact of
transportation investments on sustainability.
Barriers List.--While generally impressed with the
Department's work to support community livability, the
Committee is sorely disappointed with the Department's
unresponsiveness to the Committee's request for a list of
Federal barriers to local sustainability efforts. The Committee
asked the Department for a comprehensive list of provisions in
Federal regulations and legislation that stand in the way of
local communities who need to make coordinated decisions on
housing and transportation. In short, the Committee asked to
see the extent to which Federal programs were part of the
problem for local communities rather than providing a solution.
Well over a year ago, Committee staff first requested this
barriers list during a briefing with staff from the Departments
of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development. Committee
staff were assured that the Departments had already been
developing the list and would be able to provide it within a
reasonable period of time. Since a final barriers list had not
been forthcoming, the report accompanying the Committee's 2010
appropriations act reiterated the request. Finally, this past
March, the Secretary faced direct questions about the list and
testified that a final barriers list would be produced shortly.
While the administration has forwarded working drafts of the
barriers list, the Committee found such drafts to be
incomplete, disorganized and entirely inadequate. Furthermore,
at no point in time has the Department been able to explain the
cause of its delays.
The Committee believes that identifying barriers in Federal
regulations and legislation should lie at the heart of the
administration's efforts to improve community livability. The
list of barriers in Federal law should provide Congress with a
valuable tool as it considers legislation to reauthorize the
Federal surface transportation programs. The list of barriers
in Federal regulation will give Congress a benchmark against
which to independently track the administration's progress on
sustainability. Finally, the production of this list in and of
itself would provide proof that the administration has
thoroughly investigated the issue.
Unfortunately, the administration's track record does
little to illustrate that the administration shares the
Committee's interest in the matter. The administration has
expended significant resources in developing new initiatives
and requesting additional funds for promoting sustainability,
and yet has not completed the simple task of communicating how
well Federal programs support local initiatives.
The Committee now repeats its direction to the Department
to work with the Department of Housing and Urban Development to
produce a comprehensive list of provisions in Federal
regulation and law that act as a barrier to local efforts to
coordinate housing and transportation investment. This list
must include a brief description of the barrier, specific
citations in the Code of Federal Regulations and public law,
and an explanation of how the particular provision acts as a
barrier to coordination between housing and transportation at
the local level. The Committee underlines the importance of
having each item in the list relate to specific citations in
Federal regulations and public law so that the list can act as
a working document for the Committee as well as the
administration. The Committee understands that the
administration may want to include other kinds of barriers on
the list--such as the lack of available data--but the Committee
believes that these items are extraneous to the Committees'
request and therefore expects the administration to keep these
barriers separate from the rest of the list. The Committee also
instructs the Department to transmit a comprehensive list to
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations no later than
May 15, 2011.
Transportation Improvements in Appalachia.--The Committee
understands that the Department is cooperating with appropriate
Federal, regional, State and local entities to help diversify
and strengthen the Appalachian regional economy. The Committee
urges the Department to devote due attention to increasing the
availability of technical and financial assistance, as well as
transportation and land use planning capacity, to support
economic diversification. The Committee encourages the
Department to include consideration of transportation
improvements that will help diversify the regional economy by
supporting a growing tourism industry. The Committee requests a
preliminary report 90 days after the date of enactment and a
detailed report 1 year after the date of enactment on efforts
by the Department to promote economic diversification in
Appalachia.

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR BUDGET AND PROGRAMS

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs is the
principal staff advisor to the Secretary on the development,
review, presentation, and execution of the Department's budget
resource requirements, and on the evaluation and oversight of
the Department's programs. The primary responsibilities of this
office are to ensure the effective preparation and presentation
of sound and adequate budget estimates for the Department, to
ensure the consistency of the Department's budget execution
with the action and advice of the Congress and the Office of
Management and Budget, to evaluate the program proposals for
consistency with the Secretary's stated objectives, and to
advise the Secretary of program and legislative changes
necessary to improve program effectiveness.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $11,216,000 for the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs. The recommended
level is $8,806,000 less than the budget request and $657,000
over the fiscal year 2010 enacted level.
The Committee recommendation includes several funding
increases requested by the Department, including $184,000 for
an additional two FTE to improve oversight of the Department's
growing portfolio of programs and activities, $183,000 for an
additional two FTE to strengthen the budget office charged with
managing the OST accounts, and $151,000 for contractual support
for the Office of the CFO for OST to fulfill the requirements
of the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act.
Acquisition Workforce Development.--The Committee
recommendation does not include $7,623,000 requested by the
Department to increase the Department's acquisition workforce
capacity and capabilities. Under the Department's proposal, OST
would transfer these funds to other accounts throughout the
Department for the purpose of developing its acquisition
workforce. The Committee agrees with the importance of
investing in the Department's acquisition workforce, but has
chosen to make those investments directly in the accounts that
need the resources.
In addition, the Committee directs the Government
Accountability Office [GAO] to analyze the Department's
acquisition workforce and report its findings to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations no later than December 31,
2011. The GAO's evaluation should include an assessment of the
acquisition workforce of each agency within the Department of
Transportation, including the Office of the Secretary; an
evaluation of OST's current role in supporting and overseeing
the acquisition workforce throughout the Department; and a
presentation of the best practices that Federal departments
have used to maintain their acquisition workforces, including a
discussion of how those best practices could be used at the
Department of Transportation.
Program Evaluation.--The Committee recommendation also does
not include $1,000,000 requested by the Department to establish
a new office for program evaluation. The Committee notes that
several agencies currently provide objective analysis of the
Department's programs and activities, including the Office of
the Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office.
The Committee therefore is not convinced that a new source of
program evaluations would justify the expense of a new office
within OST.
Travel Expenses.--The Committee is concerned about the
Department's spending on travel expenses. The Committee
therefore directs the Inspector General to assess spending on
travel across the Department, and to report its findings to the
House and Senate Committee on Appropriations by March 30, 2011.
The Inspector General's assessment should distinguish among
travel used for oversight, conferences, industry outreach, and
other purposes.

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs advises
the Secretary on all congressional and intergovernmental
activities and on all departmental legislative initiatives and
other relationships with Members of Congress. The Assistant
Secretary promotes effective communication with other Federal
agencies and regional Department officials, and with State and
local governments and national organizations for development of
departmental programs; and ensures that consumer preferences,
awareness, and needs are brought into the decisionmaking
process.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total of $2,200,000 for the
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs. The
recommended level is $330,000 less than the budget request and
$304,000 less than the fiscal year 2010 enacted level.

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Assistant Secretary for Administration is responsible
for establishing policies and procedures, setting guidelines,
working with the operating administrations to improve the
effectiveness and efficiency of the Department in human
resource management, security and administrative management,
real and personal property management, and acquisition and
grants management.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $25,695,000 for the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Administration. The recommended funding
level is equal to the budget request and $175,000 more than the
fiscal year 2010 enacted level.

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Director of Public Affairs is the principal advisor to
the Secretary and other senior departmental officials and news
media on public affairs questions. The Office issues news
releases, articles, fact sheets, briefing materials,
publications, and audiovisual materials. It also provides
information to the Secretary on opinions and reactions of the
public and news media on transportation programs and issues. It
arranges news conferences and provides speeches, talking
points, and byline articles for the Secretary and other senior
departmental officials, and arranges the Secretary's
scheduling.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,800,000 for the Office of
Public Affairs, which is $440,000 less than the budget request
and $255,000 less than the fiscal year 2010 enacted level.

EXECUTIVE SECRETARIAT

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Executive Secretariat assists the Secretary and the
Deputy Secretary in carrying out their management functions and
responsibilities by controlling and coordinating internal and
external written materials.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,683,000 for the Executive
Secretariat. The recommendation is identical to the budget
request and $25,000 more than the fiscal year 2010 enacted
level.

OFFICE OF SMALL AND DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS UTILIZATION

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization
has primary responsibility for providing policy direction for
small and disadvantaged business participation in the
Department's procurement and grant programs, and effective
execution of the functions and duties under sections 8 and 15
of the Small Business Act, as amended.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,513,000, an amount equal to the
budget request and $14,000 more than the fiscal year 2010
enacted level.

OFFICE OF INTELLIGENCE, SECURITY, AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Intelligence, Security and Emergency Response
ensures the development, coordination and execution of plans
and procedures for the Department of Transportation to balance
transportation security requirements with the safety, mobility
and economic needs of the Nation. The office keeps the
Secretary and his advisors apprised of current developments and
long-range trends in international issues, including terrorism,
aviation, trade, transportation markets, and trade agreements.
The office also advises the Department's leaders on policy
issues related to intelligence, threat information sharing,
national security strategies and national preparedness and
response planning.
To ensure the Department is able to respond in disasters,
the office prepares for and coordinates the Department's
participation in national and regional exercises and training
for emergency personnel. The office also administers the
Department's Continuity of Government and Continuity of
Operations programs and initiatives. Additionally, the office
provides direct emergency response and recovery support through
the National Response Framework and operates the Department's
Crisis Management Center. The center monitors the Nation's
transportation system 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and is the
Department's focal point during emergencies.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $10,999,000 for the Office of
Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response. The
recommendation is equal to the request and $399,000 more than
the fiscal year 2010 enacted level.

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of the Chief Information Officer serves as the
principal adviser to the Secretary on matters involving
information resources and information systems management.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $18,409,000, which is $4,586,000
less than the budget request and $5,194,000 more than the
fiscal year 2010 enacted level.
The budget request includes $9,172,000 for programmatic
increases for the OCIO. These increases include significant
boosts to the office's workforce, including an additional
position to create a chief information security officer, an
additional position for a chief information officer for OST, an
additional 13 positions for an application services group to
plan the Department's investments in collaborative information
technology, and an additional 10 positions for another group to
plan for the Department's investments in all kinds of
information technology.
The Committee applauds the Department for recognizing its
need to invest more strategically in information technology.
Even so, the requested increases to the OCIO staff are
significant. The office currently has a total of 25 positions,
and under the Department's budget request, this staffing level
would double over the course of fiscal year 2011. Furthermore,
the Committee recommendation provides the OCIO with additional
staff increases for its Cyber Security Initiative.
The Committee therefore takes a more moderate approach to
bolstering the OCIO workforce, with the belief that a slower
hiring schedule will encourage the office to be deliberate in
its hiring practices. The Committee recommendation includes
$4,586,000 in its recommended funding level for programmatic
increases for the OCIO. Under the recommended funding level,
the Committee is providing an additional position for a chief
information security officer, an additional position for a
chief information officer for OST, and an additional 11
positions for a single group to build strategy for the
Departments investments in all kinds of information technology,
including the information technology that promotes
collaboration and networked activities.

TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT GRANTS

Appropriations, 2010.................................... $600,000,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 800,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This program provides grants and credit assistance to State
and local governments, transit agencies or a collaboration of
such entities for capital investments in surface transportation
infrastructure that will have a significant impact on the
Nation, a metropolitan area or a region. Eligible projects
include highways and bridges, public transportation, freight
and passenger rail, and port infrastructure. The Department
awards grants on a competitive basis; however, the Department
must ensure an equitable geographic distribution of funds and
an appropriate balance in addressing the needs of urban and
rural communities.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation includes $800,000,000 for
grants and credit assistance for investment in significant
transportation projects, which is $200,000,000 more than the
fiscal year 2010 enacted level. The administration requested no
funds for this program. This program offers an important source
of funding for projects that are difficult to fund through the
Department's formula grant programs. The Committee urges the
Department to give priority consideration to applications for
projects that would complete a larger, multi-phase effort, or
that involve collaborations among more than one State.
Protections for Rural Areas.--The Committee continues to
believe that our Federal infrastructure programs must benefit
communities across the country. For this reason, the Committee
continues to require the Secretary to award grants and credit
assistance in a manner that ensures an equitable geographic
distribution of funds and an appropriate balance in addressing
the needs of urban and rural communities. The Committee also
set aside funding for projects located in rural areas, and
included specific provisions to match grant requirements with
the needs of rural areas. In addition, the Committee has
lowered the minimum size of a grant awarded to a rural area and
increased the Federal share of the total project cost.
Infrastructure Fund.--The administration requested
$4,000,000,000 to begin a program called the National
Infrastructure Innovation and Finance Fund, or the
Infrastructure Fund. This new program would award grants to
transportation projects across a wide variety of modes, and
base the grant awards on a set of merit-based criteria. This
proposal resembles the request for $5,000,000,000 for a
National Infrastructure Bank the administration submitted for
fiscal year 2010.
The Committee shares the administration's desire to invest
in essential transportation infrastructure, support a national
system that includes all modes of transportation, and allow
meritorious projects to compete based on the benefits they
provide to the Nation, a region, or the local community.
Although the Committee has not seen many details about how the
Infrastructure Fund would operate, information that has been
offered to the Committee still creates significant concerns
about the administration's proposal.
The most significant concern is the unprecedented amount of
discretion that the administration requests as a part of the
Infrastructure Fund. Under the proposal, the administration
would have the authority to fund specific transportation
projects whether or not the project's sponsors submitted an
application to the Department. The Committee believes that such
expansive discretion in allocating Federal dollars could make
the Infrastructure Fund vulnerable to abuse. In contrast, the
Committee continues to include language that requires a
national competition for funds, and has added provisions
designed to strengthen the transparency and accountability of
this competition.
It is also unclear the extent to which a new agency running
the Infrastructure Fund would duplicate the resources and
expertise at each of the modal administrations, or at other
Departments if the administration proposed to expand the
program beyond the scope of the Department of Transportation.
As a result of these concerns, the Committee recommendation
includes funding for the grant program funded under this
heading rather than the Infrastructure Fund proposed by the
administration.

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT CAPITAL

Appropriations, 2010.................................... $5,000,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 21,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 21,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Financial Management Capital program is a new multi-
year business transformation initiative to streamline and
standardize the financial systems and business processes across
the Department of Transportation. The initiative includes
upgrading and enhancing the commercial software used for DOT's
financial systems, improving the cost and performance data
provided to managers, implementing a budget line of business,
and instituting new accounting standards and mandates.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee is recommending $21,000,000 to support the
Secretary's Financial Management Capital initiative, which is
equal to the budget request and $16,000,000 more than the
fiscal year 2010 enacted level.
OIG Evaluation.--The Committee appreciates the importance
of revamping the Department's financial management capital, but
is not convinced that the Department has shown evidence of the
program's success to date. For this reason, the Committee
directs the OIG to submit a report to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations on the Department's investments in
financial management capital by May 30, 2011. This report
should provide an evaluation of the Department's investment
plans and its progress to date in effectively carrying out its
plans. The report should also include an assessment of the
extent to which the investments being made today will offer the
Department the flexibility to use its new financial management
tools to address a variety of future needs, many of which the
Department may not be able to anticipate at this time.
Funding from OST and the Modal Administrations.--The
Committee continues to be interested in balancing the needs of
OST and each of the modal administrations. For this reason, the
Committee reminds the Secretary of language that continues to
be included in the bill that limits OST's ability to approve
new assessments or reimbursable agreements pertaining to funds
appropriated to the modal administrations for new activities,
unless a reprogramming of funds is requested and approved by
the Committee. In addition, the Committee continues to direct
OST to provide detailed justifications for this program in its
fiscal year 2012 budget request, including the amount requested
for OST and the amounts included in each of the individual
budget requests from the modal administrations.
Period of Availability.--The Committee has included
language to limit the availability of funding for this program
to a period of four fiscal years. The Committee does not
believe that providing an unlimited period of time would
encourage the Department to manage its funds responsibly or
complete its work in a timely manner.

CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE

Appropriations, 2010....................................................
Budget estimate, 2011................................... $30,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 30,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Cyber Security Initiative is a new effort to close
performance gaps in the Department's cyber security. The
initiative includes support for essential program enhancements,
infrastructure improvements and contractual resources to
enhance the security of the Department's computer network and
reduce the risk of security breaches.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation includes $30,000,000 to
support the Secretary's Cyber Security Initiative, a funding
level equal to the budget request. The fiscal year 2010
appropriations act included no funding for this activity.
OIG Evaluation.--The Committee commends the administration
for its efforts to improve the security of its computer
network. The administration has proposed a bold plan of action
that is designed to help the Department anticipate potential
compromises to its systems and prevent the loss of information,
instead of constantly reacting to situations after they
develop.
The Committee is concerned, however, that the Cyber
Security Initiative represents a significant investment of
resources in a highly technical field. For this reason, the
Committee directs the OIG to submit a report to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations on the Cyber Security
Initiative by May 15, 2011. This report should provide an
evaluation of the Department's plan to improve cyber security,
identify areas of risk in the initiative and the Department's
plans to mitigate this risk, and assess the Department's plans
to staff the initiative.
Period of Availability.--The Committee included language to
limit the availability of funding for the initiative to a
period of 4 fiscal years. The Committee does not believe that
providing an unlimited period of time for the initiative would
encourage the Department to manage its funds responsibly or
complete its work in a timely manner. In addition, the
Department has indicated that four years will be sufficient for
the Department to complete its work on the initiative.

OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS

Appropriations, 2010.................................... $9,667,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 9,767,000
Committee recommendation................................ 9,767,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Civil Rights is responsible for advising the
Secretary on civil rights and equal employment opportunity
matters, formulating civil rights policies and procedures for
the operating administrations, investigating claims that small
businesses were denied certification or improperly certified as
disadvantaged business enterprises, and overseeing the
Department's conduct of its civil rights responsibilities and
making final determinations on civil rights complaints. In
addition, the Civil Rights Office is responsible for enforcing
laws and regulations which prohibit discrimination in federally
operated and federally assisted transportation programs.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a funding level of $9,767,000 for
the Office of Civil Rights for fiscal year 2011. The
recommendation is identical to the budget request and is
$100,000 more than the fiscal year 2010 enacted level.

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2010.................................... $18,168,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 9,819,000
Committee recommendation................................ 9,819,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of the Secretary performs those research
activities and studies which can more effectively or
appropriately be conducted at the departmental level. This
research effort supports the planning, research, and
development activities needed to assist the Secretary in the
formulation of national transportation policies. The program is
carried out primarily through contracts with other Federal
agencies, educational institutions, nonprofit research
organizations, and private firms.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $9,819,000 for transportation
planning, research, and development, which is equal to the
budget request and $8,349,000 less than the fiscal year 2010
enacted level.
The Committee has not included language giving the
Department the authority to use funds provided under this
heading for the development, coordination, and analysis of data
collection procedures and national performance measures. This
language was included for the first time in the fiscal year
2010 bill, but the Committee notes that the Department has the
underlying authority to use its funding for these purposes
without any additional language being included in an
appropriations act. The Committee therefore urges the
Department to exercise its existing authority and to use its
funding to ensure that transportation policies and investments
are supported by sound data analysis.
With the funding made available for transportation
planning, research and development, funds are to be made
available to the following: $750,000 for the PSRC Sustainable
Transportation and Growth Modeling Demonstration Project in
King County, Washington; $750,000 for the International
Mobility and Trade Corridor Project in Whatcom County,
Washington; $500,000 for the Aviation Futures Alliance
Employment, Export and Industry Growth Analysis in Washington;
and $700,000 for the I-81 Corridor Coalition, PA.

WORKING CAPITAL FUND

Limitation, 2010........................................ $147,596,000
Budget estimate, 2011 \1\...............................................
Committee recommendation................................ 147,596,000

\1\ Proposed without limitation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Working Capital Fund [WCF] provides common
administrative services to the Department's operating
administrations and other Federal entities. The services are
centrally performed in the interest of economy and efficiency
and are funded through negotiated agreements with Department
operating administrations and other Federal customers and are
billed on a fee-for-service basis to the maximum extent
possible.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation of $147,596,000 on
activities financed through the Working Capital Fund. The
budget request proposes to remove the obligation limitation on
the Working Capital Fund for services to the operating
administrations of the Department, but the Committee continues
to insist that the discipline of an annual limitation is
necessary to keep assessments and services of the Working
Capital Fund in line with costs. As in past years, the bill
specifies that the limitation shall apply only to the
Department and not to services provided by other entities. The
Committee directs that services shall be provided on a
competitive basis to the maximum extent possible.
The Committee notes that the ``transparency paper''
included in the justifications for fiscal year 2011 provides
essential information on total budgetary resources for the
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and the
Office of the Chief Information Officer, including the balance
of resources provided through the Working Capital Fund and
direct appropriations. Therefore, the Committee directs the
Department to update this ``transparency paper'' and include it
in the budget justifications for fiscal year 2012.

MINORITY BUSINESS RESOURCE CENTER PROGRAM

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation on
Appropriations guaranteed loans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2010................. $923,000 $18,367,000
Budget estimate, 2011................ 913,000 18,367,000
Committee recommendation............. 913,000 18,367,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Minority Business Resource Center of the Office of
Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization provides
assistance in obtaining short-term working capital for
disadvantaged, minority, and women-owned businesses. The
program enables qualified businesses to obtain loans at prime
interest rates for transportation-related projects. As required
by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, this account records
the subsidy costs associated with guaranteed loans for this
program as well as administrative expenses of this program.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $329,000 to
cover the subsidy costs for guaranteed loans and $584,000 for
administrative expenses to carry out the guaranteed loan
program. The recommendation is equal to the budget estimate and
$10,000 less than the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. The
Committee also recommends a limitation on guaranteed loans of
$18,367,000 the same amount as the budget request and the
fiscal year 2010 enacted level.

MINORITY BUSINESS OUTREACH

Appropriations, 2010.................................... $3,074,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 3,395,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,395,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation provides contractual support to assist
small, women-owned, Native American, and other disadvantaged
business firms in securing contracts and subcontracts arising
out of transportation-related projects that involve Federal
spending. It also provides support to historically black and
Hispanic colleges. Separate funding is requested by the
administration since this program provides grants and contract
assistance that serves Department-wide goals and not just OST
purposes.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $3,395,000 for grants and
contractual support provided under this program for fiscal year
2011. The recommendation is the same as the budget request and
$321,000 more than the fiscal year 2010 enacted level.

PAYMENTS TO AIR CARRIERS

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations Mandatory \1\ Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2010............................................ $150,000,000 $50,000,000 $200,000,000
Budget estimate, 2011........................................... 132,000,000 50,000,000 182,000,000
Committee recommendation........................................ 146,000,000 50,000,000 196,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ From overflight fees provided to the Federal Aviation Administration pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 41742.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation provides funding for the Essential Air
Service [EAS] program, which was created to continue air
service to communities that had received federally mandated air
service prior to deregulation of commercial aviation in 1978.
The program currently provides subsidies to air carriers
serving small communities that meet certain criteria.
The Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of
1996 (Public Law 104-264) authorized the collection of user
fees for services provided by the Federal Aviation
Administration [FAA] to aircraft that neither take off from,
nor land in, the United States. In addition, the act stipulated
that the first $50,000,000 of these so-called ``overflight
fees'' 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. No such
shortfall has occurred, however, since fiscal year 2005.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends the appropriation of $146,000,000
for the EAS program. This appropriation would be in addition to
$50,000,000 of overflight fees collected by the Federal
Aviation Administration, resulting in a total program level for
EAS of $196,000,000. The recommendation is $14,000,000 more
than the budget request, and $4,000,000 less than the fiscal
year 2010 enacted level.
Protecting Air Service for Small Communities.--The Airline
Deregulation Act passed in 1978 gave airlines the freedom to
choose what service they would provide to communities across
the country. After deregulation, small communities would be the
most vulnerable to losing the air service that provided
essential mobility and connected them to the larger aviation
network. As a result, Congress created the Essential Air
Service to guarantee that small communities who were served by
the airlines before deregulation would continue to be connected
by air service.
The administration has proposed to remove this guarantee
from the EAS program, and limit funding to those communities
that received an EAS subsidy in fiscal year 2010. On average,
six new communities join the EAS program each year, and the
administration's proposal would deny those communities the
opportunity to participate in EAS and maintain their air
service. At the present time, there are 53 communities in 26
different States being served by one airline and most at risk
of needing EAS assistance in order to maintain their air
service.
The Committee believes in the importance of maintaining air
service for small communities, and therefore its recommendation
includes sufficient funding to protect the air service of those
that currently participate in the EAS program, as well as those
communities that may become eligible during the course of
fiscal year 2011. The Committee has not included language that
would limit EAS eligibility to those communities that
participated in the program in fiscal year 2010. Furthermore,
to protect the air service of small communities, Committee
continues to include language that prohibits the Department
from requiring local matching funds as a condition of receiving
EAS subsidies.
The Committee understands that the administration's
proposals to deny EAS participation to new communities in
fiscal year 2011 and to require a local match from
participating communities reflect an effort to limit the cost
of the EAS program. Although the Committee does not agree with
these specific proposals, the Committee does share the
administration's concerns over the growing cost of supporting
the EAS program. Over the fiscal year 2005-2010 period, the
cost of the EAS program has almost tripled in size. The
Committee believes that any proposals to change the program
should be thoroughly reviewed and compared to a variety of
alternatives. For that reason, the Committee directs the
Department to evaluate proposals for amending the EAS program
that contain costs while protecting access for small
communities to the air transportation system, and to report to
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 1 year
following the date of enactment.
Transfer Authority.--The EAS program continues to undergo a
period of great uncertainty that makes it extremely difficult
to predict what the true program costs will be during fiscal
year 2011. For this reason, the Committee continues to include
bill language that directs the Secretary to transfer to the EAS
program such sums as may be necessary to continue service to
all eligible EAS points in fiscal year 2011. These funds may
come from other funds directly administered by, or appropriated
to, the Office of the Secretary.
The following table reflects the points currently receiving
service and the annual rates as of June 1, 2010, in the
continental United States and Hawaii.

ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE SUBSIDY PER PASSENGER
[Data is based on June 1, 2010 rates and CY 2009 passengers]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avg. Daily
Est. Miles Enplnmnts Subsidy
State EAS/communities to Nearest at EAS Rates at Subsidy per YE 12/31/09
Hub (S, M, Point (YE June 1, Passenger Pax Total
or L) 12/31/09) 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALMuscle Shoals 60 20.8 $1,782,928 $137.03 13,011
AREl Dorado/Camden 107 ........... $2,096,517 N/A ...........
ARHarrison 86 ........... $1,695,929 N/A ...........
ARHot Springs 51 ........... $1,419,102 N/A ...........
ARJonesboro 82 ........... $836,241 N/A ...........
AZKingman 121 ........... $1,275,771 N/A ...........
AZPage 282 15.5 $1,995,273 $205.78 9,696
AZPrescott 102 11.3 $1,622,719 $228.52 7,101
AZShow Low 154 11.3 $1,407,255 $198.60 7,086
CACrescent City 314 36.7 $1,136,896 $49.48 22,979
CAMerced 60 3.2 $1,541,365 $757.80 2,034
CAVisalia 47 7.6 $1,494,319 $315.39 4,738
CAEl Centro 101 18.4 $662,551 $57.56 11,511
COAlamosa 164 19.9 $1,853,475 $148.91 12,447
COCortez 255 24.3 $1,297,562 $85.46 15,184
COPueblo 36 12.1 $1,299,821 $171.62 7,574
GAAthens 72 12.4 $1,051,386 $135.21 7,776
GAMacon 82 4.3 $1,386,306 $509.48 2,721
IAFort Dodge 91 17.0 $1,112,607 $104.37 10,660
IAMason City 131 33.5 $1,112,607 $53.10 20,953
IABurlington 74 6.4 $2,171,241 $538.24 4,034
ILMarion/Herrin 123 7.6 $2,053,783 $430.74 4,768
ILQuincy 111 5.5 $1,946,270 $565.28 3,443
ILDecatur 126 2.1 $3,082,403 $2,391.31 1,289
KSDodge City 150 10.4 $1,842,749 $282.98 6,512
KSGarden City 202 28.4 $1,884,303 $106.10 17,759
KSGreat Bend 114 1.8 $1,257,617 $1,117.88 1,125
KSHays 175 23.8 $1,954,327 $131.40 14,873
KSLiberal/Guymon 138 11.2 $1,958,570 $280.24 6,989
KSSalina 97 7.8 $1,489,435 $303.10 4,914
KYOwensboro 105 ........... $1,068,773 N/A ...........
KYPaducah 146 58.9 $569,923 $15.45 36,889
MDHagerstown 78 ........... $1,203,167 N/A ...........
MEAugusta/Waterville 56 11.3 $2,086,251 $295.67 7,056
MEBar Harbor 51 31.3 $2,086,251 $106.58 19,574
MERockland 64 19.1 $1,522,770 $127.68 11,926
MEPresque Isle/Houlton 127 42.8 $2,812,853 $105.09 26,766
MIEscanaba 112 22.0 $1,435,118 $104.16 13,778
MIIron Mountain/Kingsford 105 17.5 $1,435,118 $131.12 10,945
MIIronwood/Ashland 213 3.6 $1,492,865 $653.90 2,283
MIManistee 110 8.7 $1,799,395 $330.10 5,451
MIHancock/Houghton 219 46.1 $1,404,714 $48.67 28,861
MIMuskegon 42 48.8 $660,720 $21.62 30,563
MIAlpena 174 23.8 $1,532,660 $102.67 14,928
MISault Ste. Marie 278 41.3 $237,825 $9.21 25,830
MNThief River Falls 305 8.7 $1,230,322 $226.33 5,436
MNChisholm/Hibbing 70 28.3 $2,938,878 $165.66 17,740
MNInternational Falls 298 49.4 $1,309,886 $42.40 30,895
MOKirksville 137 3.0 $806,169 $429.50 1,877
MOColumbia/Jefferson City 116 79.1 $2,186,590 $44.16 49,510
MOJoplin 70 12.3 $997,680 $129.96 7,677
MOFort Leonard Wood 85 17.4 $1,292,906 $118.56 10,905
MOCape Girardeau 127 2.8 $1,573,818 $883.67 1,781
MSGreenville 124 19.2 $1,355,693 $112.97 12,000
MSTupelo 94 39.5 $1,419,593 $57.35 24,752
MSMeridian 84 57.3 $678,936 $18.93 35,868
MSLaurel/Hattiesburg 85 39.6 $1,398,798 $56.40 24,800
MTGlasgow 285 ........... $928,433 N/A ...........
MTGlendive 197 ........... $1,056,152 N/A ...........
MTHavre 230 ........... $1,036,616 N/A ...........
MTLewistown 103 3.3 $1,036,616 $494.80 2,095
MTMiles City 145 2.9 $1,056,152 $586.43 1,801
MTSidney 272 8.7 $2,159,591 $397.28 5,436
MTWolf Point 293 ........... $928,433 N/A ...........
MTWest Yellowstone 89 13.5 $427,757 $50.65 8,445
NDDickinson 319 28.4 $2,274,177 $127.71 17,808
NDDevils Lake 402 11.2 $1,459,493 $208.17 7,011
NDJamestown 97 11.3 $1,963,220 $277.06 7,086
NEKearney 181 30.9 $1,978,386 $102.40 19,320
NENorth Platte 255 23.7 $1,860,229 $125.51 14,821
NEScottsbluff 192 26.8 $1,535,085 $91.44 16,788
NEGrand Island 138 ........... $2,271,640 N/A ...........
NEAlliance 233 4.3 $977,609 $361.54 2,704
NEChadron 105 6.1 $977,609 $254.12 3,847
NEMcCook 256 5.5 $1,796,795 $521.41 3,446
NHLebanon/White River Jct. 75 19.4 $2,245,669 $185.26 12,122
NMClovis 102 6.6 $1,517,277 $369.08 4,111
NMSilver City/Hurley/Deming 134 5.8 $1,442,174 $395.44 3,647
NMCarlsbad 149 9.8 $1,046,284 $170.71 6,129
NMAlamogordo/Holloman AFB 89 1.3 $1,169,337 $1,398.73 836
NVEly 234 .6 $1,864,717 $5,223.30 357
NYPlattsburgh 82 18.1 $1,379,257 $121.75 11,329
NYJamestown 76 12.0 $1,350,803 $179.68 7,518
NYMassena 138 10.2 $1,297,613 $202.69 6,402
NYOgdensburg 105 6.3 $1,353,916 $341.04 3,970
NYWatertown 54 7.7 $1,228,334 $254.68 4,823
ORPendleton 185 12.0 $1,608,394 $214.08 7,513
PABradford 77 8.0 $1,350,803 $269.41 5,014
PADuBois 112 15.7 $2,020,095 $205.09 9,850
PAFranklin/Oil City 85 5.7 $1,226,773 $342.39 3,583
PALancaster 28 ........... $1,372,474 N/A ...........
PAAltoona 112 20.5 $1,674,147 $130.67 12,812
PAJohnstown 84 24.9 $1,674,147 $107.23 15,612
PRMayaguez 105 13.4 $980,980 $117.23 8,368
PRPonce 77 13.9 $740,416 $85.35 8,675
SDHuron 121 6.9 $1,781,159 $411.26 4,331
SDWatertown 207 17.0 $1,338,321 $125.90 10,630
TNJackson 86 ........... $1,225,628 N/A ...........
TXVictoria 93 17.7 $1,593,922 $144.17 11,056
UTMoab 256 6.0 $1,798,370 $478.80 3,756
UTVernal 150 12.1 $1,421,478 $187.73 7,572
UTCedar City 179 14.9 $1,477,125 $158.75 9,305
VAStaunton 113 26.7 $1,911,466 $114.28 16,726
VTRutland 69 13.9 $797,141 $91.73 8,690
WIEau Claire 92 35.8 $1,732,372 $77.31 22,408
WVBeckley 168 7.7 $2,092,844 $436.46 4,795
WVClarksburg 96 20.8 $1,058,325 $81.09 13,052
WVMorgantown 75 32.7 $1,058,325 $51.78 20,439
WVParkersburg/Marietta 110 16.1 $2,190,281 $216.77 10,104
WVGreenbrier/White Sulpher Springs 166 11.5 $2,330,725 $323.94 7,195
WYLaramie 145 24.2 $1,215,603 $80.40 15,119
WYWorland 161 8.6 $1,735,814 $321.98 5,391
NYSaranac Lake/Lake Placid 132 15.1 $1,366,538 $144.41 9,463
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: No passengers means that the community suffered a service hiatus during CY 2009.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION

Section 101 prohibits the Office of the Secretary of
Transportation from obligating funds originally provided to a
modal administration in order to approve assessments or
reimbursable agreements, unless the Department follows the
regular process for the reprogramming of funds, including
congressional notification.
Section 102 prohibits the use of funds for an EAS local
participation program.
Section 103 authorizes the Secretary of Transportation or
his designee to engage in activities with States and State
legislatures to consider proposals related to the reduction of
motorcycle fatalities.
Section 104 authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to
transfer to the account called ``Minority Business Outreach''
unexpended balances from the bonding assistance program funded
out of the account ``Office of the Secretary, Salaries and
Expenses.''

Federal Aviation Administration

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal Aviation Administration is responsible for the
safe movement of civil aviation and the evolution of a national
system of airports. The Federal Government's regulatory role in
civil aviation began with the creation of an Aeronautics Branch
within the Department of Commerce pursuant to the Air Commerce
Act of 1926. This act instructed the agency to foster air
commerce; designate and establish airways; establish, operate,
and maintain aids to navigation; arrange for research and
development to improve such aids; issue airworthiness
certificates for aircraft and major aircraft components; and
investigate civil aviation accidents. In the Civil Aeronautics
Act of 1938, these activities were transferred to a new,
independent agency named the Civil Aeronautics Authority.
Congress streamlined regulatory oversight in 1957 with the
creation of two separate agencies, the Federal Aviation Agency
and the Civil Aeronautics Board. When the Department of
Transportation [DOT] began its operations in 1967, the Federal
Aviation Agency was renamed the Federal Aviation Administration
[FAA] and became one of several modal administrations within
DOT. The Civil Aeronautics Board was later phased out with
enactment of the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, and ceased
to exist in 1984. Responsibility for the investigation of civil
aviation accidents was given to the National Transportation
Safety Board in 1967. FAA's mission expanded in 1995 with the
transfer of the Office of Commercial Space Transportation from
the Office of the Secretary, and decreased in December 2001
with the transfer of civil aviation security activities to the
new Transportation Security Administration.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The total recommended program level for the FAA for fiscal
year 2011 amounts to $16,500,000,000, including both new budget
authority and a limitation on the obligation of contract
authority. This funding level is $32,000,000 more than the
budget request and $902,269,000 more than the fiscal year 2010
enacted level.
The following table summarizes the Committee's
recommendations for fiscal year 2011:

OPERATIONS

Appropriations, 2010.................................... $9,350,028,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 9,793,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 9,818,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total of $9,818,000,000 for FAA
operations. This funding level is $25,000,000 more than the
budget request, and $467,972,000 more than the fiscal year 2010
enacted level. The Committee recommendation derives
$4,000,000,000 of the appropriation from the airport and airway
trust fund. The balance of the appropriation will be drawn from
the general fund of the Treasury.
As in past years, FAA is directed to report immediately to
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations in the event
resources are insufficient to operate a safe and effective air
traffic control system.
The Committee continues three provisions enacted in prior
years relating to premium pay, aeronautical charting and
cartography, and Government-issued credit cards.
The following table summarizes the Committee's
recommendation in comparison to the budget estimate and fiscal
year 2010 enacted level:

FAA OPERATIONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-------------------------------------- Committee
2010 enacted 2011 estimate recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Transport Organization............................. $7,299,299,000 $7,630,628,000 $7,660,628,000
Aviation Safety........................................ 1,234,065,000 1,293,986,000 1,308,986,000
Commercial Space Transportation........................ 15,237,000 15,747,000 15,747,000
Financial Services..................................... 113,681,000 114,784,000 114,784,000
Human Resources........................................ 100,428,000 103,297,000 103,297,000
Region and Center Operations........................... 341,977,000 366,354,000 366,354,000
Staff Offices.......................................... 196,063,000 212,255,000 212,255,000
Information Services................................... 49,278,000 55,949,000 55,949,000
Undistributed Decrease................................. ................. ................. -20,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................ 9,350,028,000 9,793,000,000 9,818,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FAA Administrative Expenses.--The Committee recommendation
for FAA Operations includes a decrease of $20,000,000 across
all service units and offices. The Committee remains concerned
over the FAA's management of its appropriations, including the
use of taxpayer dollars to pay for travel expenses and employee
bonuses. The Committee expects the FAA to use its Federal
resources judiciously, and does not believe that providing
retention bonuses to the same employee for repeated years in a
row represents a responsible use of those taxpayer dollars. A
retention bonus should offer a short-term enticement to stay at
the FAA for employees possessing critical and hard-to-replace
skills, thereby giving the agency extra time to find a suitable
replacement. When given every year to a broad spectrum of
employees, however, a retention bonus acts as a loophole in the
Federal administrative process, allowing the FAA to give a
permanent pay raise to certain employees without being held
accountable to the regular administrative requirements. The
Committee is concerned about the FAA's failure to manage this
authority responsibly, and has included bill language directing
the Department's Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration
to be the approving official for any request for a retention
bonus by the FAA during fiscal year 2011.

AIR TRAFFIC ORGANIZATION

Controller Placement.--The Committee includes bill language
directing the FAA to develop an objective test or series of
assessments to help the agency place developmental controllers
at their first facility. The FAA currently does not have a
data-based method for determining the relative strengths and
weaknesses of air traffic controllers leaving the FAA academy
and assigning them to specific facilities based on those
attributes.
At the present time, the FAA administers a test when a
candidate first applies to the FAA. Based on the results of
this test, the FAA assigns each candidate to one of three
categories: not qualified, qualified, and well qualified. This
test has been shown to predict the likelihood that a candidate
will succeed at the FAA Academy, but it has not been proven to
predict the candidate's performance as an air traffic
controller. Furthermore, due to the large number of people
applying to the FAA in comparison to the number of available
positions, the FAA currently accepts only a fraction of the
``well qualified'' candidates. The test therefore reveals no
differences among the candidates entering the academy. Another
examination is conducted at the end of the academy program, but
results of this test are given only as pass or fail, and the
overwhelming majority of candidates pass the exam. As a result
of these limitations, neither test offers the FAA a way to
differentiate among its new air traffic controllers.
The Committee understands that, whenever possible, the
FAA's placement committee will consider the background of
academy graduates when placing them at various air traffic
control facilities. The Committee, however, believes that the
FAA must develop an objective method that can be applied to
each controller and provide reliable results.
The FAA has offered several reasons why it does not place
newly hired air traffic controllers based on specific tests of
their abilities. In response to the Inspector General's report
issued in April on air traffic controller placement, the agency
wrote, ``FAA is not a military organization that shifts and
moves staff at will, rather it is managing a highly skilled,
unionized civilian workforce, whose viewpoints must be factored
into decisionmaking.'' Even while implying that the FAA is not
in a position to impose its own conditions on the placement of
new hires, the agency also wrote, ``Ultimately, the FAA will
select and hire about 500 of the very best, most qualified
candidates from this list, thus screening out 95 percent of the
original applicants.'' The Committee is unable to reconcile
these two claims, and notes that most private sector firms find
they have greater influence in hiring and placing job
applicants when they are able to select from a large number of
interested applicants. It reasons the same should be true for
the FAA.
The FAA has said that it is working to develop a test and
restructure the training at its academy in order to better
place its newly hired controllers. The Committee, however,
notes that this work has been ongoing for no less than 8 years.
While the Committee values thorough and well-researched work,
it is not yet convinced that the FAA places a high priority on
these efforts. The Committee has therefore included bill
language to provide clear direction to the FAA. This bill
language includes requirements that the FAA submit for approval
an initial work plan no more than 60 days after enactment of
the bill, and an assessment of progress made halfway through
the time scheduled under the work plan.
En Route Automation Modernization--Program Support.--The
Committee recommendation includes an additional $20,000,000 for
continued support of the En Route Automation Modernization
[ERAM] program in fiscal year 2011. The FAA established the
ERAM program to replace the computer network for air traffic
control facilities that manage high-altitude traffic.
Modernizing this network is critical to the effective
management of air traffic, and the program is essential to
moving the FAA into the next generation of air traffic control.
As discussed later in this report under the Facilities and
Equipment account, the ERAM program has experienced several
delays over the past year, and the Committee is concerned that
the program will not be able to meet current expectations. Such
delays not only increase the cost of developing software under
the ERAM program, but also increase the FAA's operating costs.
Until the FAA is able rely on ERAM software for managing all of
its high altitude traffic, the agency will continue to pay for
the use and maintenance of its legacy software.
Paying for the continual maintenance of the legacy software
is a cost that the FAA will have to incur for as long as it
takes to develop the new ERAM software. The Committee is
disappointed that the FAA could not develop ERAM on its
original schedule, and questions whether the FAA had a full
understanding of ERAM's complexity at the start of the project.
In comparison, the cost of training and then retraining air
traffic controllers on the new ERAM software represents simple
inefficiency. Pulling controllers out of their regular schedule
puts a scheduling burden on field managers and the workforce,
and the FAA must pay controllers for their time spent in
training in addition to the time spent on their regular duties.
As the lag time grows between the controllers' first training
and the actual implementation of ERAM, the Committee notes that
it is put in the position of covering an entirely avoidable
cost. The Committee therefore urges the FAA to establish a
realistic budget and schedule for the ERAM program.
Performance Based Navigation.--The Committee recommendation
includes an increase of $5,000,000 for activities related to
the development of area navigation [RNAV] and required
navigation performance [RNP] procedures.
For years, the FAA appeared to develop new procedures in a
vacuum. There was no evidence that the FAA prioritized its work
based on identifying and giving priority to those procedures
would result in reduced flight times or energy consumption, or
that the agency considered whether its air traffic controllers
would be able utilize the new procedures. This past fall, the
RTCA Task Force on NextGen Midterm Implementation recommended
that the FAA focus its procedures for performance based
navigation on metroplex areas, complex areas where more precise
procedures and attention to the airspace design could eliminate
inefficiency. The Committee looks forward to seeing the FAA's
plan for implementing this recommendation in a timely manner.
Acquisition Workforce.--On November 19, 2009, an outage
occurred in the FAA's new telecommunications infrastructure
[FTI], which provides for voice, data, and video communications
for more than 4,000 FAA facilities. This outage delayed
thousands of travelers and grounded hundreds of flights across
the Nation. The FAA leases its new telecommunications network
from a private sector company, and the outage occurred when an
engineer from that company incorrectly configured a router in
the network. The outage lasted as long as it did when the
company's automated alert system did not work as intended and
engineers initially pursued the wrong problem.
While responsibility for the outage itself may rest outside
the Federal Government, the FAA is still responsible for
managing our national airspace with or without the use of
private sector contractors. The Inspector General reported this
past June:

``FAA's oversight of the FTI contractor could have been more
effective. FAA was unaware that Harris officials had configured
the network in error and made other procedural errors. In 2008,
we recommended that FAA develop improved controls over the
contractor's FTI equipment configuration and take steps to
prevent unscheduled outages and restore them on time to improve
service reliability. While FAA agreed to take action, we found
it still has problems ensuring FTI services are restored within
contractual requirements.''

The FAA's ability to oversee its contractors becomes an
even larger issue as the agency develops its next generation of
air traffic management. NextGen requires the FAA to oversee a
portfolio of technical programs, each one dependent on the
other. If the FAA fails to oversee one of those programs as it
should, the repercussions may be felt throughout the agency's
NextGen efforts. For this reason, the Committee recommendation
includes an increase of $5,000,000 for activities that will
improve the FAA's acquisition workforce, including hiring
additional FAA employees and training for the current
acquisition workforce.
FAA Public Hearing.--The Committee is concerned that the
Federal Aviation Administration has not made a commitment to
hold a public hearing in Maine during its consideration of the
Air National Guard's environmental impact statement proposing
modifications to the Condor 1 and Condor 2 military operating
areas. The Committee understands that the Air National Guard,
as the lead agency under the National Environmental Policy Act
process, has sought to meet the minimum legal requirements for
public participation and comment under the NEPA process,
including holding four informational forums and a public
hearing at the University of Maine. However, the Committee
notes that the authorization of low altitude military training
in the proposed airspace would impact areas that significantly
contribute to the local economy and areas that are culturally
and environmentally sensitive. In particular, the proposed low
altitude training airspace covers four ski resorts, potential
sites identified for wind energy development, 47,700 acres of a
federally recognized Indian tribe reservation, and 144 miles of
the Appalachian trail. Furthermore, the Committee notes that
the FAA is the only Federal agency that can modify special
airspace and that the Federal Aviation Administration may adopt
the Air National Guard's EIS in whole, or in part, once the
Final EIS has been issued. Therefore, the Committee directs the
FAA to hold a public hearing with representatives from the
relevant Federal agencies in western Maine. In addition, the
Committee directs the FAA to provide a report to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations prior to the issuance of a
record of decision regarding the modification of the Condor 1
and Condor 2 military operations areas that includes a summary
of the public hearing and a list of the comments, questions,
and responses presented at the hearing.

AVIATION SAFETY

Use of Safety Data.--Two years ago, after an FAA
whistleblower exposed the inappropriate relationship between an
airline and the FAA field office charged with overseeing it,
the FAA promised to make better use of its data to supervise
the work of its field offices. FAA started requiring its field
offices to regularly report Air Transportation Oversight System
[ATOS] data to FAA headquarters so that headquarters staff
would be able to see how many inspections were past their
deadlines. Concerned about whether the data reported to
headquarters would result in improved oversight, the Committee
noted in its report accompanying its appropriations bill for
fiscal year 2009 that ``this requirement will not result in any
improvements unless managers at FAA headquarters actually
analyze this data and manage the inspector workforce
accordingly.'' The Committee also directed the Office of the
Inspector General to verify that the appropriate data is being
reported to FAA headquarters and used to oversee field office
operations.
The Office of the Inspector General has since reported to
the Committee that the data provided to FAA headquarters is
incomplete and offers no trend analysis. While aware of the
FAA's efforts to improve its safety data under the Aviation
Safety Information Analysis and Sharing [ASIAS] system, the
Committee is disappointed that the FAA's promise to use ATOS
data to oversee its field offices instead appears to be a
paperwork exercise.
The Committee is particularly disappointed that many
inspection delays are attributed to a lack of resources. The
FAA has explained that not all of the inspections included in
the ATOS system need to be--or even should be--conducted at the
suggested times. According to the FAA, its safety regime is
based on assessments of risk rather than a rigid schedule of
inspection dates, and its safety inspectors are instructed to
apply FAA resources where the data implies a greater risk.
Given this level of discretion, the FAA's claim that a lack of
resources prohibits further inspection appears to be an
unwillingness to accept responsibility for purposeful decisions
in how to apply available resources. The Committee also notes
that for several years in a row it has provided additional
resources for safety inspections above the FAA's budget
request.
The Committee urges the FAA to revisit its use of ATOS and
ASIAS data for overseeing field offices. The Committee also
directs the Inspector General to conduct a full evaluation of
the FAA's efforts in this regard and submit a report to the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations no later than 18
months after the bill's enactment.
Inspector Workforce.--The FAA requested additional funding
to increase the safety inspector workforce by 32 full-time
positions. The Committee appreciates the FAA's proposal to
strengthen the staffing levels for aviation safety, and fully
funds the requested full-time positions. In addition, the
Committee recommendation includes an additional $15,000,000 to
increase the safety inspector workforce by another 150 full-
time positions. With these additional resources, the Committee
directs the FAA to increase the flight standards staff by 110
full-time positions, and to increase the aircraft certification
staff by 40 full-time positions.
The Committee also includes bill language to repeat its
direction to the FAA that the next inspector workforce plan
shall include a benchmark for the amount of time that aviation
inspectors spend in the field directly observing industry
operations. In recent years, the FAA has started to use a risk-
based oversight regime in order to make the best use of its
limited resources. This new approach to safety oversight
requires the agency--and its safety inspectors--to monitor many
details of industry operations, and to analyze all of the data
collected in order to identify areas of risk. Questions have
been raised about the role of safety inspectors, and whether
they are spending too much time at their desks inputting and
analyzing data, and not enough time in the field observing the
facts with their own eyes. The Committee believes it is
necessary to establish a benchmark on inspector workloads so
that the Committee, the FAA, or any other stakeholder in
aviation safety will be able to independently evaluate this
issue.

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2010.................................... $2,936,203,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 2,970,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,970,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Facilities and Equipment appropriation provides funding
for modernizing and improving air traffic control and airway
facilities, equipment, and systems. The appropriation also
finances major capital investments required by other agency
programs, experimental research and development facilities, and
other improvements to enhance the safety and capacity of the
national airspace system [NAS]. The program aims to keep pace
with the increasing demands of aeronautical activity and remain
in accordance with the Federal Aviation Administration's
comprehensive 5-year capital investment plan [CIP].

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,970,000,000
for the Facilities and Equipment account of the Federal
Aviation Administration. The Committee recommendation is equal
to than the budget estimate and $33,797,000 more than the
fiscal year 2010 enacted level. The bill provides that
$4,000,000,000 shall be available for obligation until
September 30, 2013, and $492,000,000 shall be available until
September 30, 2011.
Budget Activities Format.--The Committee directs that the
fiscal year 2011 budget request for the Facilities and
Equipment account conform to the same organizational structure
of budget activities as displayed below.
The Committee's recommended distribution of funds for each
of the budget activities funded by the appropriation follows:

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Committee
2010 enacted 2011 estimate recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Activity 1: Engineering, Development, Test and Evaluation:
Advanced Technology Development and Prototyping............. $42,800,000 $25,500,000 $25,500,000
NAS Improvement of System Support Laboratory................ 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000
William J. Hughes Technical Center Facilities............... 12,000,000 13,000,000 13,000,000
William J. Hughes Technical Center Infrastructure 5,500,000 7,500,000 7,500,000
Sustainment................................................
Next Generation Network Enabled Weather (NNEW).............. 20,000,000 28,250,000 23,250,000
Data Communications in support of Next Generation Air 46,700,000 153,300,000 153,300,000
Transportation System......................................
Next Generation Transportation System Demonstration and 33,773,730 27,000,000 22,000,000
Infrastructure Development.................................
Next Generation Transportation System--System Development... 66,100,000 95,000,000 76,000,000
Next Generation Transportation System--Trajectory Based 63,500,000 58,600,000 46,600,000
Operations.................................................
Next Generation Transportation System--Reduce Weather Im- 35,600,000 43,202,000 34,202,000
pact.......................................................
Next Generation Transportation System--Arrivals/Departures 51,800,000 57,000,000 46,000,000
at High Density Airports...................................
Next Generation Transportation System--Collaborative ATM.... 44,640,770 75,500,000 60,500,000
Next Generation Transportation System--Flexible Terminals 64,300,000 80,700,000 64,700,000
and Airports...............................................
Next Generation Transportation System--Safety, Security and 8,200,000 8,000,000 7,000,000
Environment................................................
Next Generation Transportation System--Systems Networked 24,000,000 35,000,000 28,000,000
Facilities.................................................
Next Generation Transportation System--Integrated Airport... 827,900 .............. ..............
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Activity 1......................................... 520,742,400 708,552,000 608,552,000
===============================================
Activity 2: Procurement and Modernization of Air Traffic Control
Facilities and Equipment:
En Route Programs:
En Route Automation Modernization (ERAM)................ 171,750,000 132,300,000 132,300,000
En Route Automation Modernization (ERAM)--program .............. .............. 50,000,000
support................................................
En Route Communications Gateway (ECG)................... 3,600,000 6,000,000 6,000,000
Next Generation Weather Radar (NEXRAD).................. 6,900,000 6,700,000 6,700,000
Air Traffic Control Command Center (ATCSCC)--Reloca- 10,300,000 2,100,000 2,100,000
tion...................................................
ARTCC Building Improvements/Plant Improvements.......... 50,000,000 36,892,000 36,892,000
Air Traffic Management (ATM)............................ 31,400,000 16,500,000 16,500,000
Air/Ground Communications Infrastructure................ 8,600,000 7,600,000 7,600,000
Air Traffic Control En Route Radar Facilities 5,300,000 5,300,000 5,300,000
Improvements...........................................
ATC Beacon Interrogator (ATCBI)--Replacement............ 4,700,000 .............. ..............
Voice Switch and Control System (VSCS).................. 16,700,000 15,600,000 15,600,000
Oceanic Automation System............................... 7,700,000 4,000,000 4,000,000
Corrider Integrated Weather System (CIWS)............... 2,300,000 .............. ..............
Next Generation Very High Frequency Air/Ground 64,200,000 49,850,000 49,850,000
Communications System (NEXCOM).........................
System-Wide Information Management (SWIM)............... 56,548,000 92,000,000 92,000,000
ADS-B NAS Wide Implementation........................... 201,350,000 176,100,000 188,100,000
Windshear Detection Services............................ 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000
Weather and Radar Processor (WARP)...................... 17,600,000 2,100,000 2,100,000
Collaborative Air Traffic Management Technologies....... 18,100,000 35,900,000 35,900,000
En Route Modernization (ERAM)--Post Release 3........... .............. -5,000,000 5,000,000
Terminal Programs:
Airport Surface Detection Equipment--Model X (ASDE-X)... 25,302,000 4,200,000 4,200,000
Terminal Doppler Weather Radar (TDWR)--Provide.......... 9,900,000 8,600,000 8,600,000
Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System (STARS) 28,000,000 22,000,000 22,000,000
(TAMR Phase 1).........................................
Terminal Automation Modernization/Replacement Program 18,000,000 20,000,000 30,000,000
(TAMR Phase 3).........................................
Terminal Automation Program............................. 9,600,000 3,900,000 3,900,000
Terminal Air Traffic Control Facilities--Replace........ 179,000,000 114,600,000 116,350,000
ATCT/Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) 38,900,000 45,600,000 45,600,000
Facilities--Improve....................................
Terminal Voice Switch Replacement (TVSR)................ 10,500,000 11,500,000 11,500,000
NAS Facilities OSHA and Environmental Standards 26,000,000 26,000,000 26,000,000
Compliance.............................................
Airport Surveillance Radar (ASR-9) Service Life 3,500,000 3,000,000 3,000,000
Extension Program (SLEP)...............................
Terminal Digital Radar (ASR-11) Technology Refresh...... 12,863,000 4,100,000 4,100,000
Precision Runway Monitors (PRM)......................... .............. 950,000 950,000
Runway Status Lights (RWSL)............................. 117,300,000 55,000,000 60,000,000
National Airspace System Voice Switch (NVS)............. 26,600,000 30,200,000 30,200,000
Next Generation Voice Recorder Replacement Program...... 11,900,000 9,400,000 9,400,000
Integrated Display System (IDS)......................... 7,000,000 8,700,000 8,700,000
Airport Surveillance Radar (ASR-8)--Service Life .............. 2,600,000 2,600,000
Extension Program (SLEP)...............................
Integrated Terminal Weather System (ITWS)............... 1,900,000 5,500,000 5,500,000
Terminal Automation Modernization /Replacement Program .............. 3,100,000 3,100,000
(TAMR Phase 2).........................................
Remote Maintenance Monitoring (RMM)..................... 1,000,000 6,500,000 6,500,000
Mode S Service Life Extension Program (SLEP)............ .............. 1,500,000 1,500,000
Flight Service Programs:
Automated Surface Observing System (ASOS)............... 5,500,000 6,700,000 6,700,000
Flight Service Station (FSS) Modernization.............. 20,100,000 21,400,000 21,400,000
Weather Camera Program.................................. 3,800,000 3,200,000 4,200,000
Landing and Navigational Aids Program:
VHF Omnidirectional Radio Range (VOR) with Distance 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000
Measuring Equipment (DME)..............................
Instrument Landing System (ILS)--Establish.............. 12,575,000 7,800,000 7,800,000
Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) for GPS............ 91,000,000 95,000,000 95,000,000
Runway Visual Range (RVR)............................... 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000
Approach Lighting System Improvement Program (ALSIP).... 10,337,000 5,000,000 5,000,000
Distance Measuring Equipment (DME)...................... 6,000,000 4,100,000 4,100,000
Visual Navaids--Establish/Expand........................ 3,700,000 3,800,000 3,800,000
Instrument Flight Procedures Automation (IFPA).......... 7,900,000 600,000 600,000
Navigation and Landing Aids--Service Life Extension 9,000,000 6,000,000 11,000,000
Program (SLEP).........................................
VASI Replacement--Replace with Precision Approach 4,500,000 4,000,000 6,250,000
Indicator..............................................
Global Positioning System (GPS) Civil Requirements...... 43,400,000 58,500,000 58,500,000
Runway Safety Areas--Navigational Mitigation............ .............. 20,000,000 20,000,000
Other ATC Facilities Programs:
Fuel Storage Tank Replacement and Monitoring............ 6,200,000 6,300,000 6,300,000
Unstaffed Infrastructure Sustainment.................... 18,200,000 14,100,000 14,100,000
Aircraft Related Equipment Program...................... 10,000,000 9,000,000 9,000,000
Airport Cable Loop Systems--Sustained Support........... 6,000,000 7,000,000 7,000,000
Alaskan NAS Interfacility Communications System (ANICS). 9,000,000 12,100,000 12,100,000
Facilities Decommissioning.............................. 5,000,000 6,400,000 6,400,000
Electrical Power System--Sustain/Support................ 87,750,100 95,000,000 105,000,000
Aircraft Fleet Modernation (AVS)........................ 5,969,000 .............. ..............
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Activity 2......................................... 1,581,244,100 1,377,892,000 1,474,892,000
===============================================
Activity 3: Procurement and Modernization of Non-Air Traffic
Control Facilities and Equipment:
Support Programs:
Hazardous Materials Management.......................... 20,000,000 20,000,000 20,000,000
Aviation Safety Analysis System (ASAS).................. 10,500,000 14,600,000 14,600,000
Logistics Support System and Facilities (LSSF).......... 9,300,000 11,500,000 11,500,000
National Air Space Recovery Communications (RCOM)....... 10,230,000 15,000,000 15,000,000
Facility Security Risk Management....................... 18,000,000 17,000,000 17,000,000
Information Security.................................... 12,276,000 15,200,000 15,200,000
System Approach for Safety Oversight (SASO)............. 20,000,000 23,400,000 23,400,000
Aviation Safety Knowledge Management Environment (ASKME) 8,100,000 14,800,000 14,800,000
Data Center Optimization................................ .............. 1,956,000 1,956,000
Training, Equipment and Facilities:
Aeronautical Center Infrastructure Modernization........ 13,810,500 15,000,000 15,000,000
Distance Learning....................................... 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
National Airspace System (NAS) Training--Simulator...... 8,200,000 .............. ..............
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Activity 3......................................... 131,916,500 150,456,000 150,456,000
===============================================
Activity 4: Facilities and Equipment Mission Support:
System Support and Support Services:
System Engineering and Development Support.............. 31,700,000 32,300,000 32,300,000
Program Support Leases.................................. 37,500,000 38,600,000 38,600,000
Logistics Support Services (LSS)........................ 11,000,000 11,000,000 11,000,000
Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center Leases................ 16,200,000 16,600,000 16,600,000
Transition Engineering Support.......................... 14,300,000 15,000,000 15,000,000
Frequency and Spectrum Engineering...................... 3,600,000 2,600,000 2,600,000
Technical Support Services Contract (TSSC).............. 22,000,000 22,000,000 22,000,000
Resource Tracking Program (RTP)......................... 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000
Center for Advanced Aviation System Development (CAASD) 82,000,000 80,700,000 83,700,000
Aeronautical Information Management Program............. 10,000,000 18,300,000 18,300,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Activity 4........................................... 232,300,000 241,100,000 244,100,000
===============================================
Activity 5: Personnel Compensation, Benefits, and Travel:
Personnel and Related Expenses.............................. 470,000,000 492,000,000 492,000,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total, All Activities..................................... 2,936,203,000 2,970,000,000 2,970,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ACTIVITY 1: ENGINEERING, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION

Next Generation Network Enabled Weather.--The Committee
recommendation includes $23,250,000 for the Next Generation
Network Enabled Weather program. This funding level is
$5,000,000 less than the budget request and $3,250,000 more
than the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. The Committee is
disappointed in the FAA's continued trouble with coordinating
work across different parts of the agency. This challenge with
coordination is part of what prevents the FAA from defining
requirements for the Next Generation Network Enabled Weather
program and beginning an acquisition process for it.
Next Generation Air Transportation System Solution Sets.--
The FAA has grouped together engineering, development, testing
and evaluation activities that support different aspects of the
next generation air transportation system. In the budget
request for fiscal year 2011, the FAA requests funding for nine
of these ``solution sets'', with one dedicated to each of the
following topics: system development; trajectory-based
operations; reduced weather impact; arrivals and departures at
high density airports; collaborative air traffic management;
flexible terminals and airports; safety, security and
environment; and systems networked facilities.
The activities funded by these ``solution sets'' are
designed to determine how new approaches to air transportation
can be translated into actual technologies, programs, and
practices at the FAA. The Committee recognizes that the results
of this work will be, by their nature, less predictable than
most other projects funded in the Facilities and Equipment
account. The FAA may at times determine that some of the ideas
tested with this funding may not offer enough benefits to
justify further investment. The value of these activities lies
in producing better information on which the FAA will base its
investment decisions.
The Committee, however, is concerned about whether the FAA
will be able to make decisions at the pace it had anticipated.
The NextGen enterprise architecture lays out a series of
decision points, or target dates for making certain decisions,
and the FAA is already experiencing difficulties in meeting
these decision points. In 2009, the FAA failed to meet 6 of the
13 decision points the agency had identified as a high
priority. For the current year to date, the FAA is on track to
meet only one-half of the 12 decision points identified as high
priority. FAA expects to miss four of these high priority
decision points, and it considers the remaining two to be at
risk.
The FAA failed to meet several of its decision points
because the FAA only considers the business case of individual
programs. The agency has not developed a system for considering
whether or not to invest in a portfolio of related programs. In
order to build NextGen, however, the FAA will need to invest in
sets of integrated systems that do not always produce benefits
on their own. Until it develops a system for considering a
portfolio of programs, the FAA will continue to miss decision
points for important programs.
Because the Committee is not convinced that the FAA is
making sufficient progress in these ``solution sets'', the
Committee recommendation redirects funding from these
activities to other programs within the Facilities and
Equipment account. The Committee recommendation includes a
total of $385,002,000 for the solution sets. This funding level
is $95,000,000 less than the budget request and $7,740,000 less
than the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. The Committee also
directs the FAA to submit a spend plan to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations no later than 60 days after
enactment, and include in the spend plan a description of each
project funded out of each of the ``solution sets''; the
funding allocated to each project for fiscal year 2011, and the
total cost of each project; and milestones and decision dates
for each project with an explanation for how those milestones
and decision dates align with the NextGen enterprise
architecture.

ACTIVITY 2: PROCUREMENT AND MODERNIZATION OF AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL
FACILITIES

En Route Programs

En Route Automation Modernization--Program Support.--Under
the En Route Automation Modernization [ERAM] program, the FAA
is replacing the computer network for the air traffic control
facilities that manage high-altitude traffic. Modernizing this
network is critical to allowing the FAA to continue managing
air traffic effectively. It is also an essential component of
moving the FAA into the next generation of air traffic control.
The FAA established an aggressive schedule for the ERAM
program, and for most of the program's life, the agency was
able to keep it on time and on budget. Last year, however, the
program experienced several delays when program managers began
to implement ERAM at two key sites, Salt Lake City and Seattle.
The Committee also began to hear two different stories about
the condition of the ERAM program. The FAA maintained that the
program was developing well, but the air traffic controllers
who worked at the facilities and tested the software described
significant problems with the software.
To date, the delays in the ERAM schedule have not been
large enough to cause the program to exceed its baseline budget
or schedule, but the Committee remains concerned that the
program will not be able to meet current expectations. In the
meantime, delays in the ERAM program require the FAA to
continue supporting its legacy system longer than the agency
had planned, adding costs to the agency's budget. The Committee
recognizes the importance of the ERAM program, and the central
role it plays in the FAA's efforts to modernize its air traffic
control system. For this reason, the Committee recommendation
includes an additional $50,000,000 for continued support of the
ERAM program.
ADS-B NAS-wide Implementation.--Under the Automatic
Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast program, or ADS-B, the FAA is
developing satellite-based technology that will allow aircraft
to broadcast their precise location, identification, and flight
plan information to ground facilities as well as to other
aircraft. Because ADS-B offers more accurate and more complete
data than radar technology, an air transportation system based
on ADS-B will be able to operate more efficiently and
accommodate more aircraft than the current system.
Although the Committee is pleased to see that the ADS-B
program continues to progress and meet its milestones, the
Committee is still not convinced that the FAA leadership is
doing enough to achieve all of the benefits possible under ADS-
B. The FAA has contented itself with developing an ADS-B
baseline that will merely replicate the capabilities of its
current radar system, and the agency continues to request only
those funds that are necessary to accomplish this first
baseline program. The Committee, however, does not believe that
such a conservative approach will accomplish all of the
agency's goals for the next generation air transportation
system.
The RTCA's NextGen Mid-Term Implementation Task Force,
published this past September, identified guiding principles
for its work. Those principles included the following:

``It's about implementation . . . Our ability to
successfully implement beneficial operational capabilities will
translate into users' TRUST in NextGen Implementation Plan
[NGIP].'' [Emphasis is in the original.]
``It's about transition . . . We've learned we're a lot
better at planning than EXECUTING. Planning is relatively
straightforward and does not require commitment. The transition
to NextGen will be tough.'' [Emphasis is in the original.]

These two statements reflect the same priorities that form
the basis of the Committee's concern over FAA's management of
its next generation programs. The Committee urges the FAA to
focus on achieving new capabilities over the life of its next
generation programs, instead of planning on what capabilities
will develop after a program is declared to be over.
In recent years, in the absence of proposals from the FAA
itself, the Committee has provided additional resources for the
ADS-B program for pilot programs designed to test new
capabilities using ADS-B technology. Under the first pilot
program, the FAA created safety and operating requirements to
expedite the development of ADS-B ``In'' capabilities, which
allow aircraft to transmit data directly to one another. Under
the second pilot program, the FAA is testing the use of ADS-B
technology in achieving three nautical mile separation
standards.
Because of the progress that the ADS-B program has made
under these two pilot programs, and because the FAA has not
requested any additional funds to build on these pilot
programs, the Committee again recommends additional resources
above the amounts requested by the FAA. The Committee
recommendation includes $12,000,000 more than the budget
request, and directs the FAA to use these resources to further
expedite the development of ADS-B ``In'' capabilities.

Terminal Programs

Terminal Automation Modernization/Replacement Program.--The
Committee recommendation includes $30,000,000 for the
replacement of outdated automation equipment at air traffic
control towers and at terminal facilities. This funding level
is $10,000,000 more than the budget request and $12,000,000
more than the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. Automation
systems process data and display the information for air
traffic controllers. The older equipment is limited in its
capacity, and it is not immediately compatible with modern air
traffic control technology such as ADS-B. The Committee
recommendation includes additional funding in order to expedite
the replacement of outdated automation technology and support
the FAA's transition to the next generation of air traffic
technology.
Terminal Air Traffic Control Facilities.--The Committee
recommendation includes $116,100,000 for new and replacement
air traffic control towers, and projects that consolidate air
traffic control towers with terminal radar approach control
facilities. This funding level is $1,500,000 more than the
budget request, and $62,900,000 less than the fiscal year 2010
enacted level. Of the total funding level included in the
Committee recommendation, the Committee directs the FAA to
allocate $1,500,000 to the Lihue Airport in Hawaii and $250,000
to the Greenwood-Leflore Airport control tower in Mississippi.
Runway Status Lights.--The Committee recommendation
includes $60,000,000 for the procurement and installation of
runway status lights. This funding level is $5,000,000 more
than the budget request and $57,300,000 less than the fiscal
year 2010 enacted level. Runway status lights are an important
part of the FAA's effort to fulfill a recommendation by the
National Transportation Safety Board to improve runway safety
by giving ``immediate warnings of probable collisions or
incursions directly to flight crews in the cockpit.'' The
Committee directs that $1,000,000 of the funding provided for
fiscal year 2011 be used to implement runway status lights at
Honolulu International Airport, Hawaii.

Flight Service Programs

Weather Cameras.--In places where terrain or rapidly
changing weather patterns lead to incomplete data on weather
conditions, weather cameras offer a cost effective way to give
pilots better information about the situation they will
confront along their planned route. Inexpensive, commercially
available cameras provide up-to-date images every 10 minutes,
and those images allow pilots to make informed decisions about
whether it is safe to fly at that time. The Committee
recommendation provides $4,200,000 for the weather camera
program in fiscal year 2011. This funding level is $1,000,000
more than the budget request, and $400,000 more than the fiscal
year 2010 enacted level. The Committee directs the FAA to use
$1,000,000 for the procurement and installation of weather
cameras in the State of Hawaii.

LANDING AND NAVIGATIONAL AIDS PROGRAM

Runway Visual Range.--The Committee recommendation includes
$5,000,000 for the Runway Visual Range program. This funding
level is equal to the budget request and the fiscal year 2010
enacted level. Runway visual range equipment provides air
traffic controllers and pilots with important information on
visibility. The Committee directs the FAA to submit to the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a report
detailing the agency's plans for procuring and installing
runway visual range equipment.
Distance Measuring Equipment.--The Committee recommendation
includes $4,100,000 for distance measuring equipment. This
funding level is equal to the budget request and $1,900,000
less than the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. Distance
measuring equipment is an important part of the instrument
landing system that helps guide an aircraft during its final
approach to landing. The FAA has certified only one supplier of
distance measuring equipment, and the Committee is concerned
that delays in certification may eliminate the benefits that
competition can provide for equipment procurements. The
Committee urges the FAA to consider additional suppliers of
distance measuring equipment in accordance with all functional,
stability and reliability requirements.
Navigation and Landing Aids--Service Life Extension Program
[SLEP].--The Committee notes that Runway End Identifier Lights
[REILs] improve airport safety by clearly indicating to pilots
the approach end of the runway. The Committee recommendation
includes $11,000,000 for navigation and landing aids. This
funding level is an increase of $5,000,000 more than the budget
request, and $2,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2010 enacted
level. The Committee directs the FAA to use these additional
funds for the procurement and installation of additional REIL
systems.
VASI Replacement--Replace With Precision Approach Path
Indicator.--The FAA began to deploy Visual Approach Slope
Indicator [VASI] systems in the 1960s to provide visual descent
guidance to pilots as they approached an airport runway. Since
that time, the international standard for these lighting
systems has grown more sophisticated, and the FAA must now
replace its VASI systems with Precision Approach Path Indicator
[PAPI] systems to comply with the new standards.
The Committee supports bringing FAA equipment into
compliance with international standards, and recommends
$6,250,000 for the replacement of VASI lighting systems with
PAPI lighting systems. This funding level is $2,250,000 more
than the budget request and $1,750,000 more than the fiscal
year 2010 enacted level. The Committee directs the FAA to use
the additional funding to procure additional PAPI systems.

OTHER ATC FACILITIES PROGRAMS

Electrical Power System.--The Committee recommendation
includes $105,000,000 for investment in the electrical power
system that sustains the FAA's air traffic control system. This
funding level is $10,000,000 more than the budget request and
$17,249,900 more than the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. The
Committee recognizes the poor condition of the power system
infrastructure for FAA facilities, and provides additional
resources to improve reliability.

ACTIVITY 3: PROCUREMENT AND MODERNIZATION OF NON-AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL
FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

Support Programs

Facility Security Risk Management.--FAA air traffic control
facilities are a vital part of the Nation's transportation
network, and the air traffic controllers who work in these
facilities protect the safety of our pilots, air crew, and
passengers every day. The Committee understands that
improvements are necessary at the Seattle terminal radar
approach facility to continue protecting the safety and
security of this facility and the people who work there. The
Committee directs the FAA to take all measures recommended for
securing its air traffic control facilities, including the
Seattle terminal radar approach facility.

ACTIVITY 4: FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT MISSION SUPPORT

Center for Advanced Aviation System Development.--The
Committee recommendation includes $83,700,000 for the Center
for Advanced Aviation System Development. This funding level is
$3,000,000 more than the budget request and $700,000 more than
the fiscal year 2010 enacted level.

RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, AND DEVELOPMENT

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2010.................................... $190,500,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 190,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 198,750,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Research, Engineering and Development appropriation
provides funding for long-term research, engineering, and
development programs to improve the air traffic control system
by increasing its safety and capacity, as well as reducing the
environmental impacts of air traffic, as authorized by the
Airport and Airway Improvement Act and the Federal Aviation
Act, as amended. The programs are designed to meet the expected
air traffic demands of the future and to promote flight safety
through improvements in facilities, equipment, techniques, and
procedures in order to ensure that the system will safely and
efficiently handle future volumes of aircraft traffic.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $198,750,000 for the FAA's
research, engineering, and development activities. The
recommended level of funding is $8,750,000 more than the budget
request and $8,250,000 more than the fiscal year 2010 enacted
level.
A table showing the fiscal year 2010 enacted level, the
fiscal year 2011 budget estimate, and the Committee
recommendation follows:

RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, AND DEVELOPMENT
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-------------------------------- Committee
2010 enacted 2011 estimate recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improve Aviation Safety:
Fire Research and Safety.................................... 7,799,000 7,231,000 7,231,000
Propulsion and Fuel Systems................................. 3,105,000 2,332,000 2,332,000
Advanced Structural/Structural Safety....................... 4,935,000 2,566,000 4,316,000
Atmospheric Hazards--Aircraft Icing/Digital System Safety... 4,482,000 6,635,000 6,635,000
Continued Airworthiness..................................... 10,944,000 10,801,000 10,801,000
Aircraft Catasprohic Failure Prevention Research............ 1,545,000 1,165,000 1,165,000
Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors..... 7,128,000 7,174,000 7,174,000
System Safety Management.................................... 12,698,000 11,907,000 12,907,000
Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human Factors...... 10,302,000 10,475,000 10,475,000
Aeromedical Research........................................ 10,378,000 11,217,000 10,217,000
Weather Program............................................. 16,789,000 16,505,000 16,505,000
Unmanned Aircraft Systems Research.......................... 3,467,000 3,694,000 3,694,000
NextGen Alternative Fuels for General Aviation.............. .............. 2,000,000 2,000,000
Improve Efficiency:
Joint Planning and Development Office....................... 14,407,000 14,292,000 14,292,000
NextGen: Wake Turbulence.................................... 10,631,000 10,685,000 10,685,000
NextGen: Air Ground Integration Human Factors............... 5,688,000 10,614,000 10,614,000
NextGen: Self-Separation Human Factors...................... 8,247,000 9,971,000 9,971,000
NextGen: Weather Technology in the Cockpit.................. 9,570,000 9,312,000 9,312,000
Reduce Environmental Impact:
Environment and Energy...................................... 15,522,000 15,374,000 15,374,000
NextGen Environmental Research--Aircraft Technologies, Fuels 26,509,000 20,600,000 27,600,000
and Metrics................................................
Mission Support:
System Planning and Resource Management..................... 1,766,000 1,733,000 1,733,000
William J. Hughes Technical Ceneter Laboratory Facility..... 4,588,000 3,717,000 3,717,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 190,500,000 190,000,000 198,750,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ADVANCED STRUCTURAL/STRUCTURAL SAFETY

Advance Materials in Transport Aircraft Structures.--The
Committee recommendation includes $750,000 for research and
development of composite materials in transport aircraft
structures at the Advance Materials in Transport Aircraft
Structures Center in Seattle, Washington.
Advanced Materials Research.--The Committee recommendation
includes $500,000 for the National Institute for Aviation
Research at Wichita State University in Wichita, Kansas, to
enhance ongoing aviation safety research in the areas of
metallic and non-metallic structures, crashworthiness and aging
aircraft effects. The advanced material applications, composite
repair, health monitoring, and other research that will be
conducted by the National Institute for Aviation Research will
be crucial to maintaining the safety of aging aircraft still in
service. The funding will be used to purchase new equipment,
hire technical personnel and conduct research in advanced
materials.
Nondestructive Inspection Training for Composite Airframe
Structures.--The Committee recommendation includes $500,000 for
research that will lead to a systematic approach to providing
for the safe use of composite and other advanced materials.
This will directly support the composite safety and
certification initiatives to develop related policy, guidance
and training. The funding will be used for technical personnel,
facilities, and equipment or the National Institute of Aviation
Research to provide comprehensive education and training for
composite airframe maintenance and airworthiness.

UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS RESEARCH

FAA Centers of Excellence.--The Committee is aware of the
numerous issues facing FAA as technology develops to aid the
integration of unmanned aerial vehicles into the national air
space. The need for this integration is even more urgent given
the recent Deepwater Horizon issue and the vital role that
unmanned aerial systems [UAS] can play in times of national
emergency. The Committee directs the FAA to establish an FAA
Unmanned Aerial System Center of Excellence [COE] to address a
host of issues surrounding integration of UAS systems into the
National Airspace System during times of emergency and utilize
these lessons learned to provide essential data to the Center
as it works toward non-emergency integration. The Committee
further directs that the new COE shall: provide recommendations
for a safe, non-exclusionary airspace designation for
cooperative manned and unmanned flight operations; conduct
research to support UAS interagency requirements to include
emergency response, maritime contingencies, and bio-fuel clean
fuel technologies; conduct flight testing of UAS and related
navigation procedures and equipment; encourage leveraging and
coordination of such research and development activities with
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the
Department of Defense; provide recommendations on
certification, flight standards, and air traffic requirements;
and facilitate UAS technology transfer to other civilian and
defense agencies, initially focusing upon emergency management.
The Administrator shall take into consideration geographical
and climate diversity, access to unencumbered and sufficiently
large military operations areas [MOAs], relevant research
capability, and participating consortia from the public and
private sectors, educational institutions, and nonprofit
organizations.

SAFETY SYSTEM MANAGEMENT

Alaska Aviation Safety Project.--The Committee
recommendation includes $1,000,000 for the Alaska Aviation
Safety Project [AASP] for research involving simulation
training, in-cockpit navigational aids, two-way wireless data
tethers, and other flight safety enhancements. Over the last
decade, there were a total of 107 fatal aviation accidents in
the State of Alaska, and those accidents claimed 236 lives. The
AASP conducts research with the goal of reducing the frequency
of such accidents.

NEXTGEN ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH--AIRCRAFT TECHNOLOGIES, FUELS AND
METRICS

Continuous Lower Energy Emissions and Noise Program.--The
Committee recommendation includes $27,600,000 for NextGen
environmental research--aircraft technologies, fuels and
metrics. This funding level is $7,000,000 more than the budget
request and $1,091,000 more than the fiscal year 2010 enacted
level. The Committee recommendation includes this funding
increase to support the FAA's Continuous Lower Energy Emissions
and Noise [CLEEN] program, which focuses on reducing aircraft
noise, improving air quality, cutting greenhouse gas emissions
and energy consumption, and developing alternative aviation jet
fuels.

GRANTS-IN-AID FOR AIRPORTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liquidation of
contract Limitation on
authorization obligations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation, 2010...................... $3,000,000,000 $3,515,000,000
Budget estimate, 2011................. 3,550,000,000 3,515,000,000
Committee recommendation.............. 3,550,000,000 3,515,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Funding for grants-in-aid to airports pays for capital
improvements at the Nation's airports, including those
investments that emphasize capacity development, safety
improvements, and security needs. Other priority areas for
funding under this program include improvements to runway
safety areas that do not conform to FAA standards, investments
that are designed to reduce runway incursions, and aircraft
noise compatibility planning and programs.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of
$3,515,000,000 for grants-in-aid to airports for fiscal year
2011, which is equal to the budget estimate and the fiscal year
2010 enacted level. The Committee recommendation is sufficient
to continue the important tasks of enhancing airport and airway
safety, ensuring that airport standards continue to be met,
maintaining existing airport capacity, and developing
additional capacity.
In addition, the Committee recommends a liquidating cash
appropriation of $3,550,000,000 for grants-in-aid to airports.
The recommended level is equal to the budget estimate and
$550,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. This
appropriation is sufficient to cover the liquidation of all
obligations incurred pursuant to the limitation on obligations
set forward in the bill.
Airport Discretionary Grants.--Of the funds covered by the
obligation limitation in this bill, the Committee directs FAA
to provide funding, out of available resources, for those
projects listed in the table below in the corresponding
amounts. The Committee agrees that State apportionment funds
may be construed as discretionary funds for the purposes of
implementing this provision. To the maximum extent possible,
the Administrator should work to ensure that airport sponsors
for these projects first use available entitlement funds to
finance the projects. However, the FAA should not require
sponsors to apply carryover entitlement to discretionary
projects funded in the coming year, but only those entitlements
applicable to the fiscal year 2011 obligation limitation. The
Committee further directs that the specific funding allocated
in the table below shall not diminish or prejudice the
application of a specific airport or geographic region to
receive other AIP discretionary grants or multi-year letters of
intent.

AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
State Airport name Project purpose recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AL.................................... Tuscaloosa Regional Airport For taxiway extension and $500,000
runway environmental
assessment.
AL.................................... Huntsville-Madison County For apron expansion....... 500,000
Airport.
AL.................................... Lanett Municipal Airport, For runway construction... 1,500,000
Lanett.
GA.................................... Middle Georgia Regional For runway extension...... 1,400,000
Airport, Macon.
IL.................................... Quincy Airport............. For airfield improvements. 600,000
KS.................................... Metropolitan Topeka Airport For hangar restoration.... 400,000
Authority.
ME.................................... Augusta Regional Airport... For runway reconstruction 1,000,000
and safety improvements.
MO.................................... Lawrence Smith Memorial For runway expansion and 2,000,000
Airport. hangar construction.
MO.................................... Macon-Fowler Memorial For the design, grading 1,600,000
Airport. and construction of
extending and widening of
the runway.
MO.................................... Warsaw Municipal Airport... For the design, grading 1,500,000
and construction of
extending and widening
the runway.
MS.................................... Gulfport-Biloxi Regional For taxiway and runway 2,000,000
Airport. construction.
MS.................................... Tunica Airport............. For terminal expansion.... 1,500,000
MS.................................... Jackson Municipal Airport For runway improvements... 2,000,000
Authority.
ND.................................... Devils Lake Regional....... For runway improvements... 1,000,000
ND.................................... Grand Forks International.. For terminal replacement.. 2,500,000
NV.................................... Reno-Tahoe International For improvements to the 500,000
Airport. Reno Stead Airport
Emergency Operations
Center.
SD.................................... Rapid City Regional Airport For terminal expansion.... 500,000
TN.................................... Memphis International For seismic taxiway 1,000,000
Airport. retrofits.
UT.................................... Provo Municipal Airport.... For aircraft parking and 2,000,000
staging ramp.
WI.................................... New Richmond Regional For land acquisition for 1,000,000
Airport. runway approaches and
hangar area development.
WI.................................... Wittman Regional Airport... For the reconstruction of 800,000
a terminal ramp and
taxiway.
WV.................................... West Virginia Statewide For various improvements 1,000,000
Airport Activities. to airports in WV.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Administrative Expenses.--The Committee recommends
$99,708,000 to cover administrative expenses. This funding
level is $500,000 less than the budget request, and $6,286,000
more than the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. The Committee
recommendation does not include $500,000 requested to produce a
video that follows an air passenger throughout their travels.
According to the budget request, this video would be compared
with subsequent videos covering the same travel 10 and 20 years
later. These videos are meant to highlight the impact of
various airport and air traffic improvements. While this
request is small in comparison to the total funding requested
to cover administrative expenses, the Committee does not
believe that such videos represent a responsible use of
taxpayer dollars.
Airport Cooperative Research.--The Committee recommends
$15,000,000 for the airport cooperative research program. This
funding level is equal to the budget estimate and the fiscal
year 2010 enacted level.
Airport Technology.--The Committee recommends $27,217,000
for airport technology research. This funding level is the same
as the budget request, and $4,745,000 more than the fiscal year
2010 level.
Small Community Air Service Development Program [SCASDP].--
The Committee recommends $6,000,000 for the Small Community Air
Service Development Program. This funding level is equal to the
fiscal year 2010 enacted level. The administration requested no
funds for this program for fiscal year 2011.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

Section 110 limits the number of technical staff years at
the Center for Advanced Aviation Systems Development to no more
than 600 in fiscal year 2009.
Section 111 prohibits funds in this act to be used to adopt
guidelines or regulations requiring airport sponsors to provide
the FAA ``without cost'' buildings, maintenance, or space for
FAA services. The prohibition does not apply to negotiations
between the FAA and airport sponsors concerning ``below
market'' rates for such services or to grant assurances that
require airport sponsors to provide land without cost to the
FAA for air traffic control facilities.
Section 112 permits the Administrator to reimburse FAA
appropriations for amounts made available for 49 U.S.C.
41742(a)(1) as fees are collected and credited under 49 U.S.C.
45303.
Section 113 allows funds received to reimburse the FAA for
providing technical assistance to foreign aviation authorities
to be credited to the Operations account.
Section 114 prohibits funds limited in this act for the
Airport Improvement Program to be provided to an airport that
refuses a request from the Secretary of Transportation to use
public space at the airport for the purpose of conducting
outreach on air passenger rights.
Section 115 prohibits the FAA from paying Sunday premium
pay except in those cases where the individual actually worked
on a Sunday.
Section 116 prohibits the FAA from using funds provided in
the bill to purchase store gift cards or gift certificates
through a Government-issued credit card.
Section 117 allows all airports experiencing the required
level of boardings through charter and scheduled air service to
be eligible for funds under 49 U.S.C. 47114(c).
Section 118 requires approval from the Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Administration of the Department of
Transportation for retention bonuses for any FAA employee.
Section 119 limits to 20 percent the cost-share required
under the contract tower cost-share program.

Federal Highway Administration

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The principal mission of the Federal Highway Administration
[FHWA] is, in partnership with State and local governments, to
foster the development of a safe, efficient, and effective
highway and intermodal system nationwide including access to
and within national forests, national parks, Indian lands, and
other public lands.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

Under the Committee recommendations, a total program level
of $42,626,869,000 would be provided for the activities of the
Federal Highway Administration in fiscal year 2011. The
recommendation is $413,225,000 more than the budget request.
The recommendation is also $161,960,000 less than the fiscal
year 2010 enacted level. The following table summarizes the
Committee's recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-------------------------------------- Committee
2010 enacted 2011 estimate recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-aid highway program obligation limitation...... $41,107,000,000 $41,362,775,000 $41,776,000,000
Planning capacity grants............................... ................. \1\ [200,000,000] 200,000,000
Additional investments in highway infrastructure....... 650,000,000 ................. .................
Surface transportation priorities/investments.......... 292,829,000 ................. 175,269,000
Emergency relief and equity bonus exempt contract 739,000,000 739,000,000 739,000,000
author- ity..........................................
Rescission of unused contract authority................ ................. -263,131,000 -263,131,000
--------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................ 42,788,829,000 41,838,644,000 42,627,138,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The administration requested this funding as part of the obligation limitation for the Federal-aid highways
program.

LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Limitation, 2010........................................ $413,533,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 420,843,000
Committee recommendation................................ 417,843,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This limitation on obligations provides for the salaries
and expenses of the Federal Highway Administration for program
management, direction, and coordination; engineering guidance
to Federal and State agencies; and advisory and support
services in field offices.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of
$417,843,000 for administrative expenses of the agency. This
limitation is $3,000,000 less than the budget request and
$4,310,000 more than the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. The
Committee is concerned that the travel expenses included in the
budget request do not represent a responsible use of taxpayer
dollars.
In addition, $3,300,000 in contract authority above this
limitation is made available for the administrative expenses of
the Appalachian Regional Commission in accordance with section
104 of title 23, United States Code.
Reimbursements for the OIG.--For the past several years,
the Committee has directed that contract authority originally
provided for FHWA's administrative expenses be transferred to
the OIG for the cost of audits and investigations of highway
programs. The Committee also directed that additional amounts
of contract authority be used to reimburse the OIG for the cost
of auditing FHWA's financial statements. In order to simplify
the relationship between the OIG and the agencies that it
audits, the Committee recommendation provides all funding for
OIG activities directly to the OIG itself. Therefore, the
Committee has not included any language directing that contract
authority be transferred or reimbursed to the OIG. This change
has no impact on the Committee recommendation for FHWA's
limitation on administrative expenses, and it has no impact on
the level of resources available to the agency for those
expenses.

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Limitation, 2010........................................ $41,107,000,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 41,362,775,000
Committee recommendation................................ 41,776,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal-aid highways program provides financial support
to States and localities for development, construction, and
repair of highways and bridges through grants. The program is
financed from the Highway Trust Fund and most of the funds are
distributed through apportionments and allocations to States.
Title 23 of the United States Code and other supporting
legislation provide authority for the various activities of the
FHWA. Funding is provided by contract authority, with program
levels established by annual limitations on obligations set in
appropriations acts.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends limiting fiscal year 2011 Federal-
aid highways obligations to $41,776,000,000 which is
$413,225,000 more than the budget request, and $669,000,000
more than the fiscal year 2010 enacted level for the Federal-
aid highway program.
Within the overall limitation on fiscal year 2011 Federal-
aid highway obligations, the Committee recommends limiting
fiscal year 2011 obligations on transportation research to
$429,800,000. The recommendation for transportation research is
equal to the budget request. This specific limitation controls
spending for the transportation research and technology
programs of the FHWA, and it includes the intelligent
transportation systems; surface transportation research;
technology deployment, training and education; university
transportation research; and the Bureau of Transportation
Statistics.
In addition, the bill includes a provision that allows the
FHWA to collect and spend fees in order to pay for the services
of expert firms in the field of municipal and project finance
to assist the agency in the provision of TIFIA credit
instruments.
Discretionary Planning Grants.--Under its budget request,
the administration would provide grants to metropolitan
planning organizations and other planning agencies through set-
asides from the obligation limitation and the contract
authority from apportioned programs of the Federal-aid highways
program. Planning agencies would use these grants to improve
their capacity to fulfill requirements under current law, as
well as conduct more comprehensive planning that coordinates
housing and transportation development. The Committee
recommendation includes funding for similar grants, but the
Committee has chosen not to fund the grants under the Federal-
aid obligation limitation or by setting aside contract
authority from any of the apportioned highway programs.
Research.--Under the current extension of the surface
transportation programs, the Department was given additional
flexibility in distributing funds among highway research
projects. That extension, however, was passed several months
ago, and the Department still has not been able to communicate
its plan for funding highway-related research. The Committee
believes that the Department should move forward with its
research program, and not delay the productive use of funding
provided for research. The Committee directs the Department to
continue to support and fund ongoing research programs and
projects authorized in title V of public law 109-59 during
fiscal years 2010 and 2011. The Committee believes that the
Department should continue funding high priority areas of
research: infrastructure, including pavement and bridges;
planning and environment; operations; highway safety; policy,
including work to sustain the Highway Trust Fund; and
exploratory advanced research and the Turner Fairbanks Highway
Research Center.
Bridge Oversight.--Three years ago, the Interstate 35W
bridge in Minneapolis, Minnesota, suddenly collapsed during an
evening rush hour. Thirteen people died and 145 were injured as
a result. The collapse of this bridge called attention to the
deteriorating condition of our Nation's bridges and
transportation infrastructure. There are almost 6,000 bridges
across the country, and although it is unlikely that another
bridge will collapse, the consequences of such an event would
again be catastrophic. Furthermore, our economy relies on the
condition of its transportation infrastructure to allow
travelers and freight to move easily and efficiently.
After the collapse of the Minneapolis bridge, FHWA promised
improvements to its oversight of bridge maintenance. The agency
began a number of initiatives, including the implementation of
a more data-driven, risk-based method of overseeing bridge
safety. This kind of approach would enable FHWA to focus its
limited resources on areas with the greatest need.
Last year, the Office of the Inspector General [OIG] issued
a report evaluating FHWA's implementation of its new data-
driven, risk-based oversight. The OIG found significant holes
in the new oversight regime. When the FHWA conducted its
compliance reviews and assessments, the OIG found that the
division offices made limited use of the agency's data and
conducted their work inconsistently from office to office. The
OIG attributed these shortcomings to the fact that managers at
FHWA headquarters provided no minimum requirements for the
division offices to follow. The OIG also found that
headquarters staff themselves did not routinely use data in
order to focus agency resources on the highest risk areas.
Finally, the OIG reported that FHWA did not take an active
approach in helping States improve the quality of data
collected on bridges, a shortcoming that could undermine any
effort to base agency efforts on high risk areas identified
through data analysis.
The OIG's report included five recommendations for FHWA,
and the agency concurred with each one. In its appropriations
act for fiscal year 2010, the Committee directed the OIG to
provide an update on its report, detailing the progress that
FHWA has made in meeting these five recommendations. Since the
OIG had also acknowledged that FHWA's efforts are limited in
part by a lack of resources, the Committee also provided an
additional $5,000,000 that FHWA has dedicated to hiring
additional staff to work on bridge oversight, improving its
bridge data systems, and other investments to strengthen its
oversight.
Based on information from the OIG, the Committee
understands that FHWA has acted on all five recommendations
from the 2009 report. The OIG, however, has closed only one of
the recommendations to date.
Although FHWA is making progress in improving its oversight
of bridge maintenance, the Committee believes this progress is
being made too slowly. The Committee also believes that the
continued vigilance of the OIG plays a large role in ensuring
that FHWA follows through on its promises. Therefore, the
Committee directs the OIG to provide a second evaluation of
FHWA's progress in fulfilling each of the recommendations given
in its report on the national bridge inspection program (Report
Number MH-2009-013) and to submit a report to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations with its findings no later
than September 1, 2010.
Off-system Bridges.--The Committee would like to see off-
system bridge funding continue to be available through the
reauthorization legislation. This 15 percent set aside for
bridges not on the Federal-aid system has been in place since
1978, when it became apparent that many of these bridges were
in poor condition. Over the last 30 years, the set aside has
been of substantial help to county governments in their efforts
to upgrade these facilities. In fiscal year 2009, about
$777,000,000 of the $5,200,000,000 Federal bridge program was
spent on off-system bridges.
There are approximately 285,000 off-system bridges in the
United States out of a total of 601,000 bridges. While there
are many off-system bridges in urban areas, most tend to be in
rural communities. In rural America, 258,000 of the 456,000
bridges are not on the Federal-aid system. These are the
bridges that serve the agriculture, tourism, mining and logging
industries. These are the bridges that carry thousands of
school buses each day and are used by fire trucks and other
emergency vehicles serving rural regions. A closed or weight
posted bridge can severely impact the economy of a rural
community and affect the lives of residents. School buses that
must detour miles around an unsafe bridge and vehicles that are
denied the most direct access to a community's agricultural
processing plant hurt local economies, even more so in the
current economic crisis.
The data shows that the off-system bridge program works.
According to a recent Government Accountability Office report
on the Highway Bridge Program, ``Improvements were most notable
in bridges owned by local agencies and on rural routes, which
may be attributable, in part, to the Federal bridge program
requirement--under HBP and some of its predecessor programs--
that States spend a minimum amount of their apportionment on
non-Federal-aid highway bridges.''
The following table shows the obligation limitation
provided to each State under the Committee's recommended
funding level:

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY PROGRAM OBLIGATION LIMITATION
[Fiscal year 2010, President's request and Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2011]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Fiscal year 2010 budget request Committee
2011 recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Formula ProgramsALABAMA................................................ $700,263,298 $731,470,773 $742,293,679
ALASKA................................................. 374,648,510 436,146,704 442,308,151
ARIZONA................................................ 685,222,909 699,585,886 709,705,884
ARKANSAS............................................... 453,845,016 487,553,400 495,221,539
CALIFORNIA............................................. 3,265,770,641 3,470,900,317 3,527,281,778
COLORADO............................................... 486,997,867 515,813,585 524,227,763
CONNECTICUT............................................ 452,146,366 476,112,299 483,578,967
DELAWARE............................................... 146,782,056 159,757,289 162,382,996
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA................................... 142,780,817 155,028,036 157,769,235
FLORIDA................................................ 1,750,374,521 1,806,778,416 1,832,141,474
GEORGIA................................................ 1,191,375,843 1,233,578,793 1,251,293,143
HAWAII................................................. 151,807,771 163,984,941 166,822,613
IDAHO.................................................. 260,710,493 273,913,700 277,987,383
ILLINOIS............................................... 1,259,810,240 1,366,673,004 1,388,229,100
INDIANA................................................ 881,939,042 909,541,511 922,583,849
IOWA................................................... 431,370,074 465,211,767 473,006,558
KANSAS................................................. 349,048,525 366,554,923 372,871,382
KENTUCKY............................................... 606,749,707 638,708,991 648,404,329
LOUISIANA.............................................. 610,954,241 654,382,549 665,039,769
MAINE.................................................. 163,487,162 179,944,523 183,074,342
MARYLAND............................................... 551,738,594 579,032,864 588,589,419
MASSACHUSETTS.......................................... 563,004,948 588,635,469 598,853,748
MICHIGAN............................................... 973,677,766 1,013,833,988 1,029,765,348
MINNESOTA.............................................. 569,889,691 606,905,755 616,437,637
MISSISSIPPI............................................ 426,993,733 456,751,431 464,163,519
MISSOURI............................................... 828,034,266 885,402,474 899,180,105
MONTANA................................................ 340,739,848 368,896,938 374,340,749
NEBRASKA............................................... 264,020,165 279,572,154 284,263,023
NEVADA................................................. 309,442,654 349,453,057 355,004,342
NEW HAMPSHIRE.......................................... 153,269,513 159,375,526 161,965,172
NEW JERSEY............................................. 911,521,100 954,687,762 969,624,461
NEW MEXICO............................................. 328,942,512 344,577,405 349,977,648
NEW YORK............................................... 1,539,792,696 1,621,877,515 1,648,719,769
NORTH CAROLINA......................................... 966,890,578 998,520,623 1,013,473,147
NORTH DAKOTA........................................... 224,734,268 240,188,302 244,152,356
OHIO................................................... 1,210,026,325 1,263,233,467 1,282,685,660
OKLAHOMA............................................... 564,993,672 611,587,548 621,515,167
OREGON................................................. 430,631,284 473,990,958 482,006,037
PENNSYLVANIA........................................... 1,519,688,351 1,584,239,442 1,609,646,649
RHODE ISLAND........................................... 189,490,250 209,489,255 213,256,910
SOUTH CAROLINA......................................... 575,816,228 601,610,576 610,552,008
SOUTH DAKOTA........................................... 244,086,301 265,286,145 269,527,970
TENNESSEE.............................................. 753,570,608 793,862,097 805,845,954
TEXAS.................................................. 2,941,295,499 3,015,504,101 3,058,805,725
UTAH................................................... 287,996,246 310,259,370 315,232,174
VERMONT................................................ 168,301,436 193,638,263 197,030,662
VIRGINIA............................................... 913,371,961 958,331,651 972,863,187
WASHINGTON............................................. 599,570,763 640,945,314 651,926,022
WEST VIRGINIA.......................................... 384,525,148 412,008,624 417,944,057
WISCONSIN.............................................. 678,842,204 709,688,123 719,963,635
WYOMING................................................ 225,964,097 234,908,821 238,751,267
--------------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL......................................... 35,006,947,804 36,917,936,425 37,492,287,461
========================================================
Non-formula programs................................... 6,100,052,196 4,444,838,575 4,283,712,539
========================================================
TOTAL............................................ 41,107,000,000 41,362,775,000 41,776,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS PROGRAMS

The roads and bridges that make up our Nation's highway
infrastructure are built, operated, and maintained through the
joint efforts of Federal, State, and local governments. States
have much flexibility to use Federal-aid highway funds to best
meet their individual needs and priorities, with FHWA's
assistance and oversight.
The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users [SAFETEA-LU], the highway,
highway safety, and transit authorization through fiscal year
2009, made Federal-aid highways funds available in various
categories of spending. These categories were continued by the
Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment [HIRE] Act, which
extends surface transportation programs and Highway Trust Fund
expenditure authority through December 31, 2010.
National Highway System [NHS].--The Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act [ISTEA] of 1991 authorized the
NHS, which was subsequently established as a 161,000-mile road
system by the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995.
This system serves major population centers, intermodal
transportation facilities, international border crossings, and
major destinations. The NHS program provides funding for this
system, consisting of roads that are of primary Federal
interest: the current Interstate; other rural principal
arterials; urban freeways and connecting urban principal
arterials; facilities on the Defense Department's designated
Strategic Highway Network; and roads connecting the NHS to
intermodal facilities. The Federal share for the NHS program is
generally 80 percent, subject to the sliding-scale adjustment,
with an availability period of 4 years.
Interstate Maintenance [IM].--The 46,876-mile Dwight D.
Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways
retains a separate identity within the NHS. The IM program
finances projects to rehabilitate, restore, resurface and
reconstruct the interstate system. Reconstruction that
increases capacity, other than HOV lanes, is not eligible for
IM funds. The Federal share for the IM program is 90 percent,
subject to the sliding-scale adjustment, and funds are
available for 4 years.
Within the funding available to the interstate maintenance
discretionary program, funds are to be made available to the
following projects and activities:

INTERSTATE MAINTENANCE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
Project name recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Augusta North Connections--Exit 113, ME................ $4,000,000
Columbia River Crossing, OR............................ 750,000
Columbia River Crossing, WA............................ 2,000,000
East Belgrade I-90 Interchange, MT..................... 750,000
Exit 120 Reconstruction, NV............................ 1,500,000
I-10 Grand Prairie Highway (La Hwy 98) Interchange and 400,000
Frontage Road, LA.....................................
I-10 Pecue Lane Interchange, Baton Rouge, LA........... 750,000
I-15 Helena Custer Avenue Interchange and Montana Rail 1,000,000
Link Overpass Structures, MT..........................
I-280 Mission Bay Off-Ramp and Improvements, CA........ 1,500,000
I-29/I-229 Bridges and Interstate Mainline 750,000
Reconstruction from Near Tea Exit to North of 69th
Street and East to Louise Avenue, SD..................
I-5 North Stockton Widening and HOV Lane Project, CA... 1,000,000
I-5 Ridgefield Interchange Replacement Project, City of 1,000,000
Ridgefield, WA........................................
I-5 West Coast Green Highway, WA....................... 1,000,000
I-75/Everglades Project Development and Environment 1,000,000
Study, FL.............................................
I-84, West of Wendell to Juniper Rest Area Pavement 1,000,000
Rehabilitation, ID....................................
I-84/184, Caldwell to Glenns Ferry, Pavement 750,000
Rehabilitation, ID....................................
I-85 Widening in Davidson and Rowan Counties, NC....... 1,000,000
I-95 Pawtucket River Bridge Replacement, RI............ 3,000,000
I-95/SR1 Interchange Project, DE....................... 1,000,000
I-95/US Hwy. 301 Interchange Improvement Project, SC... 500,000
Interchange at State Hwy. 89 and I-40 in Lonoke, AR.... 1,000,000
Interstate 280 Interchange Improvements, Harrison, NJ.. 1,500,000
Interstate 430/630--Interchange Modification, AR....... 3,000,000
Interstate 69/Great River Bridge: Highway 65-MS Highway 1,000,000
1, AR.................................................
Interstate 74 Corridor Project, Bettendorf, IA......... 3,000,000
Interstate 81 Improvements in Washington County, MD.... 500,000
Interstate-95/Fairfax County Parkway Interchange at 1,000,000
Newington Road, VA....................................
Kapolei Interchange Complex Phase 2, HI................ 1,500,000
Starr Road Interchange, NV............................. 2,000,000
US 84, El Camino East/West Corridor, AL................ 1,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surface Transportation Program [STP].--STP is a flexible
program that may be used by States and localities for projects
on any Federal-aid highway, bridge projects on any public road,
transit capital projects, and intracity and intercity bus
terminals and facilities. A portion of STP funds are set aside
for transportation enhancements and State suballocations are
provided. The Federal share for STP is generally 80 percent,
subject to the sliding-scale adjustment, with a 4-year
availability period.
Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation.--The bridge program
enables States to improve the condition of their bridges
through replacement, rehabilitation, and systematic preventive
maintenance. The funds are available for use on all bridges,
including those on roads functionally classified as rural minor
collectors and as local. Bridge program funds have a 4-year
period of availability with a Federal share for all projects,
except those on the interstate system, of 80 percent, subject
to the sliding scale adjustment. For those bridges on the
interstate system, the Federal share is 90 percent, subject to
the sliding-scale adjustment.
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program
[CMAQ].--The CMAQ program directs funds toward transportation
projects and programs to help meet and maintain national
ambient air quality standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, and
particulate matter. A minimum one-half percent of the
apportionment is guaranteed to each State.
Highway Safety Improvement Program [HSIP].--The highway
infrastructure safety program features strategic safety
planning and performance. The program also devotes additional
resources and supports innovative approaches to reducing
highway fatalities and injuries on all public roads.
Federal Lands Highways.--This category funds improvements
for forest highways; park roads and parkways; Indian
reservation roads; and refuge roads. The Federal lands highway
program provides for transportation planning, research,
engineering, and construction of highways, roads, parkways, and
transit facilities that provide access to or within public
lands, national parks, and Indian reservations.
Within the funding available for the Federal lands highway
program, funds are to be made available to the following
projects and activities:

FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAYS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
Project name recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BIA 25, Spirit Lake Nation, ND.......................... $1,000,000
Boulder City Bypass Improvement, NV..................... 1,000,000
BRAC-related improvements in Anne Arundel County, MD.... 2,200,000
BRAC-related improvements in Montgomery County, MD...... 2,200,000
BRAC-related improvements in Prince George's County, MD. 2,200,000
BRAC-related improvements, Harford County, MD........... 2,200,000
Columbia Pike Realignment, Arlington, VA................ 400,000
Elwha Valley Road Improvements, WA...................... 1,300,000
Federal Lands Improvement Project, HI................... 4,000,000
FH-24, Banks to Lowman, ID.............................. 1,500,000
Ghost Hawk Road Improvements (BIA Route 7 to SD Hwy 18), 150,000
SD.....................................................
I-15 Corridors of the Future, NV........................ 800,000
Improvements and 4 R Work to SD 73 in Jackson County, SD 1,000,000
NM 4 Jemez Pueblo Bypass, NM............................ 1,000,000
Onville Road Upgrades, VA............................... 400,000
Pikes Peak-America's Mountain, Colorado Springs, CO..... 500,000
Pyramid Highway Corridor, Sparks, NV.................... 2,000,000
SR 160 from I-15 to Pahrump, NV......................... 1,000,000
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe-Community Streets Project, Old 750,000
Bear Soldier, SD.......................................
US 50--CO 194 Road Construction, Bent County, CO........ 1,400,000
US 15 at Monocacy Boulevard in Frederick County, MD..... 500,000
US-20 Sisters Downtown Improvements, Salem, OR.......... 1,500,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Equity Bonus.--The equity bonus program provides additional
funds to States to ensure that each State's total funding from
apportioned programs and for high priority projects meets
certain equity considerations. Each State is guaranteed a
minimum rate of return on its share of contributions to the
highway account of the Highway Trust Fund, and a minimum
increase relative to the average dollar amount of
apportionments under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century, or TEA-21. Certain States will maintain the share of
total apportionments they each received during TEA-21. An open-
ended authorization is provided, ensuring that there will be
sufficient funds to meet the objectives of the equity bonus. Of
the total amount of funds provided for this program, each year
$639,000,000 is exempt from the obligation limitation
recommended by the Committee.
Emergency Relief [ER].--Section 125 of title 23, United
States Code, provides $100,000,000 annually for the ER program.
This funding is not subject to the obligation limitation
recommended by the Committee. This program provides funds for
the repair or reconstruction of Federal-aid highways and
bridges and federally owned roads and bridges that have
suffered serious damage as the result of natural disasters or
catastrophic failures. The ER program supplements the
commitment of resources by States, their political
subdivisions, or Federal agencies to help pay for unusually
heavy expenses resulting from extraordinary conditions.
Highways for Life.--This program provides funding to
demonstrate and promote state-of-the-art technologies, elevated
performance standards, and new business practices in the
highway construction process that result in improved safety,
faster construction, reduced congestion from construction, and
improved quality and user satisfaction by inviting innovation,
new technologies, and new practices to be used in highway
construction and operations.
Ferry Boats and Ferry Terminal Facilities.--This program
provides funding for the construction of ferry boats and ferry
terminal facilities.
Within the funding available to the ferry boats and ferry
terminal facilities program, funds are to be made available to
the following projects and activities: $2,000,000 for Keller
Ferry Replacement Project, Lincoln and Ferry Counties,
Washington; $2,000,000 for Port Lions City Dock and Ferry
Terminal Replacement, Alaska; 1,000,000 for Port Townsend
Passenger Only Ferry, Washington; and $2,000,000 for Washington
State Ferries System Investments, Washington.
National Scenic Byways.--This program provides funding for
roads that are designated by the Secretary of Transportation as
All American Roads [AAR] or National Scenic Byways [NSB]. These
roads have outstanding scenic, historic, cultural, natural,
recreational, and archaeological qualities.
Transportation and Community and System Preservation
[TCSP].--The TCSP program provides grants to States and local
governments for planning, developing, and implementing
strategies to integrate transportation and community and system
preservation plans and practices. These grants may be used to
improve the efficiency of the transportation system; reduce the
impacts of transportation on the environment; reduce the need
for costly future investments in public infrastructure; and
provide efficient access to jobs, services, and centers of
trade.
Within the funding available to the transportation and
community and system preservation program, funds are to be made
available to the following projects and activities:

TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNITY AND SYSTEM PRESERVATION PROGRAM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
Project name recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alice's Road/105th Street Interchange and Connecting $900,000
Roads, Waukee, IA......................................
Bellingham Waterfront Transportation Improvements, 700,000
Bellingham, WA.........................................
Brookstown Redevelopment Project, Winston-Salem, NC..... 1,000,000
Centennial Trail Expansion, Snohomish County, WA........ 375,000
Center Point Greenway and Pedestrian Walkway Project, AL 500,000
Cregg Lane/Wyoming Street Connector, MT................. 1,825,000
Cushman Trail Project, Pierce County, WA................ 525,000
Denver Bike Sharing, Denver, CO......................... 500,000
Downtown Streetscape Improvements, City of Pine Bluff, 1,100,000
AR.....................................................
East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana Downtown Greenway, LA 250,000
Environmental Improvement and Cost Savings Pavement 350,000
Study, SC..............................................
Essex County Riverfront Park, Newark, NJ................ 1,000,000
Fountain Avenue Rehabilitation and Veteran's Bridge 350,000
Connectivity, Springfield, OH..........................
Highway 212 Expansion--Carver County, MN................ 400,000
I-49 North, LA.......................................... 1,000,000
I-55 Business Loop to Memorial Hospital, City of 2,000,000
Lincoln, IL............................................
John N. Hardee Expressway, SC........................... 1,000,000
Loop 82 Railroad Overpass, San Marcos, TX............... 1,500,000
Medford Safe Sidewalks, Medford, OR..................... 300,000
Midtown Revitalization Transportation Infrastructure, 2,000,000
Rochester, NY..........................................
Piedmont Triad Research Park Transportation 500,000
Improvements, NC.......................................
Qwuloolt Access Trail Project, Marysville, WA........... 500,000
Reconstruction of the Hudson River Waterfront Walkway, 1,000,000
Hoboken, NJ............................................
Rivers Edge Roadway Infrastructure and Streetscape 1,300,000
Initiative, MI.........................................
Saddle Road Improvement Project, HI..................... 2,000,000
Shoulder Widening and Paving of SC Highway 22, SC....... 1,000,000
Southern Nevada Beltway Interchanges, NV................ 1,000,000
State Road 133 from Albany to Valdosta, GA.............. 1,000,000
SW 27th Street--Strander Connection Project, Renton, WA. 1,000,000
Tacoma Downtown Streetscape Improvements, Tacoma, WA.... 500,000
US Highway 97 & J Street Project, Madres, OR............ 750,000
West Ninth Avenue Extension and Overpass Construction, 750,000
Belton, TX.............................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation
[TIFIA].--The TIFIA credit program provides funds to assist in
the development of major infrastructure facilities through
greater non-Federal and private sector participation, building
on public willingness to dedicate future revenues or user fees
in order to receive transportation benefits earlier than would
be possible under traditional funding techniques. The TIFIA
program provides secured loans, loan guarantees, and standby
lines of credit that may be drawn upon to supplement project
revenues, if needed, during the first 10 years of project
operations.
As required by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, this
account records, for this program, the subsidy costs associated
with the direct loans, loan guarantees, and lines of credit
obligated in 1992 and beyond (including modifications of direct
loans or loan guarantees that resulted from obligations or
commitments in any year), as well as administrative expenses of
this program. The subsidy amounts are estimated on present
value basis; the administrative expenses are estimated on a
cash basis.
Appalachian Development Highway System.--This program makes
funds available to construct highways and access roads under
section 201 of the Appalachian Regional Development Act of
1965. Under SAFETEA-LU, funding is distributed among the 13
eligible States based on the latest available cost-to-complete
estimate prepared by the Appalachian Regional Commission.
Delta Region Transportation Development Program.--This
program encourages multistate transportation planning and
supports the development of transportation infrastructure in
the eight States that comprise the region of the Mississippi
Delta: Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee.
Within the funding available to the Delta Region
Transportation Development Program, funds are to be made
available to the following projects and activities:

DELTA REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
Project name recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway 82 Improvements, MS............................. $2,000,000
Interchange of Business 67 and Oakgrove, MO............. 2,000,000
Interstate-55 Interchange, MO........................... 1,000,000
Lake Harbour Drive Extension, MS........................ 1,000,000
US-412 Bypass Center Turn Lane, MO...................... 1,000,000
Washington Street Bridge, Vicksburg, MS................. 1,500,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Railway-Highway Crossing Hazard Elimination in High-speed
Rail Corridors.--This program provides grants for safety
improvements at grade crossings between railways and highways
on designated high-speed rail corridors.

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2010.................................... $41,846,000,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 42,102,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 42,515,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal-aid highways program is funded through contract
authority paid out of the Highway Trust Fund. Most forms of
budget authority provide the authority to enter into
obligations and then to liquate those obligations. Put another
way, it allows a Federal agency to commit to spending money on
specified activities and then to actually spend that money. In
contrast, contract authority provides only the authority to
enter into obligations, but not the authority to liquidate
those obligations. The authority to liquidate obligations--to
actually spend the money committed with the contract
authority--must be provided separately. The authority to
liquidate obligations under the Federal-aid highways program is
provided under this heading. This liquidating authority allows
FHWA to follow through on commitments already allowed under
current law; it does not provide the authority to enter into
new commitments for Federal spending.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a liquidating cash appropriation
of $42,515,000,000. The recommended level is $413,000,000 more
than the budget request and $669,000,000 more than the fiscal
year 2010 enacted level. This level of liquidating authority is
necessary to pay outstanding obligations from various highway
accounts pursuant to this and prior appropriations acts.

PLANNING CAPACITY GRANTS

Appropriations, 2010....................................................
Budget estimate, 2011 \1\............................... $200,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 200,000,000

\1\ The administration requested this funding as part of the obligation
limitation of the Federal-aid highways program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Funding provided under this heading would be available for
grants to metropolitan planning organizations; State, local,
and tribal governments; and public agencies such as transit
authorities that conduct surface transportation planning. The
grants would be awarded on a competitive basis in order to
improve the capacity of those organizations to conduct their
transportation planning.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends the appropriation of $200,000,000
for planning capacity grants. This funding level is equal to
the budget request; however, the administration requested that
the budgetary resources for this program be provided as
obligation authority and contract authority set aside from the
Federal-aid highways program. The fiscal year 2010
appropriations act included no funding for this activity.
The grants awarded under this program will help planning
organizations improve their capacity to conduct transportation
planning, and to integrate their transportation plans with
local housing and economic development. Activities funded under
this program may include software and computer upgrades to
support better modeling, data collection, and training. In
awarding funds provided under this heading, the Committee
expects the Department to place a high priority on those
applicants that demonstrate a history of working with public
and nonprofit agencies that conduct housing and community
planning, as well as a willingness to share the resources
provided in a planning capacity grant with other planning
organizations.
The Committee recommendation includes $50,000,000 set aside
for grants that will improve planning for rural areas. The
Committee also directs the Department to award grants to ensure
an equitable geographic distribution of funds and appropriate
balance in addressing the needs of urban and rural communities.
The Committee includes these protections for rural areas in
order to make sure that this program offers an opportunity for
all kinds of communities to develop transportation plans that
suit their own needs.
The Committee also set aside $12,000,000 of the funds
provided under this heading for grants that lead to greater
public involvement in transportation planning. The
administration requested such grants as part of the budget
request for the Office of the Secretary.
Finally, the Committee has included language that allows
the Secretary to retain up to 1 percent of the funds provided
under this heading to fund the award and oversight of planning
capacity grants. The language directs this funding to be split
equally between the Federal Highway Administration and the
Federal Transit Administration. The Committee values the
expertise and the experience these two agencies have gained in
implementing the planning programs and requirements under the
highway and transit authorization laws. The Committee expects
them to continue working together in a collaborative manner on
the implementation of this program.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

Section 120 distributes obligation authority among Federal-
aid highway programs.
Section 121 continues a provision that credits funds
received by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics to the
Federal-aid highways account.
Section 122 provides requirements for any waiver of Buy
American requirements.
Section 123 continues a provision prohibiting tolling in
Texas, with exceptions.
Section 124 appropriates funds for the projects, programs,
and activities specified as follows:

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
Project name recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assembly Square Station, MA............................. $860,000
Burlington Waterfront North Improvements, VT............ 500,000
7th Street Gateway Enhancement Project, NJ.............. 500,000
9th Street Safety Improvements Project, Pierce County, 700,000
WA.....................................................
A1A/State Road 200, FL.................................. 750,000
Access Road for Hospital in St. Bernard Parish, LA...... 2,500,000
Airport Road Repair and Resurface and Construction of 800,000
Western Entrance to Bryan Field, Starksville, MS.......
Ann Arbor--Detroit Regional Rail Project, MI............ 2,000,000
Appalachian Development Highway System Corridor H, WV... 2,000,000
Ash Avenue Extension, Macon County, IL.................. 400,000
Autumn Street Parkway, San Jose, CA..................... 800,000
Bench Boulevard Improvements, Billings, MT.............. 1,000,000
Bench Boulevard, Helena, MT............................. 750,000
Bloomfield Six Points Intersection Streetscape, 500,000
Bloomfield, NJ.........................................
Brady/Harrison Sustainability Corridor, Davenport, IA... 600,000
Buffalo Niagara Medical Campus Streetscape and 1,000,000
Infrastructure Improvements, NY........................
Carson City Freeway Phase II, NV........................ 500,000
Center at Horseheads Access Project, Chemung County, NY. 750,000
Central Business District Streetscape, City of Milan, MO 800,000
City of Detroit Dequindre Cut Greenway, Phase II, MI.... 1,000,000
City of Harlingen North Rail Relocation, TX............. 1,000,000
City of Monroe Fourth Street Underpass Project, Monroe, 800,000
LA.....................................................
Congress Street Bridge, Bridgeport, CT.................. 1,200,000
ConnectVermont, VT...................................... 1,000,000
Crosby Street Reconstruction Project, Hornell, NY....... 500,000
Defense Facility Access Road, West Point, MS............ 750,000
Denali Commission Transportation Program, AK............ 800,000
Denali Commission, AK only for the Anaktuvuk Pass Bridge 1,000,000
Replacement, Scammon Bay Community Streets, Alakanuk
Community Streets and King Salmon & Naknek School Bus
Road, AK...............................................
Division Street Corridor Improvements, Spokane, WA...... 1,000,000
Downtown Farmingdale Revitalization Master Plan, NY..... 100,000
Downtown Infrastructure Project, Somersworth, NH........ 300,000
Downtown Streetscape, City of Custer, SD................ 400,000
Downtown Streetscape, Yankton, SD....................... 300,000
East Brandon By-Pass, Brandon, MS....................... 2,500,000
East Metropolitan Corridor, Brandon, MS................. 2,500,000
East Mississippi Intermodal Rail Corridor, MS........... 1,000,000
Embarcadero Goods Movement Project, Oakland, CA......... 2,000,000
Fairbanks Rail Line Relocation, AK...................... 1,000,000
Faulkner Lake Road Improvements, AR..................... 500,000
Fort Campbell KY-911 Road Widening Project from US-41A 3,000,000
to Oak Grove, Christian County, KY.....................
Fort Knox Access Road, Hardin County, KY................ 1,600,000
Fortification Street Improvements, Jackson, MS.......... 2,500,000
Freight Rail Modernization: Improving the Freight Rail 500,000
and Transfer Facility at the Hunts Point Terminal
Produce Market, South Bronx, NY........................
Grace Avenue Safety Improvements, City of Battle Ground, 1,000,000
WA.....................................................
Grand Technology Gateway--Phase 1, West Des Moines, IA.. 500,000
Greensboro Downtown Greenway, Greensboro, NC............ 300,000
Hattiesburg Longleaf Trace Rails to Trails, Hattiesburg, 500,000
MS.....................................................
Hendersonville Area Infrastructure Improvements, 250,000
Hendersonville, NC.....................................
High Street/Route 89 Reconstruction, Caribou, ME........ 1,000,000
Highway 112 Improvement, AR............................. 500,000
Highway 14 Project, Owatonna to Dodge Center, MN........ 250,000
Highway 226: Highway 67 to Highway 49, Little Rock, AR.. 1,000,000
Highway 47 Bridge Replacement, MO....................... 2,000,000
Highway 6, Batesville, MS............................... 500,000
Highway 7 Sidewalk Infill, City of Blue Springs, MO..... 800,000
Highway 93 and Kalispell Bypass, MT..................... 600,000
Highway 965 Project, Phase 2, North Liberty, IA......... 500,000
Highway 98 Access Improvements, Lamar County, MS........ 1,750,000
Holly Springs Road, DeSoto County, MS................... 2,000,000
Horsehoe Bend Parkway Extension, MO..................... 2,000,000
I-15 Corridor: Devore Interchange Improvements, San 1,500,000
Bernardino, CA.........................................
I-15 MP 8, Bicycle/Pedestrian Passageway, City of St. 500,000
George, UT.............................................
I-40 Realignment Ingress/Egress Project, Oklahoma City, 750,000
OK.....................................................
I-49 between I-40 and US Hwy. 71 South, Little Rock, AR. 2,500,000
Icicle Station--Phase II, City of Leavenworth, WA....... 900,000
Illinois Pedestrian and Bicycling Road and Trail 2,500,000
Improvements and Enhancements, IL......................
Indian River Inlet Bridge, Dover, DE.................... 800,000
Intallation of the Sterling Highway/Birch Street Traffic 400,000
Signal Light, Soldatna, AK.............................
Interchange CSAH7/TH23, Lyon County, MN................. 1,000,000
Interstate 44 and Range Line Road Interchange, MO....... 1,000,000
Interstate 44 Crossroads Interchange Study, City of 250,000
Joplin, MO.............................................
Interstate 64 and 22nd St. Interchange Reconfiguration, 1,500,000
MO.....................................................
Iowa Highway 14-57 Complete Streets Corridor 750,000
Improvements, Parkersburg, IA..........................
Jordan Valley Gateway Plaza Streetscape, City of 600,000
Springfield, MO........................................
Khrushchev in Iowa Trail, Guthrie County, IA............ 400,000
LA 1 Project Phase II Design--Golden Meadow, Leeville, 500,000
LA.....................................................
Lafayette Interchange, MO............................... 1,500,000
Lake St. Clair Shoreline Trail, Harrison Township, MI... 1,000,000
Lewis and Clark Legacy Trail, ND........................ 600,000
Lone Elm Road Improvements, City of Olathe, KS.......... 600,000
Lower Hill Infrastructure Project, PA................... 600,000
Lower Main Street Infrastructure Project, Claremont, NH. 500,000
Maritime Fire and Safety Administration, WA............. 500,000
Martin Road Expansion from Zierdt Road West to Laracy 10,000,000
Drive, AL..............................................
MD 404 Improvements in Caroline, Talbot and Queen Anne's 600,000
Counties, MD...........................................
Memorial Boulevard Improvements, Picayune, MS........... 1,450,000
MLK Blvd Grade Separation Safety Improvements, Yakima, 1,300,000
WA.....................................................
MO-740--East Columbia Transportation Extension, MO...... 1,500,000
Monongalia Health Systems, Morgantown, WV............... 1,000,000
Monte Vista Avenue/Union Pacific Railroad Grade 700,000
Separation Project, CA.................................
Rail and Infrastructure Improvements in Northern Maine, 3,000,000
ME.....................................................
Naugatuck River Greenway/Waterbury Segment, CT.......... 750,000
NC 12, Dare County, NC.................................. 750,000
Nevada Pacific Parkway Extension, Fernley, NV........... 500,000
New Bedford Fast Track Freight Bridges, MA.............. 1,000,000
New York Ave. from 32nd to 48th St, Union City, NJ...... 500,000
New York State Route 12, Chenango County, NY............ 450,000
Newport Cliff Walk Restoration, RI...................... 1,000,000
North 5th Street Arterial, NV........................... 2,000,000
North Manhattan Avenue Widening, Manhattan, KS.......... 600,000
Northern Avenue Bridge Rehabilitation, Boston, MA....... 1,000,000
Northern Nevada Traffic Management, NV.................. 500,000
Northside Drive Corridor, Clinton, MS................... 2,500,000
Ogdensburg-Prescott International Bridge Rehabilitation 750,000
Project, NY............................................
Paducah Waterfront Development Project, KY.............. 1,000,000
Port of Anchorage Intermodal Expansion Project, AK...... 1,000,000
Port of Pasco Rail Infrastructure Construction, WA...... 1,400,000
Quincy Center Redevelopment, Quincy, MA................. 400,000
Rail Infrastructure Investments, Port of Grays Harbor, 2,000,000
WA.....................................................
Rail Infrastructure Investments, Port of Moses Lake, WA. 2,000,000
Raleigh Street Extension, Martinsburg, WV............... 1,000,000
Reconstruction of Hunter Street Bridge, County of 1,000,000
Gloucester, NJ.........................................
Red Mountain Transportation Improvements, Benton County, 1,000,000
WA.....................................................
Regional Planning Commission, St. Tammany Parish LA 21 1,300,000
Widening, New Orleans, LA..............................
Rehabilitation of the Ashford Avenue Bridge, Westchester 750,000
County, NY.............................................
Rickenbacker Pickaway East-West Connector, OH........... 500,000
Riverside Freeway (State Route 91) Congestion Relief 1,000,000
Project, Orange County, CA.............................
Route 1/Route 123 Interchange Improvements, VA.......... 400,000
Route 160 Bridge over I-44, MO.......................... 1,000,000
Route 54 Corridor, MO................................... 1,000,000
Sellwood Bridge Replacement Project, OR................. 500,000
Shelby Intermodal Hub, Shelby, MT....................... 2,000,000
South Dakota Highway 100 Right-of-Way and Construction, 1,200,000
Sioux Falls, SD........................................
Southeast Connector, Des Moines, IA..................... 2,000,000
Southpark Bridge Replacement Project, King County, WA... 3,000,000
Southridge Transportation Improvements, City of 500,000
Kennewick, WA..........................................
Sparks Rail Yard Relocation Study, City of Sparks, NV... 200,000
SR 6247 Section 000 Valley View Business Park Access 750,000
Road, Lackawanna County, PA............................
SR24, Love Creek to SR1, Dover, DE...................... 500,000
SR-522 Corridor Improvements, City of Kenmore, WA....... 600,000
St. John's Heritage Parkway Interchanges, FL............ 1,500,000
Stamford Pedestrian Safety Improvements, CT............. 500,000
Stamford Street Underpass Reconstruction, Stamford, CT.. 1,000,000
State Route 19 from State Route 492 to Philadelphia, MS. 1,750,000
State Route 794 Realignment, Springfield, OH............ 750,000
Stonewall Jackson State Park, WV........................ 500,000
Sunport Boulevard Extension, Bernalillo County, NM...... 1,700,000
TH 5/Oak Avenue Pedestrian Underpass, City of Waconia, 400,000
MN.....................................................
TH 610 from CSAH 81 to I-94, MN......................... 250,000
Town of Bristol Road and Drainage Improvements, RI...... 350,000
Transportation Infrastructure to Serve the Kansas 500,000
Logistics Park, Newton, KS.............................
Trunk Highway 13 & County State Aid Highway 5 250,000
Interchange, MN........................................
US 113 Improvements in Worcester County, MD............. 600,000
US 12 Safety Improvements, Walla Walla County, WA....... 1,000,000
US 2 and Sultan Basin Road Safety Improvements, Sultan, 1,000,000
WA.....................................................
US 287 Business Route, Fort Worth, TX................... 3,500,000
US Route 322 Corridor Safety Improvements, PA........... 500,000
US Route 422/Sanatoga Interchange, PA................... 700,000
Umatilla Depot Rail Switches Replacement Project, 400,000
Umatilla County, OR....................................
Urban Collector Road Project, Jackson County, MS........ 2,000,000
US 52 Interchange & Overpass, Relocate Goodhue County 24 400,000
at Cannon Falls, MN....................................
US 93 Corridor, MT...................................... 1,000,000
US Highway 30, Whiteside County, IL..................... 500,000
US Highway 63/Future Interstate 555 Interchange 2,000,000
Improvements, Little Rock, AR..........................
Vancouver Waterfront Access Improvement Project, WA..... 2,000,000
Vermont Downtown Streetscape and Sidewalk Improvements 3,250,000
in Johnson, Ludlow, Northfield, Springfield, and
Townshend, VT..........................................
Village West Access Improvements, KS.................... 300,000
Warrensville/Van Aken Transit Oriented Development, 500,000
Shaker Heights, OH.....................................
West College Street Improvements, Bozeman, MT........... 750,000
West Virginia Route 10, Logan County, WV................ 1,500,000
Wilmington to Newark Commuter Rail Improvement Program, 1,300,000
DE.....................................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration [FMCSA] was
established within the Department of Transportation by the
Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act [MCSIA] (Public Law 106-
159) in December 1999. Prior to this legislation, motor carrier
safety responsibilities were under the jurisdiction of the
Federal Highway Administration.
FMCSA's mission is to promote safe commercial motor vehicle
operation, and reduce truck and bus crashes. The agency also is
charged with reducing fatalities associated with commercial
motor vehicles through education, regulation, enforcement, and
research and innovative technology, thereby achieving a safer
and more secure transportation environment. Additionally, the
FMCSA is responsible for ensuring that all commercial vehicles
entering the United States along its southern and northern
borders comply with all Federal motor carrier safety and
hazardous materials regulations.
Agency resources and activities are expected to contribute
to safety in commercial vehicle operations through enforcement,
including the use of stronger enforcement measures against
safety violators; expedited safety regulation; technology
innovation; improvements in information systems; training; and
improvements to commercial driver's license testing,
recordkeeping, and sanctions. To accomplish these activities,
FMCSA is expected to work closely with Federal, State, and
local enforcement agencies, the motor carrier industry, highway
safety organizations, and individual citizens.
MCSIA and the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users [SAFETEA-LU]
provides funding authorizations for FMCSA's Motor Carrier
Safety Operations and Programs and Motor Carrier Safety Grants.
Under these authorizations, funding supports FMCSA's expanded
scope as authorized by the USA PATRIOT Act, which created new
and enhanced security measures.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a level of $569,948,000, for the
FMCSA. The language provides the authority to obligate and
liquidate $549,898,000 from the Highway Trust Fund, as well as
an appropriation of $20,050,000 from the General Fund. The
Committee is assuming an extension of SAFETEA-LU at the
currently authorized levels. As such it was necessary to
provide budget authority in addition to contract authority made
available under an extension to meet the President's request
for these safety programs. This level is $20,050,000 more than
the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and equal to the budget
request.
FMCSA is responsible for developing, implementing, and
enforcing regulations for the motor carrier industry that
result in qualified drivers and safe vehicles operating on our
Nation's highways. By effectively carrying out its
responsibilities, the agency provides the motor carrier
industry with appropriate guidance and sufficient oversight to
ensure both the efficient movement of goods and people as well
as the safety of the driving public.
In fiscal year 2010, the Committee voiced frustration with
the FMCSA's continued failure to timely address recommendations
by the Department of Transportation's Office of Inspector
General [OIG], the National Transportation Safety Board [NTSB],
and the Government Accountability Office [GAO]. For example,
the OIG has more than 22 open recommendations for the FMCSA, 7
of which date back to May 2002 regarding improvements to the
testing and licensing of commercial drivers. The Committee
recognizes the FMCSA's intention to complete regulatory action
on this issue by October 2010 and expects the agency to meet
its self-imposed goals. In addition, the NTSB continues to rate
the agency's response as ``unacceptable'' in addressing safety
recommendations to: (1) improve the collection and maintenance
of data concerning hours of service of motor carrier drivers by
requiring the mandatory, universal use of electronic onboard
recorders, and (2) prevent motor carriers from operating if
they have serious safety violations with mechanical failures or
unqualified drivers. The Committee urges the FMCSA to
appropriately address these issues in the coming fiscal year
that were placed on NTSB's Most Wanted List in 2008 and 2010
respectively.
The FMCSA has begun a multilateral approach to addressing a
variety of long-standing and serious safety issues across
several core programs and activities ranging from: the use of
electronic-on-board records; enforcement of the Americans with
Disabilities Act for over-the-road bus companies; revised
medical qualification and medical certification standards and
procedures; and implementation of a Drug and Alcohol National
Database. While the agency is making headway to address these
and other issues, virtually all programmatic, regulatory, and
enforcement solutions remain a work-in-progress. The FMCSA's
leadership must commit to seeing these and other projects to a
timely and satisfactory conclusion in order to ensure that the
recent downward trend in motor carrier related highway
fatalities continue. The Committee believes that FMCSA has the
opportunity to generate further reductions in large truck
fatalities this year by addressing its many outstanding
recommendations, and expects the agency to seize this
opportunity.

MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY OPERATIONS AND PROGRAMS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Limitation, 2010........................................ $239,828,000
Budget estimate, 2011 (limitation)...................... 259,878,000
Committee recommendation \1\............................ 259,878,000

\1\ The Committee recommendation includes both obligation limitation and
budget authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides the necessary resources to support
motor carrier safety program activities and maintain the
agency's administrative infrastructure. Funding supports
nationwide motor carrier safety and consumer enforcement
efforts, including Federal safety enforcement activities at the
United States/Mexico border to ensure that Mexican carriers
entering the United States are in compliance with Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Regulations. Resources are also provided to fund
motor carrier regulatory development and implementation,
information management, research and technology, safety
education and outreach, and the 24-hour safety and consumer
telephone hotline.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of
$239,828,000 for FMCSA's Operations and Programs. The Committee
has also provided the authority to liquidate an equal amount of
contract authorization. The Committee has also appropriated
$20,050,000 from the General Fund. The recommendation is
$20,050,000 more than the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and
equal to the budget request.

OPERATING EXPENSES

The Committee recommends $195,669,000 for operating
expenses. This level is $12,619,000 more than the fiscal year
2010 enacted level and equal to the budget request.
Comprehensive Safety Analysis [CSA] 2010.--Over the past 6
years, the FMCSA has been undertaking a comprehensive
evaluation and overhaul of its systems and operations. The CSA
2010 initiative is designed to improve the effectiveness of the
agency's compliance and enforcement programs. The Committee
strongly supports the agency's efforts to improve its programs,
and remains focused on ensuring CSA 2010 delivers the promised
results. The Committee appreciates that the agency has taken
steps to communicate the changes and benefits of CSA 2010 to
its partners and stakeholders. Given that FMCSA relies on its
partners in the field to assist them in fulfilling its mission,
continued communication with and training of its partners will
be critical to the initiative's success.
The accompanying chart identifies the major milestones
associated with the development and implementation of CSA 2010.
The Committee is concerned with the FMCSA's failure to meet
critical milestones for implementing this new system. For
example, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking related to the
safety fitness determination rating system has been delayed
from October 2009 to January 2011. Until the rulemaking is
complete, the FMCSA is relying on the current rating system
that fails to place a sufficient emphasis on both driver and
vehicle qualifications thereby compromising safety on our
Nation's highways. This rulemaking will be subject to great
scrutiny, which is likely to require a significant amount of
time, so continued delays in the rulemaking will delay the
potential safety benefits that CSA 210 has to offer. The
Committee expects the FMCSA to meet its new target date of
January 2011.
In the Committee report accompanying the fiscal year 2010
appropriations bill, the Committee requested a report on the
results of the CSA 2010 pilot and updated CSA 2010 spending
plan by March 15, 2010. The FMCSA has failed to deliver this
report. The inability of the agency to meet congressionally
directed reporting deadlines in a timely fashion, without
justification for such delays, complicates the Committee's
ability to conduct oversight. The Committee requests that GAO
continue to monitor the implementation of CSA 2010, provide an
assessment of the pilots that were conducted as part of the
initiative, and evaluate FMCSA's ability to meet the milestones
and cost estimates included in its spending plan.

CSA MILESTONES, 2009-2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009 2010 2011 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August:
Final report on measurement
methodology (Complete).
SFD final report (Complete).September:
Establish protocols for program
evaluation data collection
(Complete).
Define interventions for BASICs of:
(1) Driver Fitness, (2) Controlled
Substances/Alcohol, (3) Improper
loading/cargo securement, & (4)
Crash History (Complete).
Develop policy, guidance and aids
for interventions, Phase II
(Complete).
Document intervention selection
guidance for Phase II BASICs
(Complete).
Deliver refined concept of
operations for Phase II
(Complete).
Deliver training for Phase II
(Complete).
Initiate Phase II of operational
model test (Complete).November:
Deliver final rulemaking support
paper (Completed November 2007).
February: January: July:
December: October:
Annual public listening session Coordinate with FMCSA Reauthorization Working
webcasts/report-out (Complete). Group (Ongoing).
Develop training materials for broader
implementation (Incomplete). \2\------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Original completion date scheduled for October 2009.
\2\ Indicates earlier completion date than originally scheduled and reported in fiscal year 2010 Committee report.
\3\ Original completion date scheduled for November 2008.

Hours of Service.--For more than 30 years, the NTSB has
advocated regulations that address driver fatigue. According to
the NTSB, driver fatigue remains the primary factor in 30 to 40
percent of large truck crashes involving facilities. The NTSB
recommended the use of science-based principles to revise the
hours-of-service rule to require at least 8 hours of continuous
sleep and the elimination of sleeper berth provisions that
allow for the splitting of sleep periods. After regulatory
actions on the motor carrier hours-of-service rule were
challenged and struck down by the courts, the FMCSA is due to
present a new regulatory action to OMB by July 26, 2010, and to
complete a final rulemaking by July 26, 2011. It is essential
for the FMCSA to conduct a fully open and transparent
regulatory process that discloses the agency's operator-fatigue
model methodology, considers the health impact on drivers,
develops policies based upon sound sleep and fatigue scientific
research, and properly considers safety and crash-related data.
The FMCSA's prior regulatory action on this long standing
safety recommendation is very troubling. The Committee expects
the FMCSA to fulfill its highway safety mission, revise the
hours of service regulations, and protect the Nation's
traveling public consistent within the timelines established in
the settlement agreement.
Electronic On-board Recorders.--No hours-of-service rule
will serve its purpose unless it is adequately enforced. In
1977, the NTSB issued its first recommendation on the use of
on-board recording devices for commercial vehicles to provide
an efficient and reliable means of tracking the number of hours
a commercial motor vehicle operator drives. The NTSB
subsequently issued additional recommendations concerning the
use of on-board recorders. In 2008, the NTSB added to its Most
Wanted List a recommendation to FMCSA to require electronic on-
board data recorders [EOBRs] to maintain accurate carrier
records of drivers' hours of service. Despite the FMCSA's
recent final rulemaking requiring the limited use of EOBRs to
carriers with the most serious safety violations, this
recommendation remains ``open unacceptable''. The Committee
supports the FMCSA's commitment to issue a broader EOBR mandate
and encourages the FMCSA to expand EOBR usage for interstate
commercial vehicles.
High-risk Carriers.--Since fiscal year 2008, the Committee
has required quarterly reports on the agency's ability to meet
the requirement to conduct compliance reviews on all motor
carriers identified as high risk. Since the agency first began
reporting its performance on this requirement to the Committee,
the agency's ability to comply with this requirement has
improved significantly, from completing compliance reviews of
69 percent of high-risk carriers in fiscal year 2008 to 88
percent last year. Likewise, it has reduced the backlog of open
reviews from 1,084 carriers in fiscal year 2008 to 296 carriers
at the end of the 2009 calendar year. The Committee is pleased
with this progress and expects the agency to continue to make
strides to fulfill its mandate. The Committee directs the
agency to continue to provide the House and Senate Committees
on Appropriations with a report on its ability to meet its
requirements to evaluate high-risk carriers on March 30, 2011
and September 30, 2011.
Reincarnated Carriers.--Unfortunately, unscrupulous motor
carriers use the new entrant program to evade enforcement
action or an out-of-service order by going out of business and
then reincarnating themselves as a new motor carrier. For
example, the GAO found that 9 percent of motor coach carriers
placed out of service by the FMCSA between 2007 and 2008
applied as new entrants. The GAO believes these carriers
reincarnated to avoid paying fines for serious safety
violations. Further, the GAO concluded that their analysis
underestimates the actual number of reincarnated carriers
because the matching mechanisms it used could not detect minor
spelling changes or other efforts at deception. According to
the report, these companies demonstrated a pattern of
violations that continued after the carriers reincarnated. They
include: breeches of drug and alcohol testing and driver
qualification rules, operating without proper authority, and,
in one case, illegally transporting passengers across the
United States-Mexico border. One company was cited for 78
safety violations between 2000 and 2008, prior to its
reincarnation.
In 2009, the FMCSA began its New Entrant Safety Assurance
Program, raising the standard of compliance to pass the new
entrant safety audit that is conducted within 18 months of
registration. In addition, the agency has taken strong
enforcement actions in certain cases involving serious and
repeated violations. However, it is clear current prevention
mechanisms remain insufficient and, at a minimum, further
improvements need to be made to the New Applicant Screening
Program. The Committee requests that the GAO evaluate the
effectiveness of the new-entry safety audit, conduct a
programmatic evaluation of the New Applicant Screening Program,
and the Passenger Carrier Vetting Process. Further, the
Committee requests the GAO evaluate the degree to which the
complexities of the application of State laws on corporate
successorship may in certain circumstances affect the FMCSA's
ability to deny operating authority and pursue enforcement
actions against unsafe reincarnated carriers.
Motorcoach Safety.--The Committee commends the Secretary
for taking a comprehensive approach to assessing and addressing
motorcoach safety issues. Specifically, the Committee
appreciates the development of specific action items for modal
administrations to undertake to reverse the increase in the
number of motorcoach fatalities over the past 10 years. This
trend is inconsistent with all other highway fatality trends in
the vehicle and motor carrier sectors, which points to a long-
standing weakness in effective passenger safety oversight. Four
of the seven priority action items fall under the purview of
the FMCSA. The FMCSA is responsible for: (1) a rulemaking to
require electronic on-board recording devices on all
motorcoaches to better monitor drivers' duty hours and manage
fatigue; (2) a rulemaking to prohibit texting and limiting the
use of cellular telephones and other devices by motorcoach
drivers; (3) enhancing oversight of carriers attempting to
evade sanctions and of other unsafe motorcoach companies; and
(4) establishing minimum knowledge requirements for passenger
transportation authority applicants. Additionally, the agency
is taking further actions to address the 67 open motor carrier
recommendations made by the NTSB. It is important for the FMSCA
to satisfy the internal goals set forward in the report in a
timely fashion that is inclusive of State agencies, safety
organizations, and other stakeholders. The Committee requests
an annual report on the agency's progress in implementing the
action items within the Secretary's Motorcoach Safety Action
Plan, due within 180 days of enactment.
ADA Compliance.--For several years, this Committee has
pushed the FMCSA to enforce DOT's own Americans with Disability
Act [ADA] regulations for over-the-road curbside operators. It
took the passage of a law by Congress to compel the agency to
accept its responsibility to deny or revoke operating authority
based on an operator's inability or unwillingness to meeting
DOT's ADA regulations. However, to date the FMCSA has not taken
any enforcement actions related to ADA noncompliance. The
Committee once again directs the FMCSA to include information
in its budget for fiscal year 2012 on enforcement actions the
agency has taken, including the number of denials or
revocations based on noncompliance with ADA regulations. The
Committee expects the information to demonstrate that the FMCSA
takes its responsibility to enforce DOT's ADA regulations
seriously.
Agricultural Spring/Exemption.--The Committee commends the
FMCSA's proposed 2-year limited exemption from the Federal
hours-of-service [HOS] regulations as authorized by section 345
of the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 to
certain motor carriers engaged in the distribution of anhydrous
ammonia during the spring planting season and further limited
to a 100 air mile radius.

PROGRAM EXPENSES

The Committee recommends $64,209,000 for FMCSA's program
expenses. Funding is provided for the programs as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
2010 enacted 2011 estimate recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research and technology................................ $8,543000 $8,586,000 $8,586,000
Information management................................. 34,618,000 41,943,000 41,943,000
Regulatory development................................. 9,728,000 9,777,000 9,777,000
Outreach and education................................. 2,889,000 2,903,000 2,903,000
CMV operations grants.................................. 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY GRANTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

(INCLUDING RESCISSION)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liquidation of
contract Limitation on
authorization obligations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2010.............. $310,070,000 $310,070,000
Budget estimate, 2011............. 310,070,000 310,070,000
Committee recommendation.......... 310,070,000 310,070,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides the necessary resources for Federal
grants to support State compliance, enforcement, and other
programs. Grants are also provided to States for enforcement
efforts at both the southern and northern borders to ensure
that all points of entry into the United States are fortified
with comprehensive safety measures; improvement of State
commercial driver's license [CDL] oversight activities to
prevent unqualified drivers from being issued CDLs; and the
Performance Registration Information Systems and Management
[PRISM] program, which links State motor vehicle registration
systems with carrier safety data in order to identify unsafe
commercial motor carriers.

MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY GRANTS

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of
$310,070,000 for motor carrier safety grants. The recommended
limitation is the same as both the fiscal year 2010 enacted
level and the budget request. The Committee recommends a
separate limitation on obligations for each grant program
funded under this account with the funding allocation
identified below. The Committee also provides the FMCSA the
authority utilize funds provided for commercial driver's
license information system grant program [CDLIS] for the motor
carrier safety assistance program and the commercial driver's
license and driver improvement program consistent with the
fiscal year 2011 budget request.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor carrier safety assistance program [MCSAP]...... $212,070,000
Commercial driver's license and driver improvement 25,000,000
program.............................................
Border enforcement grants............................ 32,000,000
Performance and registration information system 5,000,000
management [PRISM] grants...........................
Commercial vehicle information systems and networks 25,000,000
[CVISN] grants......................................
Safety Data Improvement.............................. 3,000,000
CDLIS................................................ 8,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks [CVISN]
Grants Program.--The Committee finds that the FMCSA has failed
to maintain appropriate oversight of the CVISN grant program
resulting in financial irregularities and the award of grants
to States in excess of the agency's statutory authority. This
development signifies a lack of adherence to internal grants
management protocols, policies and processes, bringing into
question the integrity of this, and potentially other,
competitive State financial assistance programs. Thus far, the
FMCSA is taking the appropriate and necessary steps to address
the historical mismanagement of the CVISN program. The
Committee directs the FMCSA to provide a report by November 1,
2010, to the House and Senate Committee on Appropriations on
this issue identifying: the findings of the external and
internal audits the CVISN program; results of the sampling of
other nonformula grant programs within the agency for similar
or related weaknesses; estimates of commitments made in excess
of the agency's statutory authority; and actions the agency is
taking to remedy all direct and indirect deficiencies. Further,
the Committee directs the Government Accountability Office to
conduct an audit of the CVISN program and assess the
implementation of FMCSA's new grants management policies,
procedures, and financial controls to determine if the agency
is executing best management practices by May 1, 2010. The bill
rescinds $18,900,000 in unobligated balances from amounts
available under this heading in prior appropriations acts.

MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

(RESCISSION)

The bill rescinds $7,300,000 in unobligated balances from
amounts made available under this heading in prior
appropriations acts.

NATIONAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY PROGRAM

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

(RESCISSION)

The bill rescinds $15,000,000 in unobligated balances from
amounts made available under this heading in prior
appropriations acts.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION--FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMNINSTRATION

Section 135 subjects the funds in this act to section 350
of Public Law 107-87 in order to ensure the safety of all
cross-border long haul operations conducted by Mexican-
domiciled commercial carriers.
It is essential for the administration to establish a plan
to resume cross-border trucking with Mexico in a way that
addresses the safety concerns raised during the Department of
Transportation's earlier pilot and end the retaliatory tariffs
imposed by the Mexican Government. The tariffs were imposed on
more than 90 U.S. products, a burden that undermines the
competitiveness of many agricultural products produced in the
United States. If the administration is unable to find a path
forward with Mexico on this issue, these tariffs will continue
to send American jobs to other countries, such as Canada, as
growers, processors, and packers are forced to relocate. Such
relocation threatens the livelihood of many American workers
and further exacerbates the economic recession in communities
across the Nation. Continued delays in rectifying this trade
issue are unacceptable. The Committee directs the Secretary of
Transportation, in coordination with the Ambassador of the
United States Trade Representative, no later than October 1,
2010, to establish and report on a proposal to implement a
cross-border trucking program that maintains the safety of our
roads and highways, enhances the efficient movement of
commerce, and eliminates harmful and retaliatory tariffs on
agricultural products.
Additionally, the North American Free Trade Agreement
requires that the United States and Mexico provide operating
authority and reciprocal treatment for bus companies to provide
domestic, intercity bus service and cross-border services.
Mexico has refused to grant United States owned bus companies
comparable rights in Mexico, thus making it impossible for
United States bus companies to compete with Mexican bus
companies for cross-border traffic. Congress gave the President
or his delegate the statutory authority (49 U.S.C.
Sec. 13902(c)) to suspend or restrict the U.S. operations of
passenger motor carriers owned by companies of a contiguous
country which unreasonably restricts the operations of U.S.-
owned companies. Since those circumstances exist now, the
Committee believes that the President or his delegate should
consider utilizing that authority unless Mexico immediately
starts to provide reciprocal access and fair treatment to
United States owned bus companies. The discrimination against
U.S. bus companies cannot continue. The Committee directs the
Secretary of Transportation, in coordination with the
Ambassador of the United States Trade Representative, to report
to the House and Senate Committee on Appropriations no later
than October 1, 2010 on what actions the Department or other
executive agencies are taking to rectify this issue.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA]
is responsible for motor vehicle safety, highway safety
behavioral programs, and the motor vehicle information and
automobile fuel economy programs. The Federal Government's
regulatory role in motor vehicle and highway safety began in
September 1966 with the enactment of the National Traffic and
Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (codified as chapter 301 of
title 49, United States Code) and the Highway Safety Act of
1966 (codified as chapter 4 of title 23, United States Code).
The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966
instructs the Secretary to reduce traffic crashes and deaths
and injuries resulting from traffic crashes; establish motor
vehicle safety standards for motor vehicles and motor vehicle
equipment in interstate commerce; carry out needed safety
research and development; and expand the National Driver
Register. The Highway Safety Act of 1966 instructs the
Secretary to increase highway safety by providing for a
coordinated national highway safety program through financial
assistance to the States.
In October 1966, these activities, originally under the
jurisdiction of the Department of Commerce, were transferred to
the Department of Transportation, to be carried out through the
National Traffic Safety Bureau. In March 1970, the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA] was established
as a separate organizational entity in the Department. It
succeeded the National Highway Safety Bureau, which previously
had administered traffic and highway safety functions as an
organizational unit of the Federal Highway Administration.
The NHTSA's mission was expanded in October 1972 with the
enactment of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act
(now codified as chapters 321, 323, 325, 327, 329, and 331 of
title 49, United States Code). This act as originally enacted,
instructs the Secretary to establish low-speed collision bumper
standards, consumer information activities, and odometer
regulations. Three major amendments to this act have been
enacted: (1) a December 1975 amendment directs the Secretary to
set and administer mandatory automotive fuel economy standards;
(2) an October 1984 amendment directs the Secretary to require
certain passenger motor vehicles and their major replacement
parts to be marked with identifying numbers or symbols; and (3)
an October 1992 amendment directs the Secretary to set and
administer automobile content labeling requirements.
NHTSA's current programs are authorized in five major laws:
(1) the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (chapter
301 of title 49, United States Code); (2) the Highway Safety
Act (chapter 4 of title 23, United States Code); (3) the Motor
Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act [MVICSA] (part C of
subtitle VI of title 49, United States Code); (4) the National
Driver Register Act of 1982; and (5) the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for
Users [SAFETEA-LU].
The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides
for the establishment and enforcement of safety standards for
vehicles and associated equipment and the conduct of supporting
research, including the acquisition of required testing
facilities and the operation of the National Driver Register,
which was reauthorized by the National Driver Register Act of
1982.
The Highway Safety Act provides for coordinated national
highway safety programs (section 402 of title 23, United States
Code) carried out by the States and for highway safety
research, development, and demonstration programs (section 403
of title 23, United States Code).
SAFETEA-LU, which was enacted on August 10, 2005, either
reauthorized or added new authorizations for the full range of
NHTSA programs for fiscal years 2005 through 2009.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $903,046,000 for the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA]. This total
funding level includes both budget authority and limitations on
the obligation of contract authority. This funding is
$25,436,000 more than the President's request and $30,269,000
more than the fiscal year 2010 enacted level.
The following table summarizes the Committee
recommendations excluding rescissions:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
Program -------------------------------- Committee
2010 enacted 2011 estimate recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations and Research......................................... $245,927,000 $250,213,000 $290,149,000
National Driver Register........................................ 7,350,000 6,700,000 6,700,000
Highway Traffic Safety Grants................................... 619,500,000 620,697,000 606,197,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 872,777,000 877,610,000 903,046,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OPERATIONS AND RESEARCH

Appropriations, 2010.................................... $245,927,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 250,213,000
Committee recommendation................................ 290,149,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

OPERATIONS AND RESEARCH

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee has provided $290,149,000 for Operations and
Research. This level is $44,222,000 more than the fiscal year
2010 enacted level and $39,936,000 more than the budget
request. Of the total amount recommended for Operations and
Research, $172,773,000 is derived from the General Fund and
$117,376,000 is derived from the Highway Trust Fund.
Sudden Unintended Acceleration.--Incidents of sudden
unintended acceleration [SUA] in vehicles during the past
several years have exposed shortcomings with current vehicle
safety standards. More worrisome, these incidents have prompted
questions about NHTSA's ability to detect, inspect, and enforce
safety standards for the 246 million vehicles on America's
roads. Multiple Congressional hearings on this issue over the
past year have established that: (1) there are no Federal
standards for the electronics and computers that now control
modern vehicles; (2) some automakers limit consumer access to
event data recorders; (3) NHTSA lacks sufficient expertise in
vehicle electronics and software; (4) NHTSA's cap on civil
penalties fails to act as an effective deterrent for companies
with multi-billion dollar revenues; (5) NHTSA needs to make its
safety database more accessible and consumer-friendly; and (6)
consumers need straight-forward information about how to report
potential vehicle defects to NHTSA. These are largely issues
within NHTSA's means to address, and the Committee expects the
Department's and agency's leadership to make significant
progress on all six during the coming year. The Committee
supports the budget request for additional personnel resources
to support vehicle safety programs, research, and
investigations.
The Committee approved a reprogramming of NHTSA funds in
the fiscal year 2010 supplemental appropriations act to fund
critical research into the potential causes of SUA, focusing on
possible vulnerabilities in the Toyota electronic throttle
control system. Additionally, NHTSA contracted with the
National Academy of Sciences [NAS] to assess the safety and
reliability of vehicle electronic control systems across the
industry. The NAS will consider other possible causes of SUA
events, such as human error, mechanical failure, and mechanical
interference with accelerator mechanisms. The Academy expects
to complete its research by late summer, 2011. The Committee
requests NHTSA provide a report on the NAS research and its
findings to the House and Senate Appropriations Committee 15
days after NAS delivers its findings to the Department.
The Committee provides an additional $4,350,000 in fiscal
year 2011 to support additional SUA related research such as: a
human factors study that will evaluate driver usability versus
pedal designs, and assess if a vehicles pedal design and
placement affect susceptibility to pedal misapplication leading
to unintended acceleration incidents; further research into
electronic throttle control systems in additional Toyota models
based on fiscal year 2010 testing; and the evaluation of
electronic data recorder testing.
Alcohol-related Fatalities.--Alcohol-impaired driving
fatalities continue to be a leading cause of highway
fatalities. Although the number of alcohol-impaired driving
fatalities has dropped recently, they continue to represent 32
percent of all highway fatalities. Alcohol ignition interlock
systems hold great promise for reducing alcohol-related
fatalities. However, ignition interlock systems are an
intrusive technology, which limits their use.
In 2008, NHTSA partnered with leading automobile
manufacturers in the Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety
[ACTS] to develop alcohol detection technologies that could be
installed in vehicles to prevent drunk driving. These
technologies need to be nonintrusive in order to achieve
greater acceptance by the general public. The development of
advanced alcohol detection technologies is one of the key
components of the Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving, which
has brought together Mothers Against Drunk Driving, major auto
manufacturers, law enforcement, and other stakeholders with the
goal of eliminating drunk driving. To date, NHTSA and ACTS have
developed preliminary device specifications, completed a
rigorous technical review of candidate technologies, and
initiated proof-of-concept research to investigate those
technologies that hold the most promise. The Committee
recommends $2,250,000 to support this collaboration in fiscal
year 2011. This funding level is $1,250,000 more than the
budget request and $1,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2010
enacted level.
Alternative Fuels Research.--The recommended funding level
includes $4,500,000 for research into the safety of vehicles
that use alternative fuels. This funding is equal to the fiscal
year 2010 enacted level and $3,500,000 more than the budget
request. Funds will be used to continue research on the safety
of emerging battery technologies, particularly lithium ion
batteries used in hybridized fuel cells and plug-in electric
vehicles. The funding provided for alternative fuels research
shall be used to continue the development of pack and vehicles
level test procedures for charging, discharging, damage
tolerance, fire impingement, as well as the development of
full-scale vehicle crash test procedures. Research will be used
to select suitable performance criteria and quantify potential
failures. This continuing research is an important step in
ensuring that vehicles powered by alternative sources of energy
do not compromise safety. The Committee directs NHTSA to
provide specific information on the research and findings as
part of its budget request for fiscal year 2012.
Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standard [CAFE].--The Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 [EISA] requires NHTSA to
regulate fuel efficiency for medium- and heavy-duty trucks. In
addition, the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] has a legal
duty to regulate all motor vehicles, including medium- and
heavy-duty vehicles, as a result of the Supreme Court's ruling
on the Massachusetts v. EPA case in April 2007. Both agencies
have been directed by the President to align their research,
performance requirements, and regulatory framework to develop a
coordinated national program. This program must achieve the
purposes of both EISA and the Clean Air Act, while also
including California's State environmental standards. This will
allow automobile manufacturers to produce vehicles that adhere
to a single standard to minimize costs associated with meeting
competing compulsory requirements. These actions support the
twin goals of improving the nation's energy security and air
quality.
The Committee recently approved reprogramming funds from
the fiscal year 2010 Supplemental Appropriations Act to
accelerate NHTSA's research and rulemaking and is providing an
additional $500,000 above the budget request in fiscal year
2011. This will provide vehicle manufacturers the certainty of
established targets to plan for future investments for model
years 2017 and beyond. The Committee instructs NHTSA, in
coordination with EPA, to provide a long-range research and
regulatory plan to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations within 180 days of enactment describing the: (1)
specific research projects that each agency is undertaking,
their purpose, and intended goals; (2) cost estimates
associated with each research and regulatory activity; and (3)
major milestones and estimated completion dates for each
activity. The plan should include current and future
expenditures from fiscal year 2010 until all final actions are
concluded for the regulation of medium and heavy duty trucks
for model years 2017-2022.
Motorcoach Safety.--The Committee commends the Secretary
for taking a comprehensive approach to assessing and addressing
motorcoach safety issues. Specifically, the Committee
appreciates the development of specific action items for modal
administrations to rectify the increase in the number of
motorcoach fatalities over the past 10 years. This trend is
inconsistent with all other highway fatality trends in vehicle
and motor carrier sectors, which points to a long-standing
weakness in passenger safety oversight. The Secretary's
Motorcoach Safety Action Plan requires NHTSA to develop
performance requirements for stability control systems and to
expand its research on crash-avoidance technologies. The
Committee provides NHTSA $500,000 to implement the agency's
heavy vehicle research responsibilities and to take additional
actions to address NTSB recommendations on occupant protection
systems, emergency egress, and flammability standards.
National Automotive Sampling System [NASS].--The Committee
provides $25,000,000 to fully fund modernization of the NASS
data collection system that provides crash data on a nationally
representative sample of police-reported motor vehicle crashes
and related injuries. Funds are available for obligation
through September 30, 2014. The Insurance Institute for Highway
Safety has stated that NASS provides a ``vital means of
understanding injury mechanisms and identifying ways to improve
crashworthiness and restraint system performance''. The
Committee believes it is important for NHTSA to expand the
scope of its data collection relative to the NASS/
Crashworthiness Data System [CDS]. Expanding the NASS data
collection from its current 24 data collection sites assures a
larger and more representative sample of crashes and increases
the precision in which the agency can determine and validate
areas of specific interest to rulemaking, the Office of Defects
Investigation, and Behavioral Safety Research along with
assisting researchers around the world in making informed
decision on vehicle design and safety policy.
NHTSA must also undertake a comprehensive review of the
data elements to be collected from each crash, solicit input
from interested parties--including suppliers, automakers,
safety advocates, the medical community and research
organizations--and assess the need for more data from the pre-
crash, crash, and post-crash phases. The agency should consider
including the following factors as part of an enhanced data
collection initiative: vehicle velocities; vehicle
acceleration/deceleration; departure from the roadway; presence
of crash avoidance or driver assistance systems in the
vehicle(s); and road surface and condition. Funding will allow
NHTSA to modernize the NASS system to improve data quality,
timeliness, and accessibility in responding to the rapidly
changing vehicle and highway safety environment.
The Committee directs the FMCSA to report on the NASS
modernization efforts and related expenditures in the
President's annual budget submission to Congress. Additionally,
within 1 year of the date of enactment of this act, the NHTSA
shall provide the House and Senate Committee on Appropriations
a report on the results of the data element review and
recommendations for revision.

national driver register

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liquidation Limitation
of contract on
authorization obligations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2010........................ $4,000,000 $4,000,000
Budget estimate, 2011....................... 4,170,000 4,170,000
Committee recommendation.................... 4,170,000 4,170,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides funding to implement and operate the
Problem Driver Pointer System [PDPS] and improve traffic safety
by assisting State motor vehicle administrators in
communicating effectively and efficiently with other States to
identify drivers whose licenses have been suspended or revoked
for serious traffic offenses such as driving under the
influence of alcohol or other drugs.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

The Committee recommends a liquidation of contract
authorization of $4,170,000 for payment on obligations incurred
in carryout provisions of the National Driver Register Act. The
recommended liquidating cash appropriation is equal to the
budget estimate and $170,000 more than the fiscal year 2010
enacted level.

LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS

The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of
$4,170,000 for the National Driver Register, which is equal to
the budget request and $170,000 more than the fiscal year 2010
enacted level.

NATIONAL DRIVER REGISTER MODERNIZATION

Appropriations, 2010.................................... $3,350,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 2,530,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,530,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The National Driver Register helps States determine whether
a driver has had a license suspended or revoked for a serious
offense in any of the other States. No other database provides
this service, and the States increasingly rely on the database
year after year. However, the increased use of the database has
exceeded the system's capacity. Consequently, the database has
recently experienced service disruptions. The National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration is modernizing the National
Driver Register as it continues to operate the existing legacy
system.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,530,000 for
the modernization of the National Driver Register. The funds
provided will finalize the modernization effort in the 2011
fiscal year.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liquidation of
contract Limitation on
authorization obligations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2010.................. $619,500,000 $619,500,000
Budget estimate, 2011................. 620,697,000 620,697,000
Committee recommendation.............. 606,197,000 606,197,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

SAFETEA-LU reauthorized three State grant programs: highway
safety programs, occupant protection incentive grants, and
alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures incentive grants; and
authorized for the first time an additional five State
programs: safety belt performance grants, State traffic safety
information systems improvement grants, high-visibility
enforcement program, child safety and child booster seat safety
incentive grants, and motorcyclist safety grants.
SAFETEA-LU established a new safety belt performance
incentive grant program under section 406 of title 23, United
States Code; SAFETEA-LU also established a new State traffic
safety information system improvement program grant program
under section 408 of title 23, United States Code; SAFETEA-LU
amended the alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures incentive
grant program authorized by section 410 of title 23, United
States Code; SAFETEA-LU established a new program to administer
at least two high-visibility traffic safety law enforcement
campaigns each year to achieve one or both of the following
objectives: (1) reduce alcohol- or drug-impaired operation of
motor vehicles; and/or (2) increase the use of safety belts by
occupants of motor vehicles.
Motorcyclist Safety.--Section 2010 of SAFETEA-LU
established a new program of incentive grants for motorcycle
safety training and motorcyclist awareness programs.
Child Safety.--Section 2011 of SAFETEA-LU established a new
incentive grant program. These grants may be used only for
child safety seat and child restraint programs.
Grant Administrative Expenses.--Section 2001(a)(11) of
SAFETEA-LU provides funding for salaries and operating expenses
related to the administration of the grants programs.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANTS

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of
$606,197,000 for the highway traffic safety grant programs
funded under this heading. The recommendation limitation is
$14,500,000 less than the budget estimate and $13,303,000 less
than the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. The Committee has also
provided the authority to liquidate an equal amount of contract
authorization.
The Committee continues to recommend prohibiting the use of
section 402 funds for construction, rehabilitation or
remodeling costs, or for office furnishings and fixtures for
State, local, or private buildings or structures.
The Committee recommends a separate limitation on
obligations for administrative expenses and for each grant
program as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway Safety Programs (section 402)................... $235,000,000
Occupant Protection Incentive Grants (section 405)...... 25,000,000
Safety Belt Performance Grants (section 406)............ 60,000,000
Distracted Driver Incentive Grants...................... 50,000,000
State Traffic Safety Information System Improvement 34,500,000
Grants (section 408)...................................
Alcohol-Impaired Driving Countermeasures Incentive 139,000,000
Grants (section 410)...................................
Motorcyclist Safety Grants (section 2010)............... 7,000,000
Child Safety and Child Booster Seat Safety Incentive 7,000,000
Grants (section 2011)..................................
High Visibility Enforcement Program (section 2009)...... 29,000,000
Administrative Expenses................................. 19,697,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Distracted Driver.--In 2008, distracted drivers killed
5,870 people and injured 515,000 people nationwide. Distracted
driving encompasses a wide range of behavior--not just cell
phone use--that takes the driver's attention from his or her
primary driving responsibilities. There is no definitive data
as to how many distracted driving deaths and injuries are
caused by cell phone use and texting, but as overall cell phone
use and text messaging increased year-to-year, the proportion
of vehicle fatalities associated with driver distraction has
risen--from 12 percent in 2004 to 16 percent in 2008. Further,
in a 2009 poll, 67 percent of drivers self-reported using a
cell phone while driving, and 21 percent self-reported that
they send and receive text messages while driving.
The Committee commends the Secretary's strong leadership on
this significant safety issue across all modes of
transportation and supports establishing a voluntary incentive
grant program to States to encourage the enactment and
enforcement of laws to prevent distracted driving. The
Committee recommends $50,000,000 to fund this program in fiscal
year 2011. Funds are available for expenditure through
September 31, 2012, and no State shall receive greater than
$3,000,000 in any fiscal year. The NHTSA shall provide the
specific criteria and guidance States must meet to receive
incentive and enforcement grants to the House and Senate
Committee on Appropriations 30 days prior to any regulatory
action or notice of the availability of funds. Further, section
188 of this act shall apply for the award of grants under this
section.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY
ADMINISTRATION

Section 140 allows $130,000 of obligation authority for
section 402 of title 23 U.S.C. to be available to pay for
travel and expenses for State management reviews and highway
safety staff core competency development training.
Section 141 exempts obligation authority made available in
previous Public Laws for multiple years from limitations on
obligations for the current year.
Section 142 rescinds $1,829,000 in unobligated balances
from amounts made available under the heading ``Operations and
Research'' in prior appropriations acts.
Section 143 rescinds $78,000 in unobligated balances from
amounts made available under the heading ``National Driver
Register'' in prior appropriations acts.
Section 144 rescinds $79,843,000 in unobligated balances
from amounts made available under the heading ``Highway Traffic
Safety Grants'' in prior appropriations acts.

Federal Railroad Administration

The Federal Railroad Administration [FRA] became an
operating administration within the Department of
Transportation on April 1, 1967. It incorporated the Bureau of
Railroad Safety from the Interstate Commerce Commission, the
Office of High Speed Ground Transportation from the Department
of Commerce, and the Alaska Railroad from the Department of the
Interior. The Federal Railroad Administration is responsible
for planning, developing, and administering programs to achieve
safe operating and mechanical practices in the railroad
industry. Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation
(Amtrak) and other financial assistance programs to
rehabilitate and improve the railroad industry's physical
infrastructure are also administered by the Federal Railroad
Administration.

SAFETY AND OPERATIONS

Appropriations, 2010.................................... $172,270,000
Budget estimate, 2011 \1\............................... 203,348,000
Committee recommendation................................ 205,098,000

\1\ The amount shown above represents the total level of funding
requested for FRA's safety programs and operations. The budget request
separated these costs into two new accounts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Safety and Operations account provides support for FRA
rail-safety activities and all other administrative and
operating activities related to staff and programs.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $205,098,000 for Safety and
Operations for fiscal year 2011, which is $1,750,000 more than
the funding included for these activities in the budget request
and $32,828,000 more than the fiscal year 2010 enacted level.
Of this total, the bill specifies that $8,380,000 shall remain
available through fiscal year 2012. These funds cover travel
costs related to safety inspections as well as the cost of the
close call system, a key element of the FRA's risk reduction
program. Providing these funds for 2 years will give the FRA
greater flexibility in managing these mission-critical
activities from 1 year to the next. The bill also specifies
that $21,279,000 shall remain available until expended. This
funding covers the cost of the Automated Track Inspection
Program, Railroad Safety Information System, Southeastern
Transportation Study, research and development activities,
contract support, and Alaska Railroad liabilities.
Acquisition Workforce.--The Office of the Secretary
requested additional funds for fiscal year 2011 that the office
would distribute throughout the Department for developing its
acquisition workforce. The Committee applauds OST for placing a
priority on improving the capacity of the Department's
acquisition workforce, but has denied this request in order to
provide resources directly to the modal administrations. The
Committee recommendation therefore includes $250,000 for an
additional three positions at FRA. These positions will help
FRA conduct significant acquisitions as part of the agency's
implementation of the new grant program for intercity and high
speed rail. FRA announced grants for the $8,000,000,000
provided through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act,
and must now oversee the implementation of those projects. FRA
plans to hire project management oversight contractors, but the
ultimate responsibility for overseeing those contractors and
ensuring the responsible use of taxpayer dollars rests with the
FRA workforce.
Next Generation Corridor Equipment Pool Committee.--The
Committee recommendation includes $1,500,000 for the Next
Generation Corridor Equipment Pool Committee. Investments being
made in intercity and high speed rail have the potential to
support a domestic industry for manufacturing rail equipment.
The equipment pool committee is a mechanism by which projects
and corridors being developed across the country can coordinate
on rail equipment standards and orders so that a domestic
industry will be able to respond.
Operation Lifesaver.--The Committee notes that the funding
provided for FRA Safety and Operations includes $2,000,000 for
Operation Lifesaver, as authorized under section 206 of the
Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008. The funding will support
grants to Operation Lifesaver to carry out a public information
and education program to end collisions, deaths and injuries at
places where roadways cross train tracks, and on railroad
rights-of-way. The funding will also support a pilot program in
which Operation Lifesaver conducts targeted and sustained
outreach in communities with the greatest risk.

RAILROAD RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2010.................................... $37,613,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 40,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 40,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Railroad Research and Development program provides
science and technology support for FRA's rail safety rulemaking
and enforcement efforts. It also supports technological
advances in conventional and high-speed railroads, as well as
evaluations of the role of railroads in the Nation's
transportation system.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $40,000,000
for railroad research and development, which is equal to the
budget request and $2,387,000 more than the fiscal year 2010
enacted level.
Proton exchange membrane fuel cells have proven to be a
highly reliable, efficient and clean form of electrical
generation and the Committee believes these devices are
uniquely suited and have great potential for serving to provide
remote generation and backup power solutions in transportation
control applications. The Committee directs FRA to test and
evaluate the use of fuel cell technology to support off-grid
and backup power production units for implementation of
positive train control and other technology initiatives to
improve the safety and performance of freight and passenger
rail movements.
Within the amount provided, the Committee recommendation
includes funding for the following projects and activities:
$1,000,000 for San Diego Positive Train Control, California;
$1,000,000 for Metrolink Positive Train Control, California;
$500,000 for PEERS Rail-Grade Crossing Safety, Illinois; and
$400,000 for the RR Whistle Free Zone Project, Goodview and
Minnesota City, Minnesota.

RAILROAD REHABILITATION AND IMPROVEMENT FINANCING PROGRAM

The Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing
[RRIF] program was established by Public Law 109-178 to provide
direct loans and loan guarantees to State and local
governments, Government-sponsored entities, or railroads.
Credit assistance under the program may be used for
rehabilitating or developing rail equipment and facilities. No
Federal appropriation is required to implement the program
because a non-Federal partner may contribute the subsidy amount
required by the Credit Reform Act of 1990 in the form of a
credit risk premium.
The Committee continues bill language specifying that no
new direct loans or loan guarantee commitments may be made
using Federal funds for the payment of any credit premium
amount during fiscal year 2011.

RAILROAD SAFETY TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2010.................................... $50,000,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 150,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Railroad Safety Technology Program is a newly
authorized program under the Rail Safety Improvement Act
(Public Law 110-432). The program authorizes the Department to
provide grants to passenger and freight rail carriers, railroad
suppliers, and State and local governments for projects that
have a public benefit of improved railroad safety and
efficiency. Such projects may include the deployment of train
control technologies, train control component technologies,
processor-based technologies, electronically controlled
pneumatic brakes, rail integrity inspection systems, rail
integrity warning systems, switch position indicators and
monitors, remote control power switch technologies, track
integrity circuit technologies, and other new technologies to
improve the safety of railroad systems. Priority must be given
to projects that make technologies interoperable between
railroad systems; accelerate the deployment of train control
technology on high risk corridors, such as those that have high
volumes of hazardous materials shipments, or over which
commuter or passenger trains operate; or benefit both passenger
and freight safety and efficiency.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends the appropriation of $150,000,000
for the Railroad Safety Technology Program for fiscal year 2011
which is $100,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2010 enacted
level. The administration requested no funding for this
program.
Base Year for Positive Train Control.--The Rail Safety
Improvement Act of 2008 [RSIA] mandates the installation of
positive train control by December 31, 2015, on main lines used
to transport toxic-by-inhalation [TIH] hazardous materials or
passengers. The mandate is very specific. Three criteria must
be met for a portion of railroad track to be in compliance with
the mandate: (1) the track must be a main line; (2) the track
must be used for the transportation of TIH substances or
passengers; and (3) the track must be equipped with positive
train control by December 31, 2015.
To implement this mandate, FRA published regulations that
require the installation of positive train control on main
lines where TIH or passengers were transported in 2008. Tying
the requirement to routes used 2 years ago has brought
additional controversy and dispute to this issue. FRA argued in
its final rule that using 2008 as a base year was the only way
to ensure the full deployment of positive train control as
Congress intended, but the Committee notes that the legislative
language of RSIA ties the mandate only to the year 2015 and not
to any other year.
FRA regulations give railroads a limited opportunity to
exempt routes used to transport TIH or passengers in 2008, but
not 2015, from the mandate. The regulations, however, place
potentially significant hurdles in the way of receiving an
exemption. The Committee therefore urges FRA to seriously
examine each application, and to consider granting an exemption
to any railroad acting in good faith to implement the mandate.
The Committee also directs FRA to reconsider its use of 2008 as
a base year and provide the House and Senate Committee on
Appropriations a full justification for its use by March 30,
2011.

CAPITAL ASSISTANCE FOR HIGH SPEED RAIL CORRIDORS AND INTERCITY
PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE

Appropriations, 2010.................................... $2,500,000,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 1,000,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,000,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The funding provided under this heading is available for
several programs authorized under the Passenger Rail and
Investment and Improvement Act for investing in passenger rail
infrastructure: grants for intercity passenger rail, grants for
high-speed passenger rail, and grants to reduce congestion or
facilitate ridership growth along passenger rail corridors.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends the appropriation of
$1,000,000,000 for grants to support intercity rail service and
high speed rail corridors. The recommended funding level is
equal to the budget request. It is also $1,500,000,000 less
than the fiscal year 2010 enacted level.
National Rail Plan.--Under the fiscal year 2010
appropriations act, FRA must submit its national rail plan by
September 15 of this year. FRA has worked hard to include input
from government and industry stakeholders across the country,
and the Committee looks forward to seeing the complete plan
submitted on time. The Committee understands that FRA will
treat the national rail plan as a living document, refining its
plan and making adjustments as necessary. Yet the Committee
believes that certain elements must be included in the national
plan from the very beginning: an estimate of the cost to
complete the system of high speed rail envisioned in the plan,
and a complete map of that system. For this reason, the
Committee has included language in the bill that requires these
elements to be included in the national rail plan. If FRA is
unable to accommodate this requirement by the September 15,
2010 deadline, then the Committee directs FRA to incorporate
these elements into the national rail plan and resubmit the
plan by June 1, 2011.
OIG Report.--FRA published its strategic plan for high
speed rail in April of last year. In that plan, FRA mentioned
the need to consider changes to its safety regulations in order
to accommodate the development of high speed rail. Overseas,
most high speed rail systems operate on dedicated track,
separated from freight railroads. In the United States,
however, passenger and freight rail service often share tracks,
and the freight equipment used in the United States is often
heavier than the equipment used overseas. This mixed operating
environment poses a safety challenge that the FRA will need to
address in order to continue protecting the safety of the
entire rail transportation system. According to the strategic
plan, ``The systems approach required to ensure safety of new
HSR corridors will necessitate consideration of additional
changes in several regulations, including equipment, system
safety, and collision and derailment prevention.''
FRA published a preliminary draft of its national rail plan
in October of last year, but this plan did not provide any
additional details on FRA's plans to consider changes to its
safety regulations. The Committee believes that, even as FRA
awards grants for the development of high speed rail, the
agency's primary mission must be to protect safety. The
Committee expects the final national rail plan will offer a
more detailed discussion about safety standards for high speed
rail. In addition, the Committee directs the Inspector General
to assess the FRA's progress in developing safety standards for
high speed rail, and to report his findings to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations no later than December 31,
2011.
Grant Agreements.--After the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act included $8,000,000,000 for intercity and high
speed rail, the FRA conducted extensive outreach to States,
freight railroads and other stakeholders as it developed
interim guidance for the program. The agency received
significant input from a wide range of stakeholders, and took
this input into account before publishing guidance on the
program's eligibility requirements, procedures for applying for
grant, and the criteria on which applications would be
evaluated. The Committee commends FRA for these efforts.
Many States and freight railroads negotiated agreements
with each other based on this interim guidance, and those
agreements formed the basis for their applications for
intercity and high speed rail funding.
Almost a year after FRA issued the interim guidance,
however, the agency developed a new set of guidance for grant
agreements between FRA and States receiving a grant award. This
new guidance included specific expectations for freight
railroads working with a State on an intercity or high speed
rail project funded under the program. Whereas FRA's interim
guidance was informed by extensive outreach, this new guidance
was made public before any notice or opportunity for comment.
The Committee understands that States had requested additional
details on the program's implementation, but the manner in
which FRA introduced new information created a sense of
uncertainty for the program that was unnecessary and
counterproductive.
The success of the intercity and high speed rail program
will rest to large extent on the ability of States, freight
railroads, and passenger rail operators to agree on how
passenger and freight rail service will share the same
infrastructure over the life of these projects.
FRA has committed itself to respecting the terms of the
applications that were awarded with grant funding. The
Committee believes this approach is appropriate and allows
future applicants under the program to put forth their best
applications with the confidence that they will be held to the
same standards before and after a grant is awarded. The
Committee therefore urges the FRA to move expeditiously to
finalize grant agreements for projects that have been announced
under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and continue
to give States and freight railroads the appropriate
flexibility for negotiating performance standards and
expectations.

THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK)

The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)
operates intercity passenger rail services in 46 States and the
District of Columbia, in addition to serving as a contractor in
various capacities for several commuter rail agencies. Congress
created Amtrak in the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970
(Public Law 91-518) in response to private carriers' inability
to profitably operate intercity passenger rail service.
Thereafter, Amtrak assumed the common carrier obligations of
the private railroads in exchange for the right to priority
access of their tracks for incremental cost.

OPERATING GRANTS TO THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION

Appropriations, 2010.................................... $563,000,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 563,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 563,000,000

The Committee provides $563,000,000 for operating grants
for Amtrak. The operating grant provides a subsidy to account
for the difference between Amtrak's self-generated operating
revenues and its total operating costs. The amount provided is
equal to the President's request and the fiscal year 2010
enacted level.
Fleet Plan.--This past February, Amtrak submitted its fleet
plan, describing the railroad's strategy for replacing its
outdated rolling stock over the next 30 years. For fiscal year
2012, the Committee directs Amtrak to provide a unified request
that includes funding related to its fleet plan and
incorporates fleet acquisition into its prioritized list of
capital projects. The Committee also amended language from last
year that requires Amtrak to submit its budget, business plan,
and 5-year financial plan to require Amtrak to include annual
information consistent with the comprehensive fleet plan.

CAPITAL AND DEBT SERVICE GRANTS TO THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER
CORPORATION

Appropriations, 2010.................................... $1,001,625,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 1,052,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,400,000,000

The Committee recommends $1,400,000,000 for capital and
debt service grants for Amtrak. Of this amount, not more than
$305,000,000 shall be available for debt service payments. The
amount provided is $348,000,000 more than the budget request
and $398,375,000 more than the fiscal year 2010 enacted level.
ADA Compliance.--The Committee continues to believe that
compliance with the requirements of the Americans with
Disabilities Act [ADA] is essential to ensuring that all people
have equal access to transportation services. Last year, Amtrak
announced that it will not be able to meet the legislative
deadline for compliance with ADA. The railroad presented a plan
for coming into compliance over a 5-year period, and has
requested additional funds to implement this plan for fiscal
year 2010 and again this year.
Since presenting this plan, however, it has become clear
that the current obstacle to achieving ADA compliance
throughout Amtrak's system has not been the availability of
funds. Amtrak expects that by the end of the current fiscal
year, it will be able to spend less than one-half of the
$144,000,000 provided in the fiscal year 2010 appropriations
act for ADA compliance. In addition, just 3 months after
submitting a budget request that included $280,700,000 for ADA
improvements, Amtrak's president and CEO testified before the
Committee that it would have to lower this budget request by
$50,000,000. There is reason to believe that Amtrak may be able
to spend even less than the revised request.
Amtrak has faced challenges in defining what work is
necessary to comply with ADA and in forming work agreements
with its partners at each station. The Committee finds this
news discouraging, noting that last year Amtrak claimed it was
going to tackle easier jobs first and give itself time to
develop work plans for the more complicated jobs.
Amtrak's capital grants are available until expended, and
the Committee expects that Amtrak will continue setting aside
any remaining funds from the $144,000,000 provided for fiscal
year 2010 for ADA-related projects until those projects have
been completed. For fiscal year 2011, the Committee
recommendation includes $230,000,000 for ADA compliance. The
Committee recognizes that at times Amtrak faces true
emergencies that require immediate spending to repair or
replace its infrastructure. The Committee also appreciates the
value that Amtrak places on preserving the safety of its
system. However, the Committee expects Amtrak to set aside the
funding included in the Committee recommendation for ADA-
related work, and to continue giving ADA compliance priority
for the use of these funds.
Fleet Acquisition.--The Committee notes that Amtrak's fleet
plan identified several options for financing the replacement
of its rolling stock, including direct appropriations, Federal
credit assistance, and credit assistance through a private
lender. The Committee understands that Amtrak has started a
conversation with the Department of Transportation about using
the FRA's Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing
Program [RRIF]. The RIFF program provides an opportunity to
soften the impact of Federal contributions to the fleet plan,
and to spread the cost of this assistance over the life of the
equipment. Using the RRIF program also provides the Department
with an opportunity to oversee Amtrak's implementation of its
fleet plan. The Committee therefore urges Amtrak and the
Department to continue this conversation.
In comparison to the RRIF program, the private market will
demand a significantly higher interest rate. Furthermore, a
portion of those interest earnings will represent profits to a
private corporation. Given that Amtrak relies on Federal
subsidies, and is therefore beholden to the Federal taxpayer
for the responsible use of its funds, the Committee does not
believe that Amtrak should consider borrowing from the private
market until every opportunity to apply for credit assistance
from the Department of Transportation has been exhausted.
Finally, the House and Senate Committee on Appropriations
should be notified when the Amtrak Board decides to pursue a
formal RRIF loan application with the Department of
Transportation or a private sector loan application.
Amtrak Service in Rural Areas.--The Committee recognizes
the importance of passenger train service to communities,
especially rural areas, across the United States. The Committee
also notes that natural disasters and environmental changes can
present engineering challenges to the continuation of this rail
service. Consequently, the Committee encourages Amtrak to give
priority consideration to projects that will ensure the
continued operation of normal passenger rail service along any
route that serves rural areas, including the current route of
the Empire Builder Line.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 151 allows DOT to purchase promotional items of
nominal value for use in certain outreach activities.
Section 152 permanently prohibits funds for the National
Railroad Passenger Corporation from being available if the
Corporation contracts for services at or from any location
outside of the United States which were, as of July 1, 2006,
performed by a full-time or part-time Amtrak employee within
the United States.
Section 153 allows the Secretary to receive and use cash or
spare parts to repair and replace damaged track inspection
cars.
Section 154 requires the Federal Railroad Administrator to
submit an annual report to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations on Amtrak on-time performance.

Federal Transit Administration

The Federal Transit Administration was established as a
component of the Department of Transportation by Reorganization
Plan No. 2 of 1968, effective July 1, 1968, which transferred
most of the functions and programs under the Federal Transit
Act of 1964, as amended (78 Stat. 302; 49 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.),
from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The
missions of the Federal Transit Administration are: to assist
in the development of improved mass transportation facilities,
equipment, techniques, and methods; to encourage the planning
and establishment of urban and rural transportation services
needed for economical and desirable development; to provide
mobility for transit dependents in both metropolitan and rural
areas; to maximize the productivity and efficiency of
transportation systems; and to provide assistance to State and
local governments and their instrumentalities in financing such
services and systems.
The most recent authorization for transit programs was
contained in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users [SAFETEA-LU],
which expired on September 30, 2009. The authority for these
programs has been continued by the Hiring Incentives to Restore
Employment [HIRE] Act, which extends surface transportation
programs and Highway Trust Fund expenditure authority through
December 31, 2010. The Committee's recommendations assume they
will be further extended under their current structure until
the enactment of a full reauthorization package.
The following table summarizes the Committee's
recommendations compared to the fiscal year 2010 enacted level
and the administration's request:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Program ---------------------------------- Committee
2010 enacted 2011 estimate recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative expenses...................................... $98,911,000 $113,559,000 $111,981,000
Formula and bus grants (trust fund).......................... 8,343,171,000 8,271,700,000 8,360,565,000
Livable communities (trust fund)............................. ............... 306,905,000 \1\
Research and university research centers..................... 65,670,000 33,913,000 69,750,000
Capital investment grants.................................... 2,000,000,000 1,822,112,000 2,000,000,000
Rail transit safety oversight program........................ ............... 24,139,000 ...............
Grants for energy efficiency and greenhouse gas reductions... 75,000,000 52,743, 000 100,000,000
Technical assistance and workforce development............... ............... 24,463,000 ...............
Grants to WMATA.............................................. 150,000,000 150,000,000 150,000,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................. 10,732,752,000 10,799,534,000 10,792,296,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Committee recommendation provides funding for this initiative within Formula and Bus grants.

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010.................................... $98,911,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 113,559,000
Committee recommendation................................ 111,981,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Administrative expenses funds personnel, contract
resources, information technology, space management, travel,
training, and other administrative expenses necessary to carry
out its mission to promote public transportation systems.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total of $111,981,000 for the
agency's salaries and administrative expenses. The recommended
level of funding is $1,578,000 below the budget request and
$13,070,000 more than the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. The
bill limits travel expenses to $2,000,000, which has been
increased above the fiscal year 2010 level to support 40 new
FTE. The Committee recognizes this amount is significantly
below the level requested in the administration's budget, and
encourages FTA to curb lower priority travel and make greater
use of video teleconferencing.
Strengthening FTA's Workforce.--In 2008, FTA commissioned a
consultant to review its workforce management practices and
staffing levels. The consultant concluded that FTA requires
additional staff to support its growing workload and improve
its ability to perform project oversight, contract
administration, and technical assistance. The consultant also
determined FTA needs to take steps to better manage and support
its existing workforce, including improving employees' skills.
The Committee recommendation provides 20 additional FTE to
ensure FTA has adequate staffing to perform its mission,
consistent with the budget request. The Committee directs FTA
to brief the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 30
days after enactment detailing its plans for allocating these
resources to those areas of greatest priority. Since effective
workforce management practices are central to realizing the
full potential of its workforce--including wisely allocating
the additional positions included in this bill--the report
should also describe the steps FTA is taking to optimize its
existing workforce, shore up needed skill areas, and prepare
for future requirements.
Office of Safety.--In recent years, rail transit accidents
in San Francisco, Boston, Los Angeles and Washington, DC, have
exposed vulnerabilities and gaps in the safety practices of
some of the Nation's largest systems. While rail transit
remains far safer than traveling by auto, these incidents
highlight the need for a greater Federal role in developing
standards and promoting safety, just as it currently does for
commuter rail systems. They also make apparent the need for
stronger Federal support and oversight of the 27 State Safety
Oversight agencies, many of which rely on the transit agencies
they oversee for funding. In anticipation that comprehensive
authority to address this problem will be enacted in coming
months, the Committee recommendation includes 20 FTE and
$5,000,000 to launch the FTA Office of Safety. These funds will
become available upon enactment of safety oversight
legislation, and would allow FTA to develop safety-related
performance standards, new safety regulations, and provide
technical assistance to local transit agencies. These funds
would also allow FTA to oversee and support the development of
State Safety Oversight agencies.
Rail Station Accessibility.--The American with Disabilities
Act provided an extended time period for a number of large
transit systems to reach compliance with the act in regard to
certain rail stations. The Committee directs the Secretary to
provide the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a
report by June 30, 2011, detailing theses systems' progress in
achieving compliance with the act. The report should contain a
list of stations that have reached full compliance with the act
and a list not yet in compliance. For each station not in
compliance, details should be provided regarding the status of
work already accomplished towards reaching compliance and a
timeline for future actions to complete the remaining work.
Project Management Oversight Activities.--The Committee
directs FTA to continue to submit to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations the quarterly FMO and PMO reports
for each project with a full funding grant agreement.
Full Funding Grant Agreements [FFGAs].--SAFETEA-LU, as
amended and extended, requires that FTA notify the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations, as well as the House
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate
Committee on Banking, 60 days before executing a full funding
grant agreement. In its notification to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations, the Committee directs FTA to
submit the following information: (1) a copy of the proposed
full funding grant agreement; (2) the total and annual Federal
appropriations required for the project; (3) the yearly and
total Federal appropriations that can be planned or anticipated
for future FFGAs for each fiscal year through 2013; (4) a
detailed analysis of annual commitments for current and
anticipated FFGAs against the program authorization, by
individual project; (5) an evaluation of whether the
alternatives analysis made by the applicant fully assessed all
the viable alternatives; (6) a financial analysis of the
project's cost and sponsor's ability to finance the project,
which shall be conducted by an independent examiner and which
shall include an assessment of the capital cost estimate and
finance plan; (7) the source and security of all public and
private sector financing; (8) the project's operating plan,
which enumerates the project's future revenue and ridership
forecasts; and (9) a listing of all planned contingencies and
possible risks associated with the project.
The Committee also directs FTA to inform the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations in writing 30 days before
approving schedule, scope, or budget changes to any full
funding grant agreement. Correspondence relating to all changes
shall include any budget revisions or program changes that
materially alter the project as originally stipulated in the
FFGA, including any proposed change in rail car procurement.
The Committee directs FTA to provide a monthly new start
project update at the beginning of each month to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations, detailing the status of
each project. This update should include FTA's plans and
specific milestone schedules for advancing projects, especially
those within 2 years of a proposed full funding grant
agreement. It should also highlight and explain any potential
cost and schedule changes affecting projects. In addition, FTA
should notify the Committees 10 days before any project in the
new starts process is given approval by FTA to advance to
preliminary engineering or final design.

FORMULA AND BUS GRANTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORITY)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obligation
limitation
(trust fund)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2010.................................. $8,343,171,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................. 8,271,700,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 8,360,565,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Formula and Bus Grants account includes funding for the
following programs: urbanized area formula grants; clean fuels
formula grants; formula grants for special needs of elderly
individuals and individuals with disabilities; formula grants
for other-than-urbanized areas; new freedom grants; growing
States and high-density States grants; bus and bus facility
grants; rail modernization grants; alternative transportation
in parks and public lands; and the national transit database.
Set-asides from formula funds are directed to a grant program
for intercity bus operators to finance Americans with
Disabilities Act accessibility costs. The account also provides
funding for the administration's Sustainable Communities
Initiative through job access and reverse commute grants and
the alternatives analysis and planning programs.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends limiting obligations in the
transit formula and bus grants account in fiscal year 2011 to
$8,360,565,000. The recommendation is consistent with the
authorized level, and is $17,394,000 more than the obligation
limitation enacted for fiscal year 2010.
The Committee recommends $9,200,000,000 in authority to
liquidate contract authorizations. This amount is sufficient to
cover outstanding obligations from this account.
The following table displays the distribution of obligation
limitation among the program categories of formula and bus
grants:

DISTRIBUTION OF OBLIGATION LIMITATION AMONG MAJOR CATEGORIES OF FORMULA
AND BUS GRANTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program category Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clean Fuels Program.................................. $51,500,000
Over-the-Road Bus Accessibility Program.............. 8,800,000
Urban Area Formula Grants............................ 4,552,047,525
Bus and Bus Facilities............................... 984,000,000
Fixed Guideway Modernization......................... 1,666,500,000
Elderly and Persons with Disabilities................ 133,500,000
Nonurbanized Area Formula............................ 538,317,475
New Freedom.......................................... 92,500,000
National Transit Database............................ 3,500,000
Alternative Transportation in Parks and Park Lands... 26,900,000
Sustainable Communities:
Job Access and Reverse Commute................... 164,500,000
Planning Programs................................ 113,500,000
Alternatives Analysis............................ 25,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following table displays the State-by-State
distribution of funds for several of the major program
categories in the formula and bus grants account:

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION ESTIMATED FISCAL YEAR 2011 APPORTIONMENTS FOR FORMULA GRANTS PROGRAMS BY STATE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Urbanized areas Special need for Section 5303 and
State name (5307 and 5340) Fixed guideway Nonurbanized areas Formula JARC \1\ elderly and New freedom 5304 metropolitan State total
\1\ modernization (5311 and 5340) disabled and State planning
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama......................... $20,449,814 .................. $13,274,210 $2,879,183 $2,316,728 $1,580,716 $891,783 $41,585,069
Alaska.......................... 24,120,264 $17,837,551 6,050,695 249,841 298,338 133,248 471,245 49,243,971
American Samoa.................. .................. .................. 226,697 98,957 65,166 8,925 .................. 412,663
Arizona......................... 66,088,575 3,659,655 9,450,248 3,186,231 2,421,844 1,613,609 2,240,005 88,787,432
Arkansas........................ 10,036,216 .................. 10,121,961 1,693,090 1,485,312 924,977 471,245 24,890,127
California...................... 741,065,743 227,275,153 22,662,823 23,568,713 14,201,975 11,695,489 17,551,730 1,058,282,824
Colorado........................ 69,317,018 8,297,242 8,338,909 2,011,620 1,680,950 1,243,083 1,705,644 92,714,897
Connecticut..................... 75,931,794 47,944,586 2,700,412 1,355,986 1,633,799 1,127,343 1,308,644 132,095,938
Delaware........................ 11,852,043 .................. 1,261,953 317,794 467,748 231,164 471,245 14,679,811
District of Columbia............ 84,464,994 109,782,829 .................. 456,583 401,674 223,556 471,245 195,800,881
Florida......................... 217,298,733 26,206,936 13,577,954 9,985,182 9,054,548 6,505,029 7,386,177 290,207,519
Georgia......................... 86,145,949 37,799,351 17,133,382 4,486,708 3,388,163 2,513,664 2,884,442 154,578,443
Guam............................ .................. .................. 612,752 99,091 173,448 26,039 .................. 929,215
Hawaii.......................... 31,413,591 2,019,925 1,959,137 549,598 652,887 354,739 471,245 37,505,254
Idaho........................... 7,243,901 .................. 5,829,061 757,513 622,251 379,945 471,245 15,404,068
Illinois........................ 265,675,179 176,278,632 14,137,853 6,071,763 5,238,179 3,691,937 6,106,858 477,401,997
Indiana......................... 45,042,778 1,129,199 13,580,086 2,770,550 2,750,575 1,862,130 1,731,849 69,068,138
Iowa............................ 17,705,693 .................. 10,117,499 1,245,478 1,411,636 757,073 512,130 31,906,778
Kansas.......................... 12,902,272 .................. 9,383,779 1,116,939 1,263,995 688,090 589,707 26,085,194
Kentucky........................ 23,481,923 .................. 12,841,709 2,220,284 2,134,698 1,282,835 741,644 42,894,155
Louisiana....................... 36,085,428 3,439,776 10,244,144 3,478,175 2,125,248 1,598,377 1,167,016 58,301,638
Maine........................... 3,886,150 .................. 5,412,105 608,013 738,482 403,410 471,245 11,633,351
Maryland........................ 116,362,749 38,789,776 4,968,237 2,136,303 2,260,435 1,662,607 2,502,780 168,798,771
Massachusetts................... 187,849,668 95,436,474 3,497,854 2,800,070 3,005,985 2,108,240 3,287,282 298,086,938
Michigan........................ 83,185,003 821,373 17,206,541 4,791,370 4,355,117 3,146,204 3,699,068 117,440,807
Minnesota....................... 57,341,286 13,579,692 12,713,238 1,702,850 1,990,631 1,119,362 1,569,505 90,194,012
Mississippi..................... 6,485,761 .................. 11,525,233 1,754,947 1,489,595 814,978 471,245 22,717,017
Missouri........................ 47,981,872 9,225,733 13,845,128 2,689,137 2,626,238 1,582,543 1,677,361 79,820,580
Montana......................... 3,266,568 .................. 7,514,821 549,361 515,089 253,731 471,245 12,669,839
Northern Mariana Islands........ 805,388 .................. 34,899 151,658 66,533 29,856 .................. 1,098,717
Nebraska........................ 10,192,647 .................. 6,547,626 676,220 833,830 371,742 471,245 19,204,464
Nevada.......................... 30,886,718 .................. 4,891,404 1,032,473 1,022,392 693,529 843,379 39,451,293
New Hampshire................... 6,024,865 .................. 3,485,840 424,353 625,384 387,861 471,245 11,519,385
New Jersey...................... 322,308,880 113,994,894 3,232,414 3,418,251 3,827,337 2,677,319 5,071,183 454,628,923
New Mexico...................... 12,069,600 .................. 8,176,132 1,318,036 922,070 567,213 471,245 23,638,025
New York........................ 708,446,984 461,903,710 17,534,585 11,752,631 9,093,992 6,640,776 9,734,853 1,225,349,366
North Carolina.................. 55,117,401 244,945 22,113,209 4,040,259 3,791,181 2,561,858 1,727,729 89,880,010
North Dakota.................... 4,267,989 .................. 3,973,042 350,849 404,204 187,613 471,245 9,740,896
Ohio............................ 101,695,706 20,667,827 19,950,591 5,328,248 5,095,271 3,363,088 3,668,328 160,039,926
Oklahoma........................ 16,310,442 .................. 11,315,898 1,957,742 1,753,695 1,008,090 681,577 33,192,632
Oregon.......................... 45,840,198 10,834,263 9,759,511 1,767,473 1,624,581 978,972 1,019,351 71,962,963
Pennsylvania.................... 175,904,601 138,096,423 20,235,594 6,048,161 6,017,165 3,790,923 4,619,038 354,984,209
Puerto Rico..................... 46,973,611 2,985,649 1,402,706 7,986,091 2,041,295 2,103,599 1,880,821 65,455,678
Rhode Island.................... 21,105,372 3,116,893 578,180 562,161 633,128 362,907 483,681 26,913,444
South Carolina.................. 18,505,182 .................. 11,124,173 2,254,320 2,016,570 1,371,615 860,827 36,306,594
South Dakota.................... 3,108,225 .................. 4,917,579 376,535 447,170 196,839 471,245 9,611,129
Tennessee....................... 39,038,496 649,001 14,157,940 3,215,419 2,815,688 1,918,824 1,361,981 63,361,122
Texas........................... 245,046,130 24,572,319 33,827,071 14,959,595 8,422,652 6,746,650 8,264,950 342,212,821
Utah............................ 45,348,133 4,916,078 4,834,130 1,072,135 827,533 547,165 803,061 58,437,943
Vermont......................... 1,780,842 .................. 2,621,896 225,002 379,702 141,005 471,245 5,710,335
Virgin Islands.................. 974,031 .................. .................. 99,487 163,743 17,993 .................. 1,255,254
Virginia........................ 73,884,994 2,314,907 12,412,837 3,074,363 2,970,333 2,032,950 2,568,339 99,444,193
Washington...................... 126,385,198 43,320,527 9,561,020 2,985,692 2,524,195 1,925,130 2,400,761 189,248,524
West Virginia................... 6,882,584 1,373,967 6,716,609 1,275,133 1,116,184 708,504 471,245 18,675,098
Wisconsin....................... 47,507,512 1,319,714 13,444,063 2,272,745 2,303,921 1,498,861 1,377,851 69,918,081
Wyoming......................... 1,752,094 .................. 4,655,105 243,638 322,017 136,075 471,245 7,663,911
Unallocated..................... .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. ..................
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................. 4,520,844,788 1,649,835,000 511,692,475 164,500,000 132,832,500 92,500,000 112,932,500 7,193,042,263
Oversight....................... 31,202,737 16,665,000 2,325,000 .................. 667,500 .................. 567,500 51,427,737
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................... 4,552,047,525 1,666,500,000 514,017,475 164,500,000 133,500,000 92,500,000 113,500,000 7,244,470,000Tribal Transit Program.......... .................. .................. 15,000,000 .................. .................. .................. .................. 15,000,000
National RTAP................... .................. .................. 9,300,000 .................. .................. .................. .................. 10,695,000
Over-the-Road Bus............... .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 8,800,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Total............... 4,552,047,525 1,666,500,000 538,317,475 164,500,000 133,500,000 92,500,000 113,500,000 7,278,965,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Allocations for UZAs that are within multiple States are split between the applicable States.

Within the funding available to the bus and bus facilities
program, funds are to be made available to the following
projects and activities:

BUS AND BUS FACILITIES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
Project name recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1st Congressional District Buses and Bus Facilities, MI. $1,000,000
ACE Boulder Highway System, NV.......................... 1,000,000
Ben Franklin Transit Vehicle Replacements, Benton and 1,000,000
Franklin Counties, WA..................................
Brookings Area Transit Authority Bus Storage and Transit 1,000,000
Operations Facility, SD................................
Bus and Bus Facilities, Santa Fe, NM.................... 500,000
Bus and Bus Facilities, UT.............................. 8,000,000
Bus Maintenance Facility, Sacramento, CA................ 1,800,000
Bus Purchases, DE....................................... 1,000,000
Bus Replacement, Kansas City, MO........................ 1,000,000
Bus Turnouts for Downtown Las Vegas Roads, NV........... 750,000
Cedar Avenue Bus Rapid Transitway, MN................... 500,000
City of Janesville Transit Services Center, WI.......... 3,065,000
Clallam Transit Maintenance Facility Improvements, 200,000
Clallam County, WA.....................................
Coach Bus for Commuter Campus, Campbell County, KY...... 690,000
Community Transit Vehicle Replacements, Snohomish 1,000,000
County, WA.............................................
C-TRAN 4th Plain BRT, Clark County, WA.................. 1,500,000
Deerfield Valley Transit Association Facilities, Buses, 2,500,000
and Equipment, VT......................................
Dubuque Intermodal Facility, IA......................... 400,000
Everett Transit Vehicle Replacements, Snohomish County, 1,000,000
WA.....................................................
Glassboro/Rowan Local Transit System, NJ................ 500,000
Grant County Transit Vehicle Replacement and Facilities 1,000,000
Construction, Grant County, WA.........................
Harrison County Multimodal Project, MS.................. 2,250,000
Idaho Transit Coalition Bus and Bus Facilities, ID...... 1,500,000
Illinois Bus and Bus Facilities, IL..................... 4,000,000
Innovation Station, East Lansing, MI.................... 2,500,000
Intercity Transit Vehicle Replacements, Thurston County, 1,000,000
WA.....................................................
JATRAN Fleet Replacement and Bus Shelters, MS........... 600,000
Jefferson Transit Vehicle Replacements, Jefferson 400,000
County, WA.............................................
Kitsap County Vehicle Replacements, WA.................. 500,000
Link Transit Vehicle Replacements, Chelan and Douglas 1,000,000
Counties, WA...........................................
Longview Transit Vehicle Replacements, Clark County, WA. 650,000
Maine Statewide Bus Replacement, ME..................... 1,000,000
MARTA Bus, Bus Facilities and Security Improvements, GA. 2,000,000
Metro Area Transit--Bus and Bus Facilities, Omaha, NE... 1,500,000
Moultrie Intermodal Facility, City of Moultrie, GA...... 400,000
Naugatuck Transportation Facility, CT................... 500,000
North Central Regional Transit District Pueblo Buses, NM 800,000
North Dakota Statewide Capital Transit, ND.............. 1,500,000
Oxford-University Transit System Bus Purchase, MS....... 400,000
Pierce Transit Clean-Fuel Bus Replacements, Pierce 1,000,000
County, WA.............................................
Reconstruction of the Mayfield Road Rapid Transit 2,000,000
Station and Bridge, OH.................................
Replacement Buses at Transit Authority of Northern 1,000,000
Kentucky [TANK], Kenton County, KY.....................
Replacement of the Fixed Route Fleet, Springfield, MO... 1,000,000
Rural Bus Program for Hawaii, Maui, and Kauai, HI....... 3,500,000
Senior Transportation Program, AL....................... 500,000
Skagit Transit Vehicle Replacements, Skagit County, WA.. 500,000
South Burlington Transit Center, VT..................... 1,000,000
Southest Missouri Transportation Service Facility, MO... 800,000
Spokane Transit paratransit Vehicles, Spokane County, WA 1,000,000
Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities Fund, IA............... 2,500,000
Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities, MO.................... 4,000,000
Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities, NM.................... 1,000,000
Statewide Bus Purchases and Facility Improvements, CO... 2,500,000
Statler Intermodal Facility, Buffalo, Erie County, NY... 3,000,000
Tacoma Intermodal Transit Center, Tacoma, WA............ 1,000,000
Tennessee Statewide Bus Program, TN..................... 12,000,000
TRANSPO Paratransit Replacement Vehicles, IN............ 352,000
Twin Transit Vehicle Replacements, Lewis County, WA..... 500,000
Washoe County Bus Facilities, NV........................ 500,000
White Earth Tribal Transit Service Bus Garage Facility, 500,000
MN.....................................................
---------------
Total............................................. 92,157,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Within the funding available to the alternatives analysis
program, funds are to be made available to the following
projects and activities:

ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
Project name recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Innovation in Transportation Infrastructure Systems $450,000
Planning, College of Staten Island, Staten Island, NY..
JTA Commuter Rail Alternative Analysis, Jacksonville, FL 1,200,000
Las Cruces to El Paso Transportation Corridor, NM....... 1,000,000
Mountain View Corridor Transit, UT...................... 1,000,000
North Main Line Rehabilitation Project, Chicago Transit 500,000
Authority, IL..........................................
Tier 2 Environmental Impact Statement/Preliminary 1,000,000
Engineering, Atlanta, GA...............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

RESEARCH AND UNIVERSITY RESEARCH CENTERS

------------------------------------------------------------------------
General fund
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2010...................................... $65,670,000
Budget estimate, 2011..................................... 33,913,000
Committee recommendation.................................. 69,750,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation provides financial assistance to support
activities that are designed to develop solutions that improve
public transportation. As the Federal agency responsible for
transit, FTA assumes a leadership role in supporting research
intended to identify different strategies to increase
ridership, improve personal mobility, minimize automobile fuel
consumption and air pollution, and enhance the quality of life
in all communities.
FTA may make grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, or
other agreements for research, development, demonstration, and
deployment projects, and evaluation of technology of national
significance to public transportation. FTA provides transit
agencies with research results to help make them better
equipped to improve public transportation and to help public
transportation services meet national transportation needs at
the lowest reasonable cost. FTA assists transit agencies to
employ new service methods and technologies that improve their
operations and capital efficiencies or improve transit safety
and emergency preparedness.
The purpose of the university transportation centers [UTC]
program is to foster a national resource and focal point for
the support and conduct of research and training concerning the
transportation of passengers and property. Funds provided under
the FTA's UTC program are transferred to and managed by the
Research and Innovation Technology Administration and combined
with a transfer of funds from the Federal Highway
Administration.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $69,750,000 for research and
university research centers. The Committee recommendation is
equal to the authorized level, and $4,080,000 more than the
fiscal year 2010 enacted level.
Asset Management.--In 2008, the Committee required FTA to
assess the condition of the Nation's transit rail
infrastructure. In April, 2009, the agency reported that one-
third of transit agencies' assets are either in marginal or
poor condition, and that significant reinvestment is necessary
to address the backlog of capital needs. Given the large gap
between the level of investment needed to bring rail transit
into better condition and the amount of resources currently
available for such investments, it is imperative that every
dollar invested in rail capital improvements be put to its best
use.
Compounding the resource challenge is the generally weak
state of much of the transit sector's ability to manage capital
assets strategically. Asset management programs would enable
transit agencies to take inventory of their capital assets,
assess the condition of those assets, use objective and
quantitative analysis to estimate reinvestment needs over the
long term, and prioritize their capital investments by using
all of the information and analysis that was required under the
program.
In 2010, the Committee directed FTA to assume a leadership
role in improving asset management in transit agencies.
Specifically, the Committee instructed FTA to develop standards
for asset management plans with an emphasis on maintaining
safety, as well as to provide technical assistance to transit
agencies on asset management and conduct a pilot program to
identify best practices in the field. FTA is required to report
its findings from the pilot to the Committee by June 16, 2011.
FTA made good progress over the past year in establishing
conditions to improve asset management and the state of good
repair of the transit industry. It expanded its assessment of
the condition of transit assets to include the entire industry,
concluding that the industry faces a backlog of $80 billion to
restore a state of good repair, compared with the estimate of
$50 billion made last year for the seven largest rail transit
operators. It included acquisition of Asset Management Systems
as an eligible expense under sections 5307 and 5309, a decision
that should help industry build the information systems that
support sound asset management practices. Working with the
American Public Transportation Association, FTA received
significant interest from the transit sector in improving asset
management practices--support it can use to foster the best
practices it develops from the pilot and standard-setting
efforts.
During fiscal year 2011, FTA will complete the pilot
program, and disseminate the innovative and improved asset
management methods it learns from this effort. The Committee
expects FTA to focus on significantly increasing the number of
transit agencies with complete and up-to-date asset
inventories. The Committee directs FTA to develop analysis
tools which agencies can use to develop estimates of cost-to-
achieve-a-state-of-good-repair, as well as better inform local
decisions about assets which need particular attention in their
capital plans. Particular attention should be dedicated to
tools that help the industry identify safety related capital
assets as part of a risk-based management program. The
Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000 to continue to
support these activities and FTA's leadership role on related
research, training, and technical assistance. Drawing upon the
lessons it learns from these experiences, the Committee directs
FTA to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking by September 30,
2011, to implement asset management standards requiring transit
agencies that receive FTA funds to develop capital asset
inventories and condition assessments.

CAPITAL INVESTMENT GRANTS

Appropriations, 2010.................................... $2,000,000,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 1,822,112,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,000,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Capital Investment Grants account includes funding for
two programs authorized under section 5309 of title 49 of the
United States Code: the New Starts program and the Small Starts
program. Under New Starts, the FTA provides grants to fund the
building of new fixed guideway systems or extensions to
existing fixed guideway systems. Eligible services include
light rail, rapid rail (heavy rail), commuter rail, and busway/
high occupancy vehicle [HOV] facilities. In addition,
significant corridor-based bus capital projects which either
use an exclusive lane or which involve a substantial investment
in a defined corridor (such as bus rapid transit) may also be
eligible. Under Small Starts, the FTA provides grants for
projects requesting less than $75,000,000 and with a total cost
of less than $250,000,000.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a level of $2,000,000,000 for
capital investment grants. The recommended level is
$177,888,000 more than the budget request. The bill does not
include a provision requiring FTA to transfer funds to the DOT
Office of Inspector General.
FTA is strongly encouraged to expedite executing a Full
Funding Grant Agreement for the Draper project before the
completion of the Mid-Jordan project. The rationale is an
agreement between UTA and the Draper design/build contractor to
begin design/build work on the Draper project when the Mid-
Jordan design/build project is completed in 2010. This seamless
transition will save $20,000,000 by reducing financing and
remobilization cost and will avoid laying off 1,900 workers
from the Mid-Jordan project.
While significant progress has been made in recent months,
the Committee continues to believe the Columbia River Crossing
project will benefit from broad agreement on project details
among local stakeholders, and encourages Columbia River
Crossing project sponsors and planners in Oregon and Washington
to continue to seek consensus among and consider input from
local stakeholders.
The Committee recommends the following allocations of
capital investment grant funds in fiscal year 2011:

CAPITAL INVESTMENT GRANTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Access to Region's Core [ARC] Tunnel, NJ............... $200,000,000
Austin, MetroRapid BRT, TX............................. 24,229,796
Baltimore Red Line, MD................................. 1,500,000
Central Corridor Light Rail Transit Project, MN........ 42,345,000
Chicago Transit Authority--Green Line--South Branches 2,200,000
Project, IL...........................................
City of Charlotte, Charlotte Area Transit System's Blue 3,700,000
Line Extension--Northeast Corridor Project, NC........
Columbia River Crossing, WA............................ 40,000,000
Crenshaw/LAX Transit Corridor, CA...................... 1,250,000
Dallas, Northwest/Southeast LRT MOS, TX................ 91,249,717
Downtown Connector/Westside Subway Extension, CA....... 6,500,000
Draper Light Rail, UT.................................. 2,100,000
Dulles Corridor Rail Project, VA....................... 96,000,000
Fort Collins, Mason Corridor BRT, CO................... 5,128,989
Honolulu High Capacity Transit Corridor Project, HI.... 55,000,000
Houston, North Corridor LRT, TX........................ 75,000,000
Houston, Southeast Corridor LRT, TX.................... 75,000,000
King County, West Seattle BRT, WA...................... 21,274,000
New Britain-Hartford Busway, CT........................ 42,345,000
New York City, Nostrand Ave BRT, NY.................... 26,723,039
New York, Long Island Rail Road East Side Access, NY... 202,315,000
New York, Second Avenue Subway Phase I, NY............. 185,548,262
Northstar Phase II Project--Extension of Northstar 1,500,000
Commuter Rail to the St. Cloud Area, MN...............
Oakland, East Bay BRT, CA.............................. 15,000,000
Orlando, Central Florida Commuter Rail Transit--Initial 34,000,000
Operating Settlement, FL..............................
Perris Valley Line, Riverside, CA...................... 23,490,000
Purple Line, MD........................................ 1,500,000
RTD FasTracks East Corridor, Denver, CO................ 40,000,000
RTD FasTracks Gold Corridor, Denver, CO................ 40,000,000
RTD FasTracks West Corridor, Denver, CO................ 37,808,439
Salt Lake City, Mid Jordan LRT, UT..................... 100,000,000
Salt Lake City, Weber County to Salt Lake City Commuter 80,000,000
Rail, UT..............................................
San Bernardino, E Street Corridor sbX BRT, CA.......... 40,114,830
San Francisco Muni Third St. Light Rail, Central Subway 20,000,000
Project, CA...........................................
San Francisco, Van Ness Avenue BRT, CA................. 14,115,000
Seattle, University Link LRT Extension, WA............. 110,000,000
Tampa Light Rail, Preliminary Engineering, FL.......... 1,000,000
VelociRFTA Bus Rapid Transit, CO....................... 24,163,000
Virgina Railway Express Rolling Stock, VA.............. 1,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appropriations for Full Funding Grant Agreements.--The
Committee reiterates direction initially agreed to in the
fiscal year 2002 conference report that FTA should not sign any
FFGAs that have a maximum Federal share higher than 60 percent.

GRANTS FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTIONS

Appropriations, 2010.................................... $75,000,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 52,743,000
Committee recommendation................................ 100,000,000

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation includes $100,000,000 for
grants to public transit agencies for unique and innovative
approaches to reducing energy consumption or greenhouse gas
emissions. The Committee supports the administration's efforts
to reduce the Nation's dependence on foreign oil, and to
encourage investment in clean energy sources to improve air
quality and reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. These funds
will enable the FTA to support innovative technologies and
other approaches, such as electric drive technologies,
lightweight materials, and regenerative braking. The bill
requires the FTA to place priority on projects with national
applicability, including the potential to be replicated by
other transit agencies regionally or nationally.

GRANTS TO THE WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY

Appropriations, 2010.................................... $150,000,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 150,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 150,000,000

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation includes $150,000,000 for
grants to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
[WMATA] for capital and preventive maintenance expenses. These
grants are authorized under section 601 of the Passenger Rail
Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-432),
and are in addition to the funding support local jurisdictions
have committed to provide to WMATA. The Committee trusts this
strong demonstration of support will encourage Metro's three
funding partners to continue to meet their responsibilities
toward the system as well.
The bill requires the FTA to provide these grants to WMATA
only after receiving and reviewing a request for each specific
project to be funded under this heading. The bill also requires
the FTA to determine that WMATA has placed the highest priority
on funding projects that will improve the safety of its public
transit system before approving these grants. The Committee
expects FTA to make this determination by taking into account
the extent to which WMATA plans to use the funding provided
under this heading in order to implement the safety
recommendations of the National Transportation Safety Board.
The Committee directs the General Accountability Office
[GAO] to review WMATA's governance structure and examine other
comparable systems to identify best practices. GAO should make
recommendations to the Committee on how WMATA should change its
governance structure to improve management and oversight by
June 1, 2011.
The Committee directs WMATA to provide quarterly reports,
beginning October 1, 2010, to the House and Senate Committees
on Appropriations measuring the safety improvements it has made
from implementing the recommendations of FTA's March 4, 2010,
report, ``Audit of the Tri-State Oversight Committee and the
Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority.''

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

Section 160 exempts authority previously made available for
programs of the FTA under section 5338 of title 49, United
States Code, from the obligation limitations in this act.
Section 161 requires that funds appropriated or limited by
this act for specific projects not obligated by September 30,
2013, and other recoveries, be directed to projects eligible to
use the funds for the purposes for which they were originally
provided.
Section 162 allows funds appropriated before October 1,
2010, that remain available for expenditure to be transferred
to the most recent appropriation heading.
Section 163 allows unobligated funds for new fixed guideway
system projects in any previous appropriations act to be used
during this fiscal year to satisfy expenses incurred for such
projects.
Section 164 provides flexibility to fund program management
oversight of activities authorized by section 5316 of title 49,
United States Code.
Section 165 requires unobligated funds or recoveries under
section 5309 of title 49, United States Code, that are
available for reallocation shall be directed to projects
eligible to use the funds for which they were originally
intended.
Section 166 allows funds made available for Alaska or
Hawaii ferry boats or ferry terminal facilities to be used to
construct new vessels and facilities, or to improve existing
vessels and facilities, and provides that funding may be used
by the city and county of Honolulu to operate a passenger ferry
boat service demonstration project.
Section 167 extends the contingent commitment authority for
the New Starts program.
Section 168 provides an exemption from the charter bus
regulations for the State of Washington.
Section 169 clarifies local share calculations for a New
Starts project in Honolulu, Hawaii.

Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation [SLSDC]
is a wholly owned Government corporation established by the
Saint Lawrence Seaway Act of May 13, 1954 (33 U.S.C. 981). The
SLSDC is a vital transportation corridor for the international
movement of bulk commodities such as steel, iron, grain, and
coal, serving the North American region that makes up one-
quarter of the United States population and nearly one-half of
the Canadian population. The SLSDC is responsible for the
operation, maintenance, and development of the United States
portion of the Saint Lawrence Seaway between Montreal and Lake
Erie.

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

(HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2010.................................... $32,324,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 32,150,000
Committee recommendation................................ 32,324,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund [HMTF] was established by
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-
662). Since 1987, the HMTF has supported the operations and
maintenance of commercial harbor projects maintained by the
Federal Government. Appropriations from the Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund and revenues from non-Federal sources finance the
operation and maintenance of the Seaway for which the SLSDC is
responsible.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $32,324,000 for the operations,
maintenance, and asset renewal of the Saint Lawrence Seaway.
This amount is the same as the fiscal year 2010 enacted level,
and $174,000 more than the President's fiscal year 2011
request. The recommended level includes $15,700,000 to continue
the agency's Asset Renewal Program [ARP].
The Seaway is entering its 52nd year of operation, which
means that its infrastructure components are reaching the end
of their design life. ARP is a significant, 10-year, multi-
project strategy to address the long-term asset renewal needs
of the U.S. portions of the Saint Lawrence Seaway, with
attention to two locks (Snell and Eisenhower), the U.S. segment
of the Seaway International Bridge, maintenance dredging,
operational systems, facilities, and equipment.
The Committee expects SLSDC to control costs and implement
the ARP in as timely and cost-effective manner as possible. It
is crucial for the agency to anticipate changes to project
scope and design, and to calculate and report projected
estimates in the year of expenditure. In addition, as SLSDC
refines its cost estimates for near-term projects and
integrates those estimates into budget requests, the Committee
expects SLSDC to achieve an increased level of accuracy by
comparing projects to data that is as current and relevant as
possible. The Committee encourages SLSDC to work with its
Canadian counterpart, the Canadian Saint Lawrence Seaway
Management Corporation, to track the actual costs of their
modernization projects in the Canadian sectors of the Seaway,
and to use these projects as a benchmark in determining the
reasonableness of cost estimates and bids received for United
States projects. The Committee also encourages SLSDC to
increase the dependability of its cost estimation process by
requesting independent financial reviews of project cost
estimates and independent constructability reviews of project
designs prior to contract solicitation for large construction
projects to better ensure that projects can be successfully bid
and built.
The Committee directs SLSDC to submit an annual report
regarding the ARP. SLSDC shall, not later than April 30 of each
year, submit to the Senate and House Appropriations Committees
an annual report summarizing the activities of the ARP during
the immediately preceding fiscal year. The report shall include
up to date information on the status of the ARP, including but
not limited to the following: an update on the status of each
project that has received funding; cost overruns and cost
savings for each active project; total work years of employees
per project to date; delays and the cause of delays; schedule
changes; up to date cost projections for each project in the
ARP, highlighting changes in estimates; and any other
deviations from the ARP. The SLSDC is directed to include in
the reports any other relevant information relating to the
management, funding, and implementation of the ARP.

Maritime Administration

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Maritime Administration [MARAD] is responsible for
programs authorized by the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, as
amended (46 App. U.S.C. 1101 et seq.). MARAD is also
responsible for programs that strengthen the U.S. maritime
industry in support of the Nation's security and economic
needs. MARAD prioritizes DOD's use of ports and intermodal
facilities during DOD mobilizations to guarantee the smooth
flow of military cargo through commercial ports. MARAD manages
the Maritime Security Program, the Voluntary Intermodal Sealift
Agreement Program and the Ready Reserve Force, which assure DOD
access to commercial and strategic sealift and associated
intermodal capacity. MARAD also continues to address the
disposal of obsolete ships in the National Defense Reserve
Fleet which are deemed a potential environmental risk. Further,
MARAD administers education and training programs through the
U.S. Merchant Marine Academy and six State maritime schools
that assist in providing skilled merchant marine officers who
are capable of serving defense and commercial transportation
needs. The Committee continues to fund MARAD in its support of
the United States as a maritime Nation.

MARITIME SECURITY PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2010.................................... $174,000,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 174,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 174,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Maritime Security Program provides resources to
maintain a U.S.-flag merchant fleet crewed by U.S. citizens to
serve both the commercial and national security needs of the
United States. The program provides direct payments to U.S.-
flag ship operators engaged in U.S. foreign trade.
Participating operators are required to keep the vessels in
active commercial service and are required to provide
intermodal sealift support to the Department of Defense in
times of war or national emergency.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $174,000,000
for the Maritime Security Program. This amount is equal to the
fiscal year 2010 enacted level and budget request, and is
consistent with the program's authorized level.

OPERATIONS AND TRAINING

Appropriations, 2010.................................... $149,750,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 164,353,000
Committee recommendation................................ 172,754,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Operations and Training appropriation primarily funds
the salaries and expenses for MARAD headquarters and regional
staff in the administration and direction for all MARAD
programs. The account includes funding for the U.S. Merchant
Marine Academy, six State maritime schools, port and intermodal
development, cargo preference, international trade relations,
deep-water port licensing, and administrative support costs.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $172,754,000
for Operations and Training at the Maritime Administration for
fiscal year 2011. This amount is $23,004,000 more than the
fiscal year 2010 enacted level and $8,401,000 more than the
budget request.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2011 Committee
request recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Merchant Marine Academy
[USMMA]: \1\
Salaries and Benefits......... $32,877,000 $33,177,000
Midshipment Program........... 8,402,000 8,402,000
Midshipmen Reimbursement...... 6,000,000 6,000,000
Instructional Program......... 4,184,000 4,184,000
Program, Direction, and 8,545,000 8,445,000
Administration...............
Maintenance, Repair and 9,112,000 9,112,000
Operations...................
Capital Improvements.......... 30,900,000 30,900,000
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, USMMA............. 100,020,000 100,220,000
=====================================
State Maritime Schools:
SIP........................... 2,000,000 2,400,000
Direct Payments to Schools.... 2,000,000 2,000,000
Schoolship M&R................ 11,007,000 11,007,000
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, State Maritime 15,007,000 15,407,000
Academies..................
=====================================
MARAD Operations and Programs:
Salaries and Benefits......... 29,047,000 29,047,000
Non-Discretionary Operations.. 11,179,000 11,179,000
Information Technology........ 6,314,000 9,115,000
Discretionary Operations and 1,786,000 1,786,000
Travel.......................
Discretionary Program Expenses 1,000,000 6,000,000
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, MARAD Operations 49,326,000 57,127,000
and Programs...............
=====================================
Total, Operations and 164,353,000 172,754,000
Training...................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These amounts may be altered as part of the spending plan.

United States Merchant Marine Academy.--The United States
Merchant Marine Academy [USMMA] provides educational programs
for men and women to become shipboard officers and leaders in
the transportation field. The Committee is committed to
ensuring that the Academy's midshipmen receive the highest
quality education so that they are prepared for a commission
with the U.S. Naval Reserve or other uniformed service upon
graduation.
The Committee remains troubled that for many years,
officials at the Academy engaged in questionable financial and
management practices that potentially compromised the education
and quality of life of the Academy's students. Senior
leadership at both MARAD and at the Department of
Transportation failed to exercise sufficient oversight of
Academy operations, and showed little concern for its seriously
degrading physical infrastructure. The culmination of these
issues has caused significant turmoil throughout all aspects of
the Academy's operations and resulted in a crisis of
leadership, facilities management, and human resource
management.
The Committee is pleased the current Secretary has taken a
keen interest in reforming the Academy with the vision of
restoring it to a prominent academic institution capable of
producing top quality shipboard officers with a dedicated
faculty to inspire future leaders in the maritime sector of the
transportation industry. In order to be successful in this
mission, it is essential that the Secretary provide the Academy
with focused, dedicated, and strong leadership committed to the
institution and supportive of the Administrator. The new
Superintendent must: (1) recognize the Academy's partnership
with MARAD in a mutually respectful manner; (2) develop a
strategic plan grounded in the needs of both the commercial
maritime industry and the United States military; (3) be open,
transparent, and forthcoming with Congress; and (4) invest
themselves both personally and professionally with improving
all facets of the Academy's operations.
Further, it is critical that the Academy establish a more
sophisticated and experienced workforce able to manage the
major acquisition and construction projects of the Capital
Improvement Program [CIP] and routine facilities maintenance
projects in a cost-conscious and timely manner. The Committee
recognizes the Academy's many infrastructure improvement needs
are important to enhancing students' quality of life, as well
as ensuring their safety. Therefore, the Committee provides the
full $30,900,000 for capital improvements as requested in the
budget, an increase of $15,900,000 over the fiscal year 2010
level. Further, the Committee provides $300,000 above the
budget request for Academy salaries and benefits to support
three additional acquisition and engineering staff to manage
the CIP and facility maintenance consistent with the
recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Panel.
It is clear the internal process and organizational changes
that are needed to restore the Academy will take time to be
fully implemented. Therefore, the Committee has once again
included language requiring that all funding for the Academy be
given directly to the Secretary, and that 50 percent of the
funding will not be available until MARAD submits a plan
detailing how the funding will be spent. The spend plan shall
include up-to-date information on the status of the CIP,
including but not limited to the following: an update on the
status of each project that has received funding; cost overruns
and cost savings for each active project; delays and the cause
for delays; schedule changes; up-to-date cost projections for
each project in the CIP, highlighting changes in estimates; and
any other deviations from the CIP. The Secretary is directed to
include any other relevant information relating to the
management, funding and implementation of the CIP and other
significant facility maintenance items. The Committee believes
that this process will ensure the Secretary's continued
engagement, as well as sustain the newly developed system of
funds control and accountability.
The Maritime Administration's request to increase funding
to sponsor additional students at the 1-year pre-USMMA prep
school program is denied.
Information Technology.--Integrated, real-time data on
vessels is critical to both maritime commerce and the safety
and security of our ports and waterways. The Committee has
provided additional resources for information technology, so
that the agency can continue to improve and enhance data
collection and analysis efforts in addition to expeditiously
satisfying the data collection, analysis, and publication
requirements pursuant to the Cruise Vessel Security and Safety
Act of 2010.
Staffing.--The Committee is concerned about the large
number of vacancies in MARAD and the agency's inability to fill
job announcements with qualified applicants. The absence of
qualified staff is impacting major programs and operations that
are critical to the agency's core mission, such as the United
States Merchant Marine Academy and the title XI loan guarantee
program. The Committee directs MARAD to provide a quarterly
report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on
the number of vacancies and the duties associated with each
vacant position. Further, 90 days after the enactment of this
act, the Committee requests the Secretary to provide the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations a plan to assist MARAD
in addressing the Office of Personnel Management audit
recommendations. This plan should establish policies,
procedures, and timelines to set the agency on track to restore
its hiring authority and ensure management of its human
resources needs.
Environment and Compliance.--The Committee commends MARAD's
initiative to support the domestic maritime industry's efforts
to comply with emerging international and domestic
environmental regulatory requirements. This is a promising
collaborative program that coordinates and leverages the
efforts of technology developers, ship builders, vessel owners,
port authorities, academic researchers, classifications
societies, and regulatory agencies to promote the development
of a vital and environmentally responsible maritime industry.
Funds provided in fiscal year 2010 established the
infrastructure to test ballast water technology with consistent
standards and procedures and related testing protocols. Funds
provided in fiscal year 2011 should continue with the
independent testing of ballast water technologies to meet
domestic and international regulatory requirements, as well as
assist in the testing and certification of air emissions
reduction technology with the Environmental Protection Agency.

SHIP DISPOSAL

Appropriations, 2010.................................... $15,000,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 10,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 10,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Ship Disposal account provides resources to dispose of
obsolete merchant-type vessels of 150,000 gross tons or more in
the National Defense Reserve Fleet [NDRF] that MARAD is
required by law to dispose of by the end of 2006. Currently
there is a backlog of more than 76 ships awaiting disposal.
Many of these vessels are 50 or more years old and have the
potential to pose a significant environmental threat due to the
presence of hazardous substances such as asbestos and solid and
liquid polychlorinated biphenyls [PCBs].

SHIP DISPOSAL

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $10,000,000
for the Maritime Administration's Ship Disposal program. This
level of funding is $5,000,000 less than the fiscal year 2010
enacted level and equal to the budget request. The Committee
strongly supports MARAD's efforts to dispose of all obsolete
vessels that it has in its fleet. The Committee is pleased that
the agency was able to reach a settlement agreement addressing
the 57 non-retention ships stored at the Suisun Bay Reserve
Fleet allowing for significant progress to dispose of the 28
worst conditioned ships in the fleet. The Committee recognizes
the agency takes this mission seriously and is aggressively
taking steps to remediate the environmental threat these ships
could pose if left unattended.

ASSISTANCE TO SMALL SHIPYARDS

Appropriations, 2010.................................... $15,000,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 25,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

As authorized by section 3506 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, the Assistance to Small
Shipyards program provides assistance in the form of grants,
loans, and loan guarantees to small shipyards for capital
improvements and training programs.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee is recommending an appropriation of
$25,000,000 for assistance to small shipyards. This level of
funding is $10,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2010 enacted
level. The President did not request funding for this program
in fiscal year 2011.
The Committee began funding this program in fiscal year
2008, which helps small shipyards improve the efficiency of
their operations by providing funding for equipment and other
facility upgrades, as well as workforce training and
apprenticeship programs. Almost 150 qualified applicants
submitted requests totaling $143,900,000 in fiscal year 2010,
far exceeding available resources. The funding recommended by
the Committee will help meet the demand, and improve the
competitiveness of our Nation's small shipyards in communities
dependent upon maritime transportation.

MARITIME GUARANTEED LOAN (TITLE XI) PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2010.................................... $9,000,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 3,688,000
Committee recommendation................................ 9,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Program, established pursuant to title XI of the
Merchant Marine Act, 1936, as amended, provides for a full
faith and credit guarantee by the U.S. Government of debt
obligations issued by (1) U.S. or foreign shipowners for the
purpose of financing or refinancing either U.S.-flag vessels or
eligible export vessels constructed, reconstructed or
reconditioned in U.S. shipyards, and (2) U.S. shipyards for the
purpose of financing advanced shipbuilding technology of a
privately owned general shipyard facility located in the United
States. The Program is administered by the Secretary of
Transportation acting by and through the Maritime
Administrator. Under the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990,
appropriations to cover the estimated costs of a project must
be obtained prior to the issuance of any approvals for title XI
financing.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee provides an appropriation of $9,000,000 for
the Maritime Guaranteed Loan Title XI program. Of the amount
provided, $4,000,000 is for administrative expenses necessary
to carry out the program. This level of funding is equal to the
fiscal year 2010 enacted level and $5,312,000 more than the
President's request. The loan guarantee amount of $5,000,000
will provide for a total loan volume of up to $74,000,000. The
affordable financing opportunities that these loans allow are
critical to ensuring that shipowners can build ships in the
United States. The Committee expects that MARAD will move
quickly to approve the loan guarantees, which are critical to
our domestic shipbuilding industry.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION

Section 175 authorizes the Maritime Administration to
furnish utilities and services and make repairs to any lease,
contract, or occupancy involving Government property under the
control of MARAD. Rental payments received pursuant to this
provision shall be credited to the Treasury as miscellaneous
receipts.

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

The Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration
[PHMSA] was established in the Department of Transportation on
November 30, 2004, pursuant to the Norman Y. Mineta Research
and Special Programs Improvement Act (Public Law 108-246). The
PHMSA is responsible for the Department's pipeline safety
program as well as oversight of hazardous materials
transportation safety operations. The administration is
dedicated to safety, including the elimination of
transportation-related deaths and injuries associated with
hazardous materials and pipeline transportation, and to
promoting transportation solutions that enhance communities and
protect the environment.

OPERATIONAL EXPENSES

(PIPELINE SAFETY FUND)

Appropriations, 2010.................................... $21,132,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 22,383,000
Committee recommendation................................ 22,383,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account funds program support costs for the PHMSA,
including policy development, civil rights, management,
administration, and agency-wide expenses.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $22,383,000 for this account, of
which $639,000 is to be derived from the Pipeline Safety Fund,
and of which $1,000,000 may be transferred to the Office of
Pipeline Safety for Information Grants to Communities. This
level of funding is equal to the budget request and $1,251,000
more than the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. The Committee
directs the PHMSA to provide to the House and Senate Committees
on Appropriations a funding distribution table listing how
State and Federal program expenses for the previous fiscal year
are divided between the four pipeline segments--natural gas
distribution natural gas transmission, liquefied natural gas,
and hazardous liquid pipelines.

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY

Appropriations, 2010.................................... $37,994,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 40,434,000
Committee recommendation................................ 50,434,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The PHMSA oversees the safety of more than 800,000 daily
shipments of hazardous materials in the United States. PHMSA
uses risk management principles and security threat assessments
to fully assess and reduce the risks inherent in hazardous
materials transportation.

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $50,434,000
for hazardous materials safety, of which $6,497,000 shall
remain available until September 30, 2013. The amount provided
is $10,000,000 more than the budget request and $12,440,000
more than the fiscal year 2010 enacted level.
The Committee provides an increase for the Office of
Hazardous Materials Safety [HMS] to implement the Secretary's
action plan to address the Office of the Inspector General's
[OIG] investigations into the administration of special permits
and approvals for the packaging and transportation of
explosives and other hazardous materials. Of the increase,
$5,210,000 is for 54 new positions and $4,790,000 is for
improvements to the PHMSA's data management and information
technology modernization effort. The additional positions will
enable the PHMSA to improve its oversight, management, and
processing of special permits and approvals, as well as address
the projected 43 percent increase in workload resulting from
the elimination of special permits and approvals for trade
associations. The increase in funds will also allow the PHMSA
to streamline, eliminate, or codify certain special permits and
approvals into regulations. In order to ensure HMS is moving
forward in hiring these additional personnel, the Committee
requests quarterly staffing reports.
Over the course of the past year the OIG conducted an
investigation into the PHMSA's special permits and approvals
program. The OIG found such egregious mismanagement affecting
the safe transportation of hazardous materials that it was
compelled to issue two management advisories so that immediate
remediation actions could be taken prior to the issuance of its
final report. In the first management advisory, the OIG stated
that the PHMSA does not: (1) adequately review applicants'
safety history; (2) ensure applicants will provide an
acceptable level of safety; (3) coordinate with the affected
operating administrations; and (4) conduct regular compliance
reviews of individuals and companies that have been granted
special permits and approvals. For example, of the 99 permits
and 56 approvals that the OIG examined, the PHMSA did not
consider the applicants' incident and compliance records when
granting, renewing, or allowing ``party-to'' permits. The OIG
found this to be the case even when applicants had multiple
incidents and enforcement violations in the years prior to
receiving their permit. Of particular concern to the OIG was
the PHMSA's practice of granting special permits to trade
associations--effectively giving a blanket authorization to
thousands of member companies without any assessment of their
safety histories or need for the permit. Further, the OIG's
visits to 27 companies found that more than one-half did not
comply with the terms of their special permits. In the second
management advisory the OIG found: (1) the PHMSA has no
formalized guidance for classifying and approving explosives;
(2) the PHMSA did not adhere to regulatory requirements for
reclassifying an explosive; (3) the PHMSA lacks a formal
process and controls for appropriately resolving internally
contested safety decisions; and, (4) over the last 10 years,
the PHMSA has not conducted fitness inspections or safety
reviews at any of its four approved explosives testing labs.
Clearly, the PHMSA faces significant flaws in virtually
every aspect of this program. As a result of these
investigations, the PHMSA has developed action, data
management, and information technology modernization plans to
remediate the fundamental failures the OIG identified. The OIG
agrees the agency is making significant progress in addressing
many of its recommendations; however, insufficient resources
will limit the agency's ability to successfully execute and
resolve pending recommendations and manage the program
consistent with its statutory obligations. The Committee
understands that with every budget resources are limited and
priorities have to be made. However, the Department's failure
to make safety its first and foremost priority by requesting
sufficient resources to implement the aforementioned action
plans--especially in light of the seriousness of the OIG
findings--is disturbing.
The Committee directs the Department to include a proposal
to establish a reasonable user fee with its fiscal year 2012
budget to assist in covering a portion of the cost of expenses
incurred to process applications and ensure compliance with the
terms of special permits and approvals issued under 49 U.S.C.
5117. In addition, the Committee directs the OIG to continue to
monitor the implementation of the Secretary's action plans and
report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by
April 1, 2011, on the agency's progress in implementing the OIG
recommendations and its ability to efficiently and effectively
manage the processing of special permits and approvals.

PIPELINE SAFETY

(PIPELINE SAFETY FUND)

(OIL SPILL LIABILITY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2010.................................... $105,239,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 111,111,000
Committee recommendation................................ 111,111,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Pipeline Safety [OPS] is designed to promote
the safe, reliable, and reliable sound transportation of
natural gas and hazardous liquids by pipelines.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $111,111,000
for the Office of Pipeline Safety. This amount is $5,872,000
more than the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and equal to the
budget request. Of the funding provided, $18,905,000 shall be
derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and $92,206,000
shall be from the Pipeline Safety Fund.
The Pipeline Safety Office has the important responsibility
of ensuring the safety and integrity of the pipelines that run
through every community in our Nation. Following the passage of
the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002, the Office of
Pipeline Safety has taken important steps to improve the
integrity of pipelines in order to protect our communities from
pipeline incidents. Efforts by Congress and the OPS to push for
further advancements in safety technologies, increase civil
penalties, and educate communities about the dangers of
pipelines, have resulted in a reduction in serious pipeline
incidents. However, it is critical that the agency continue to
make strides in protecting communities from pipeline failures
and incidents.
Technical Assistance Grants.--In fiscal year 2009, the
Committee provided funding for the first time for pipeline
safety information grants to communities, or technical
assistance grants [TAG]. Through this funding, communities are
able to obtain technical assistance in the form of engineering
or other scientific analysis of pipeline safety issues. The
funding will also help promote public participation in official
proceedings. The Committee strongly believes that providing
communities with resources to obtain expertise and assistance
will help them protect their communities from future pipeline
incidents.

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS GRANTS

(EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUND)

Appropriations, 2010.................................... $28,318,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 28,318,000
Committee recommendation................................ 28,318,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Hazardness Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act
of 1990 [HMTUSA] requires PHMSA to (1) develop and implement a
reimbursable emergency preparedness grant program; (2) monitor
public sector emergency response training and planning and
provide technical assistance to States, political subdivisions
and Indian tribes; and (3) develop and update periodically a
mandatory training curriculum for emergency responders.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $28,318,000 for this activity, of
which $188,000 shall be for activities related to emergency
response training curriculum development and updates, as
authorized by section 117(A)(i)(3)(B) of HMTUSA. The Committee
includes an obligation limitation of $28,318,000 for the
emergency preparedness grant program.
The recommended level for emergency preparedness grants
supports training and curriculum development for public sector
emergency response and preparedness teams.

Research and Innovative Technology Administration

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2010.................................... $13,007,0000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 17,200,000
Committee recommendation................................ 16,900,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Research and Innovative Technology Administration
[RITA] was established in the Department of Transportation,
effective November 24, 2004, pursuant to the Norman Y. Mineta
Research and Special Programs Improvement Act (Public Law 108-
246). The mission of RITA is to strengthen and facilitate the
Department's multi-modal and inter-modal research efforts,
leverage and enhance intra-modal research efforts, and
coordinate and sharpen the multifaceted research agenda of the
Department.
RITA includes the University Transportation Centers, the
Volpe National Transportation Center and the Bureau of
Transportation Statistics [BTS], which is funded by an
allocation from the Federal Highway Administration's Federal-
aid highway account.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $16,900,000
for Research and Innovative Technology Administration for
fiscal year 2011. The amount provided is $3,893,000 more than
the fiscal year 2010 level.
The Committee recommends funds to be distributed to the
following program activities in the following amounts:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salaries and Administrative Expenses.................... 7,200,000
Alternative Fuels Safety Research and Development....... 500,000
RD&T Coordination....................................... 900,000
Nationwide Differential Global Positioning System 7,400,000
[NDGPS]................................................
Position, Navigation, and Timing [PNT].................. 900,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Over the past several years, RITA has taken steps to
transform itself into a more effective organization by
implementing key 2006 and 2009 GAO recommendations, and
associated developments in the agency's Research, Development,
and Technology [RD&T] Coordination division. The development of
new RD&T tools, such as the Knowledge Management System, is a
positive step towards better identifying synergies and
facilitating collaborative, cross-cutting research. In
addition, the Committee awaits the completion of DOT's RD&T
Strategic Plan, and notes the positive potential of a well-
managed and structured strategic planning process. Accordingly,
the Committee expects RITA to develop suitable metrics to help
evaluate the Strategic Plan's implementation.
Alternative Fuels Safety Research and Development.--The
Committee recommends $500,000 for Fuels Safety Research and
Development. RITA should continue to expand the focus of the
program to encompass a variety of promising alternative fuels.
The Committee encourages RITA to work with the DOT Alternative
Fuels Working Group to accelerate testing and confirmation of
new materials and components. Likewise, RITA will continue to
respond to direct stakeholder and industry needs in advancing
alternative fuels, as well as develop and test alternative
safety and inspection technologies. Research in sustainable
fuels is an important component of ensuring that the United
States remains economically competitive, and RITA is well
suited to take the lead in facilitating relevant, cross-cutting
and multi-modal alternative fuels research throughout DOT.
Research, Development, and Technology Coordination.--The
Committee recommends $900,000 for Research, Development, and
Technology [RD&T] Coordination with the expectation that RITA
will coordinate, facilitate, and review the Department's R&D
portfolio and identify synergies among the programs. Central to
realizing the agency's mission, the Committee supports RITA's
ongoing efforts to develop its RD&T Coordination capabilities
through innovative tools such as the Knowledge Management
System [KMS], the development of an RD&T Strategic Plan, and
the continued implementation of key GAO recommendations.
Notably, the KMS should improve cross-modal collaboration
within DOT, while reducing duplicative research efforts. RITA's
work over the past year to collaboratively identify research
clusters, facilitate dialogue between researchers, and hold
annual program reviews to identify cross-cutting research
projects, represents positive steps towards better fulfilling
its mission. The Committee expects RITA to continue to develop
and improve its RD&T coordination capacities.
Likewise, RITA must continue to innovate and take the lead
in developing cutting-edge coordinative tools and methods. The
funds provided by the Committee are $364,000 over the fiscal
year 2010 enacted level, and equal to the President's request.
They will allow RITA to further develop the KMS, as well as
other systematic approaches to identify research synergies. In
doing so, RITA should be mindful to communicate and coordinate
with relevant Federal, State, and local stakeholders.
Nationwide Differential Global Positioning System
[NDGPS].--The Committee provides $7,400,000 to support
operations and maintenance [O&M] and equipment recapitalization
of the Nationwide Differential Global Positioning System
[NDGPS]. The amount provided is $2,800,000 over the fiscal year
2010 level, and includes $5,400,000 for O&M. The $800,000
increase to O&M over fiscal year 2010 levels responds to
increased Coast Guard cost-estimates for servicing existing
NDGPS infrastructure, and will help cover expenses associated
with maintaining aging electronic components, and incremental
cost growth. RITA has a long-standing track record of
maintaining annual NDGPS availability in excess of 98.5
percent, and this year's appropriation will allow the agency to
continue to meet this high standard of service.
Consistent with the request, the Committee directs
$2,000,000 of the funds provided to RITA be used for NDGPS
equipment recapitalization. The Committee recognizes that both
RITA and the Coast Guard consider timely NDGPS recapitalization
to be essential for preserving the system and maintaining
service availability in the most cost-effective manner. The
existing in-land NDGPS suffers from aging components, many of
which now exceed their serviceable lifespan. Because of the
system's age, hardware is obsolete, and replacement parts are
increasingly expensive and difficult to obtain. Many in-land
receivers are being serviced with parts salvaged during the
Coast Guard's 2009 recapitalization of the Maritime DGPS
system, or through costly special orders. Moreover, according
to estimates provided by RITA, future O&M costs are expected to
increase between 15 and 20 percent annually should
recapitalization of the existing system be delayed.
Recapitalization in fiscal year 2011 is further supported
by the Coast Guard's existing contract structure for replacing
NDGPS transmitters. Extending the current contract to upgrade
NDGPS transmitters is ultimately more cost effective than
upgrading in the future under a new contract agreement.
Maintaining continuity of hardware with the Maritime DGPS will
benefit RITA and the Coast Guard as the upgraded system becomes
operational.
Position, Navigation, and Timing [PNT].--The Committee
provides $900,000 to support responsibilities in Position,
Navigation and Timing [PNT] leadership that were delegated from
OST to RITA. This realignment has made RITA the primary agency
responsible for coordinating and developing PNT policy and
technology. The Committee's fiscal year 2011 appropriation is
$500,000 more than the fiscal year 2010 enacted level, and will
allow RITA to continue to develop the national PNT
architecture, participate in PNT and spectrum policy
coordination, support the FRP revision, and further identify
civil PNT requirements.

Bureau of Transportation Statistics

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

Limitation on obligations, 2010......................... $28,000,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 30,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 30,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Bureau of Transportation Statistics [BTS] is funded by
an allocation from the limitation on obligations for Federal-
aid highways. The Bureau compiles, analyzes, and makes
accessible information on the Nation's transportation systems;
collects information on intermodal transportation and other
areas as needed; and enhances the quality and effectiveness of
the statistical programs of the Department of Transportation
through research, the development of guidelines, and the
promotion of improvements in data acquisition and use.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

Under the appropriation of the Federal Highway
Administration, the bill provides $30,000,000 for BTS. This
amount is equal to the President's request, and $2,000,000 more
than the fiscal year 2010 enacted level to support the
implementation phase of the 2012 Commodity Flow Survey [CFS].
Conducted on a 5-year cycle, the CFS is the largest national
survey of multimodal freight movement, and provides
comprehensive data on two-thirds of the freight tonnage
transported in the United States. The funds provided by the
Committee will allow finalization of survey design and data
collection methods, and cover associated cost increases.
Over the past year, BTS has made some progress on projects
to gauge and improve customer satisfaction. The American
Customer Satisfaction Index Web survey was implemented in
January, 2010, and customer feedback data is now being
distributed to BTS and RITA leadership on a quarterly basis. In
addition, BTS has met with stakeholders to identify theme areas
for improvement. In fiscal year 2011, the Committee expects BTS
to continue to develop performance indicators for user
satisfaction, and develop an action plan to tailor products to
better suit clients' needs.

Office of Inspector General

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010.................................... $75,114,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 79,772,000
Committee recommendation................................ 86,406,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Inspector General Act of 1978 established the Office of
Inspector General [OIG] as an independent and objective
organization, with a mission to: (1) conduct and supervise
audits and investigations relating to the programs and
operations of the Department; (2) provide leadership and
recommend policies designed to promote economy, efficiency, and
effectiveness in the administration of programs and operations;
(3) prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse; and (4) keep
the Secretary and Congress currently informed regarding
problems and deficiencies.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation provides $86,406,000 for
activities of the Office of the Inspector General, which is
$6,634,000 more than the President's budget request and
$11,292,000 more than the fiscal year 2010 enacted level.
OIG Workforce.--The Committee recommendation includes
$2,010,000 for essential investments in the OIG workforce. This
funding increase includes $1,525,000 to increase the OIG
workforce by eight FTE in fiscal year 2010, $200,000 to provide
additional training for OIG staff, and $285,000 to supplement
the in-house expertise of the OIG with consultant services for
highly technical and complex audits.
The Committee relies on the Inspector General and his staff
to provide objective analysis of the Department's programs.
These programs will continue to grow increasingly complex as
the FAA modernizes its air traffic control system, and as
Congress considers how to reauthorize the surface
transportation programs. In addition, the Office of the
Secretary is embarking on two Department-wide initiatives to
revamp its financial management capital and better secure its
computer networks. Both of these initiatives are significant
investments that will involve complex technologies and require
substantial resources.
The OIG must have the ability to monitor all of these
Department programs and initiatives at the Department, to
respond to congressional requests, and to initiate audits as
necessary. As the Department's activities grow in complexity,
the Committee expects the Inspector General to maintain a
workforce with the skills necessary to produce relevant,
accurate, thorough, and reliable work.
Transfers and Reimbursements from Other Agencies.--For the
past several years, the FAA, FHWA, FTA and NTSB have provided
funds to the OIG to cover the cost of audits and investigations
of their programs and financial statements. These agencies have
either transferred funds directly to the OIG or provided the
funding on a reimbursable basis.
This year, the Administration has proposed transferring and
reimbursing the OIG a total of $6,634,000. In contrast, the
Committee recommendation provides this funding directly to the
OIG. For this reason, the Committee recommendation provides
$6,634,000 more to the OIG than the Administration's budget
request. However, the Committee recommendation has not included
this funding in the resources provided for the FAA, FHWA, FTA
and NTSB. This decrease in funding levels for those agencies
will have no impact on the level of resources available to them
for their own programs and activities.
Providing direct appropriations to the OIG will give
greater transparency to the OIG budget, provide the funding in
a more efficient manner, and simplify the relationship between
the OIG and the agencies it oversees. Last year, the Committee
disentangled the funding appropriated for the Amtrak and the
Amtrak OIG, arguing that the Amtrak OIG cannot rely on the
railroad it oversees for the cost of its oversight. The
Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2011 continues this
practice, and extends this same policy to DOT and the
Department's OIG.
Audit Reports.--The Committee requests the Inspector
General to continue to forward copies of all audit reports to
the Committee immediately after they are issued, and to
continue to make the Committee aware immediately of any review
that recommends cancellation or modifications to any major
acquisition project or grant, or which recommends significant
budgetary savings. The OIG is also directed to withhold from
public distribution for a period of 15 days any final audit or
investigative report which was requested by the House or Senate
Committees on Appropriations.
Sole Source Contracts.--The Committee has included a
provision in section 407 that requires all departments and
agencies in this act to report to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations on all sole source contracts,
including the contractor, the amount of the contract, and the
rationale for a sole-source procurement as opposed to a market-
based procurement. The Committee directs the IG to assess any
conflicts of interest with regard to these contracts and DOT.
Unfair Business Practices.--The bill maintains language
which authorizes the OIG to investigate allegations of fraud
and unfair or deceptive practices and unfair methods of
competition by air carriers and ticket agents.

Surface Transportation Board

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crediting
Appropriation offsetting
collections
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2010.................. $29,066,000 $1,250,000
Budget estimate, 2011................. 25,988,000 1,250,000
Committee recommendation.............. 29,934,000 1,250,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Surface Transportation Board [STB] was created on
January 1, 1996, by the Interstate Commerce Commission
Termination Act of 1995 [ICCTA] (Public Law 104-88). The Board
is a three-member, bipartisan, decisionally independent
adjudicatory body organizationally housed within DOT and is
responsible for the regulation of the rail and pipeline
industries and certain non-licensing regulation of motor
carriers and water carriers.
STB's rail oversight activities encompass rate
reasonableness, car service and interchange, mergers, line
acquisitions, line constructions, and abandonments. STB's
jurisdiction also includes certain oversight of the intercity
bus industry, pipeline carriers, and intercity passenger train
service, rate regulation involving noncontiguous domestic water
transportation, household goods carriers, and collectively
determined motor carrier rates.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total appropriation of
$29,934,000. This funding level is $3,946,000 more than the
President's request, and $868,000 more than the fiscal year
2010 enacted level. Included in the recommendation is
$1,250,000 in fees, which will offset the appropriated funding.
Uniform Rail Costing System.--Many of the STB's
responsibilities require the board to estimate the variable
costs of railroad movements and activities. In fulfilling these
responsibilities, the STB employs a highly specialized cost
model called the Uniform Rail Costing System [URCS]. STB's
predecessor agency, the Interstate Commerce Commission,
invested 5 years' time and leveraged significant technical
assistance from economists to develop URCS during the 1980s.
Today, URCS is outdated. Many stakeholders in the railroad
industry, as well as the Departments of Transportation and
Agriculture, have asked the STB to review and update its cost
model.
The Committee provided the STB with additional resources
for fiscal year 2010 to evaluate the adequacy of the URCS,
identify a range of options for modernizing the cost model, and
report on the resources necessary for each option. On May 27,
2010, the STB submitted its report to the Committee, including
discussion of basic, moderate and comprehensive options for
URCS modernization. The board recommended investment in the
moderate option, which would include extensive updates to the
URCS, but not entail a complete overhaul. A complete overhaul
could increase costs significantly, but it may not provide
enough benefits to justify its price tag.
The Committee recommendation includes $625,000 for
extensive updates to the URCS, the amount that STB identified
as necessary to complete the moderate option in its report.

General Provisions--Department of Transportation

Section 180 allows funds for maintenance and operation of
aircraft; motor vehicles; liability insurance; uniforms; or
allowances, as authorized by law.
Section 181 limits appropriations for services authorized
by 5 U.S.C. 3109 not to exceed the rate for an Executive Level
IV.
Section 182 prohibits funds in this act for salaries and
expenses of more than 110 political and presidential appointees
in the Department of Transportation.
Section 183 prohibits funds for the implementation of
section 404 of title 23, United States Code.
Section 184 prohibits recipients of funds made available in
this act to release personal information, including a Social
Security number, medical or disability information, and
photographs from a driver's license or motor vehicle record
without express consent of the person to whom such information
pertains; and prohibits the Secretary of Transportation from
withholding funds provided in this act for any grantee if a
State is in noncompliance with this provision.
Section 185 allows funds received by the Federal Highway
Administration, Federal Transit Administration, and the Federal
Railroad Administration from States, counties, municipalities,
other public authorities, and private sources for expenses
incurred for training may be credited to each agency's
respective accounts.
Section 186 clarifies the requirement to fund certain
programs, projects and activities identified in this report
within the accounts of the Federal Highway Administration,
Federal Railroad Administration, and Federal Transit
Administration.
Section 187 authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to
allow issuers of any preferred stock to redeem or repurchase
preferred stock sold to the Department of Transportation.
Section 188 prohibits the use of funds in this act to make
a grant or announce the intention to make a grant unless the
Secretary of Transportation notifies the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations at least 3 full business days
before making the grant or the announcement.
Section 189 allows rebates, refunds, incentive payments,
minor fees, and other funds received by the Department of
Transportation from travel management center, charge card
programs, subleasing of building space and miscellaneous
sources are to be credited to appropriations of the Department
of Transportation.
Section 190 requires amounts from improper payments to a
third-party contractor that are lawfully recovered by the
Department of Transportation be available to cover expenses
incurred in recovery of such payments.
Section 191 establishes requirements for reprogramming
actions by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
Section 192 prohibits the Surface Transportation Board from
charging filing fees for rate or practice complaints that are
greater than the fees authorized for district court civil
suits.
Section 193 allows the Department of Transportation to make
use of the Working Capital Fund in providing transit benefits
to Federal employees.
Section 194 clarifies funding for certain projects that
were included in previous appropriations acts.
Section 195 clarifies funding for certain projects that
were included in Public Law 109-59.
Section 196 requires the Department of Transportation to
conduct a study related to the Missouri River.

TITLE II

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2010.................................... $46,059,233,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 45,570,699,000
Committee recommendation................................ 46,591,857,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] was
established by the Housing and Urban Development Act (Public
Law 89-174), effective November 9, 1965. This Department is the
principal Federal agency responsible for programs concerned
with the Nation's housing needs, fair housing opportunities,
and improving and developing the Nation's communities.
In carrying out the mission of serving the needs and
interests of the Nation's communities and of the people who
live and work in them, HUD administers mortgage and loan
insurance programs that help families become homeowners and
facilitate the construction of rental housing; rental and
homeownership subsidy programs for low-income families who
otherwise could not afford decent housing; programs to combat
discrimination in housing and affirmatively further fair
housing opportunities; programs aimed at ensuring an adequate
supply of mortgage credit; and programs that aid neighborhood
rehabilitation, community development, and the preservation of
our urban centers from blight and decay.
HUD administers programs to protect the homebuyer in the
marketplace, and fosters programs and research that stimulate
and guide the housing industry to provide not only housing, but
better communities and living environments.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends for fiscal year 2011 an
appropriation of $46,591,857,000 for the Department of Housing
and Urban Development. This is $532,624,000 more than the
fiscal year 2010 enacted level and $1,021,158,000 more than the
budget request.
The Committee reiterates that the Department must limit the
reprogramming of funds between the programs, projects, and
activities within each account without prior approval of the
Committees on Appropriations. Unless otherwise identified in
the bill or report, the most detailed allocation of funds
presented in the budget justifications is approved, with any
deviation from such approved allocation subject to the normal
reprogramming requirements. Except as specifically provided
otherwise, it is the intent of the Committee that all carryover
funds in the various accounts, including recaptures and de-
obligations, are subject to the normal reprogramming
requirements outlined above. No change may be made to any
program, project, or activity if it is construed to be new
policy or a change in policy, without prior approval of the
Committees on Appropriations. Finally, the Committee expects to
be notified regarding reorganizations of offices, programs or
activities prior to the implementation of such reorganizations,
as well as be notified, on a monthly basis, of all ongoing
litigation, including any negotiations or discussions, planned
or ongoing, regarding a consent decree between the Department
and any other entity, including the estimated costs of such
decrees.

Executive Direction

Appropriations, 2010.................................... $26,855,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 30,265,000
Committee recommendation................................ 30,265,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides all Personnel Compensation and
Benefits and Non-Personnel Services funding for the Office of
the Secretary, the Deputy Secretary, the Office of the Chief
Operating Officer, the Office of Congressional and
Intergovernmental Affairs, the Office of Public Affairs, and
the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization.
Additionally, funding is provided for the executive management
in the offices of the Chief Financial Officer, the General
Counsel, the Office of Public and Indian Housing, the Office of
Community Planning and Development, the Office of Housing, the
Office of Policy Development and Research, and the Office of
Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. These individuals are
responsible for developing policy and managing the resources
necessary to carry out HUD's mission. The core mission of the
Department of Housing and Urban Development is to support
community development, increase access to affordable housing
free from discrimination and help Americans achieve the dream
of homeownership.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $30,265,000
for this account, which is equal to the budget request and
$3,410,000 more than the fiscal year 2010 enacted level.
Amounts are made available as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immediate Office of the Secretary and Deputy Secretary.. 7,674,000
Office of Hearings and Appeals.......................... 1,706,000
Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization.. 719,000
Immediate Office of the Chief Financial Officer......... 999,000
Immediate Office of the General Counsel................. 1,503,000
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional and 2,709,000
Intergovernmental Relations............................
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs.... 4,861,000
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian 2,163,000
Affairs................................................
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community and 1,755,000
Planning Development...................................
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing, Federal 3,565,000
Housing Commissioner...................................
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy Development 1,117,000
and Research...........................................
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and 945,000
Equal Opportunity......................................
Office of the Chief Operating Officer................... 549,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

For many years, HUD was appropriated funding for the
salaries and expenses of the entire Department in one account.
This provided little transparency, and made it difficult for
Congress to determine if funding was being used to meet the
pressing housing needs facing the Department and the country.
In fiscal year 2008, the Committee created a new salaries and
expenses structure in order to increase transparency of the
Department's funding and improve congressional oversight.
Managing its funding under this new structure has been an
adjustment for HUD. It requires better management of staff and
resources, which depend on educating management and staff about
appropriate resource management and instilling fiscal
discipline. The Committee continues to believe that the
increased transparency and oversight afforded through this
structure serves the interest of the Department and the
taxpayers.
The Committee notes that the Department is taking steps to
address its management shortfalls, and is seeking to improve
its operations by achieving efficiencies, as well as focusing
on outcomes rather than outputs. In order to assist HUD in this
process, the Committee is providing the Department with some
additional, limited flexibility to improve the management of
its programs. However, the Committee continues to require that
any significant changes in program funding be approved by the
Committees on Appropriations in order for Congress to track
funding and evaluate program needs.
As the Department works to improve its operations, the
Committee notes that staffing execution has varied by office.
For example, the Office of Housing has greatly improved its
ability to hire the additional personnel to meet the demands on
the Federal Housing Administration [FHA]. However, other
program offices have been slow to hire and, as a result, are
expected to lapse significant salaries and expenses funding at
the end of fiscal year 2010, which is unacceptable. In light of
carryover balances, some of the funding levels for program
offices have been reduced. In order to avoid lapsing funding in
the future, HUD must remain focused on program execution and
management to ensure that taxpayer dollars are effectively and
efficiently spent. If lapses continue, the Committee will
further reduce office staffing budgets in fiscal year 2012.
Congressional Justifications.--The Committee directs the
Department to include more detailed information on its salaries
and expenses request in the fiscal year 2012 congressional
justification. These budget documents provide the Committee
with the necessary information to make decisions about how
funding is allocated. Therefore, the justification for the
salaries and expenses requests across the Department should
include an explanation of any proposed increase or decrease in
full-time equivalent [FTE] personnel, as well as the program
areas for which any increase or decrease in FTEs is being
sought. In addition, the budget documents should include a
break out of the Executive Direction account by office.
Finally, the Committee expects the documents to include
detailed information on nonpersonnel related expenses,
including travel, by program office. This should include
information on prior travel and travel planned for fiscal year
2012. The Committee also requests the location and purpose of
any international travel.

Administration, Operations, and Management

Appropriations, 2010.................................... $537,011,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 540,622,635
Committee recommendation................................ 528,845,635

The Administration, Operations, and Management [AOM]
account is the backbone of HUD's operations, and consists of
several offices that are supposed to work seamlessly to provide
the support services required to ensure the Department performs
its core mission, and is compliant with all legal, operational,
and financial guidelines established by Congress for the
benefit of the Nation. The AOM account funds the personnel
compensation and benefits costs of the remaining staff in the
Office of General Counsel, the Office of the Chief Financial
Officer, and the Office of Administration, as well as the
entire staff in the Office of the Chief Procurement Officer,
the Office of Departmental Equal Employment Opportunity, the
Office of Field Policy and Management, the Office of
Departmental Operations and Coordination, the Office of
Sustainability, the Office of Strategic Planning and
Management, the Office of Disaster and Emergency Management,
and the Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. This
account also contains Non-Personnel Services funding for the
Department.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $528,845,635
for this account, which is $9,706,000 less than the budget
request and $8,165,000 less than the fiscal year 2010 enacted
level. Funds are made available as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of Chief Human Capital Officer Personnel $65,120,000
Compensation and Benefits..............................
Office of Departmental Operations and Coordination 9,122,000
Personnel Compensation and Benefits....................
Office of Field Policy and Management Personnel 49,090,000
Compensation and Benefits..............................
Office of the Chief Procurement Officer Personnel 15,931,635
Compensation and Benefits..............................
Office of the Chief Financial Officer Personnel 33,831,000
Compensation and Benefits..............................
Office of the General Counsel Personnel Compensation and 86,482,000
Benefits...............................................
Office of the Departmental Equal Employment Opportunity 3,296,000
Personnel Compensation and Benefits....................
Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives 1,316,000
Personnel Compensation and Benefits....................
Office of Sustainability Personnel Compensation and 2,887,000
Benefits...............................................
Office of Strategic Planning and Management Personnel 4,445,000
Compensation and Benefits..............................
Office of the Chief Disaster and Emergency Management 4,875,000
Officer................................................
Non-personnel expenses.................................. 252,450,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Committee recommends funding under this account to
cover the necessary administrative staff and nonpersonnel-
related expenses of the Department.
The Committee notes that HUD is being provided additional
flexibility within its salaries and expenses accounts this year
so that it can make the investments necessary to improve
staffing expertise and program management. The Committee
expects the Department to keep the Committee apprised of the
results of these efforts, and will continue to closely monitor
the use of these funds.
Travel.--HUD is responsible for the oversight of thousands
of grantees across the country receiving Federal funding
through its programs. Given this responsibility, adequate
travel resources are necessary so that staff can conduct on-
site monitoring of its grantees. However, in recognition of the
constraints of the Federal budget, the Committee believes that
the travel budget of the Department can be reduced while
maintaining sufficient resources to ensure continued monitoring
of its grantees. Therefore, the Committee has reduced the
Department's request for travel-related expenses by 5 percent.
The Committee expects the reduction to be absorbed through
reductions in conference and other nonoversight related travel.
Workforce Acquisition.--The Committee notes that the
President's budget included an additional $2,000,000 to improve
the Department's acquisition workforce capacity and
capabilities. The Committee has not included this language as a
general provision, but has instead provided this funding
directly to the Office of the Chief Procurement Officer. The
Committee expects that this funding will be used primarily to
hire additional acquisition staff.
Building Modernization.--The President's request for
nonpersonnel-related expenses includes $11,000,000 to begin
design for the modernization of the Department's headquarters
building. The Committee supports the Secretary's efforts to
increase the energy efficiency of the headquarters building,
and improve the workplace environment for HUD employees. While
the Department has yet to receive and assess the feasibility
study for the building modernization being conducted by the
General Services Administration, this modernization effort is
expected to require a substantial investment of taxpayer
dollars in future years. Given the current fiscal pressures,
the Committee cannot commit to a large, multi-year
modernization project without an understanding of the full
scope and cost of the project. Therefore the Committee does not
think it is prudent to provide funding to begin the design
phase of this project, and has not included the requested
funding in the budget this year.

Personnel Compensation and Benefits

PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING

Appropriations, 2010.................................... $197,074,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 197,282,000
Committee recommendation................................ 195,508,000

This account provides salary and benefits funding to
support staff in headquarters and in 46 field offices (funding
for the immediate office of Assistant Secretary is provided out
of the ``Executive Direction Account'') in the Office of Public
and Indian Housing [PIH]. PIH is charged with ensuring the
availability of safe, decent, and affordable housing, creating
opportunities for residents' self sufficiency and economic
independence, and assuring the fiscal integrity of all public
housing agencies. The Office ensures that safe, decent and
affordable housing is available to Native American families,
creates economic opportunities for tribes and Indian housing
residents, assists tribes in the formulation of plans and
strategies for community development, and assures fiscal
integrity in the operation of the programs. The Office also
administers programs authorized in the Native American Housing
Assistance and Self Determination Act of 1996 [NAHASDA], which
provides housing assistance to Native Americans and Native
Hawaiians. PIH also manages the Housing Choice Voucher program,
in which tenant-based vouchers increase affordable housing
choices for low-income families. Tenant-based vouchers enable
families to lease safe, decent, and affordable privately owned
rental housing.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $195,508,000
for this account, which is $1,774,000 less than the budget
request and $1,566,000 less than the fiscal year 2010 enacted
level. The Committee is reducing this amount due to expected
lapsing funds in fiscal year 2010 and excessive staff dedicated
to Transforming Rental Assistance.
Public and Indian Housing's [PIH] responsibilities include
the oversight of public housing agencies across the country
that manage public housing and participate in the section 8
tenant-based rental assistance program. These programs serve
more than 3 million low-income individuals and families across
the country. Section 8 also represents the largest single item
in HUD's budget. The oversight of these programs is therefore
critical to protecting both residents and taxpayers.
The budget request includes resources for a significant
number of staff to work on the Transforming Rental Assistance
initiative. While the Committee understands that staff time and
effort is needed to better understand the needs of public
housing and develop a solution to the capital backlog, too much
time is being dedicated to this initiative, which is not yet
being implemented. Instead, HUD should focus greater attention
on the oversight of its core programs. For example, PIH staff
resources should be dedicated to improving its ability to
analyze and understand the cost trends in the section 8
program. This information is critical to ensuring the
appropriate management of section 8 resources by HUD and public
housing agencies in order to sustain this affordable housing
over the long-term. The Committee directs HUD to increase staff
dedicated to oversight of PIH's core programs, including the
section 8 tenant-based rental assistance program.
Regulatory Barriers.--The Committee is very interested in
the soon to be released report on the Moving to Work
demonstration, including both the successes and failures of the
program. In particular, the Committee is very intrigued about
HUD regulation of public housing and the extent to which
existing regulations interfere or are barriers to the
development and implementation of public housing as affordable
assisted housing. To the extent possible, the Committee wants
to understand how effective the elimination of certain
regulations will be to the effective use of public housing and
section 8 resources. The Committee directs HUD to submit a list
of regulatory or statutory barriers to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations by May 15, 2011.

COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2010.................................... $98,989,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 105,768,000
Committee recommendation................................ 105,281,000

This account provides salary and benefits funding for
Community Planning and Development [CPD] staff in headquarters
and in 43 field offices, (funding for the immediate office of
the Assistant Secretary is provided out of the ``Executive
Direction account''). CPD's mission is to enable the progress
of viable urban, suburban and rural communities by promoting
integrated approaches to community and economic development.
CPD programs also assist in the expansion of opportunities for
low- and moderate-income individuals and families in moving
towards homeownership. The Assistant Secretary for CPD
administers formula and competitive grant programs as well as
guaranteed loan programs that help communities plan and finance
their growth and development. These programs also help
communities increase their capacity to govern and provide
shelter and services for homeless persons and other persons
with special needs, including person with HIV/AIDS.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $105,281,000
for the staffing within this office, which is $487,000 less
than the budget request and $6,292,000 more than the fiscal
year 2010 enacted level.
The Committee supports the Department's request for
increased staff in this program. The additional staff will be
used to increase compliance and monitoring, which is critical
given the number of grantees receiving funding through CPD
programs. The Committee is also pleased that the budget
supports a new staff person who will be dedicated to veterans'
housing issues.

HOUSING

Appropriations, 2010.................................... $374,887,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 395,917,000
Committee recommendation................................ 395,917,000

This account provides salary and benefits funding to
support staff in headquarters and in 52 field locations,
(funding for the immediate office of the Assistant Secretary/
FHA Housing Commissioner is provided out of the Executive
Direction account) in the Office of Housing. The Office of
Housing is responsible for implementing programs to assist
projects for occupancy by very low-and moderate-income
households, to provide capital grants to nonprofit sponsors for
the development of housing for the elderly or handicapped, and
to conduct several regulatory functions. The Office also
administers Federal Housing Administration [FHA] programs that
help lenders reduce exposure to the risk of default. These
programs underwrite mortgages or loan insurance to finance new
construction, rehabilitation or the purchase of existing
dwelling units. The Office also provides services to maintain
and preserve home ownership, especially for underserved
population. This assistance allows lenders to make lower-cost
financing available to more borrowers for home and home
improvement loans, and apartment, hospital, and nursing home
loans. FHA provides a vital link in addressing America's
homeownership and affordable housing needs.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $395,917,000
for staffing in the Office of Housing, which is equal to the
budget request and $21,030,000 more than the fiscal year 2010
enacted level. The Office of Housing includes the Federal
Housing Administration [FHA], which as a result of the housing
crisis is currently playing an outsized role in the market.
FHA's ability to provide continued access to liquidity has
helped provide some stability to the housing market, but its
increased role does not come without risk. Sufficient staff
with the appropriate expertise is critical to mitigating this
risk through strong oversight.
The Committee supports HUD's efforts to bolster FHA staff,
and has been pleased with FHA's ability to bring on staff
consistent with the staffing plan required by the Committee
last year. The Committee remains focused on the Department's
effort to fulfill this plan, and expects HUD to continue
providing the Committee with regular updates.
The Committee notes that FHA is also playing an important
role in financing hospitals and other healthcare facilities.
The funding provided will enable HUD to increase staff within
the Office of Insured Healthcare Facilities. This staff is
important to efficiently managing its programs, while reducing
any risk related to increased business.
FHA has recently implemented lean processing in the Office
of Insured Healthcare Facilities in order to improve the
efficiency of the program. The Committee directs HUD to submit
a report within 6 months of the enactment of the act detailing
how this is being implemented. This report should include
policies put in place that protect the program against losses,
as well as the staffing necessary to ensure effective program
management.

OFFICE OF THE GOVERNMENT NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION

Appropriations, 2010.................................... $11,095,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 10,902,000
Committee recommendation................................ 16,000,000

This account provides all salary and benefits funding to
support Government National Mortgage Association [Ginnie Mae]
headquarters staff. Ginnie Mae programs help expand the supply
of affordable housing in the United States by linking the
capital markets to the Nation's housing markets. Ginnie Mae
accomplishes this by facilitating the financing of residential
mortgage loans insured or guaranteed by the FHA, the Department
of Veteran Affairs [VA], and additional entities.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $16,000,000,
which is $5,098,000 more than the budget request and $4,905,000
more than the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. The Committee
provides language to continue allowing funding for personnel
compensation and benefits to be derived from the Ginnie Mae
guarantees of mortgage-backed securities guaranteed loan
receipt account.
Since Ginnie Mae securitizes FHA insured mortgages, its
business has grown dramatically over the past few years along
with FHA's. This increased business, including the potential
for fraudulent lenders to enter Government programs, demands
greater oversight by Ginnie Mae. This can only be accomplished
with a sufficiently sized and capable workforce. Yet while the
Department proposes significant increases FHA's staff, the
budget inexplicably would trim Ginnie Mae's workforce. The
Committee believes Ginnie Mae needs to be performing more
oversight, not less, and has provided resources to nearly
double Ginnie Mae's workforce. With these additional funds, the
Committee expects Ginnie Mae to move expeditiously to hire
staff with the necessary expertise. Since Ginnie Mae has faced
challenges in maintaining an adequate workforce in the past,
the Committee directs HUD to provide the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations with quarterly staffing updates
for Ginnie Mae.

POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH

Appropriations, 2010.................................... $21,138,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 23,588,000
Committee recommendation................................ 22,556,421

This account provides salary and benefits funding to
support staff in headquarters and in 16 field locations,
(funding for the immediate office of Assistant Secretary is
provided out of the Executive Direction account) in the Office
of Policy Development and Research [PD&R]. PD&R supports the
Department's efforts to help create cohesive, economically
healthy communities. PD&R is responsible for maintaining
current information on housing needs, market conditions, and
existing programs, as well as conducting research on priority
housing and community development issues. The Office provides
reliable and objective data and analysis to help inform policy
decisions.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $22,556,421
for this account, which is $1,031,579 less than the budget
request and $1,418,421 more than the fiscal year 2010 enacted
level.
The Committee supports the administration's efforts to
expand and improve the data and research on which the
Department bases its policy decisions. However, the Committee
is concerned that the PD&R workforce is growing too quickly.
Therefore, the Committee is partially approving the
administration's request for additional staff. The Committee
has included funding that will allow PD&R to hire additional
economists in the field. This will improve HUD's ability to
collect and analyze market-level data, as well as assist in
underwriting related to FHA business, including healthcare
facilities. However, the Committee denies the Department's
request for additional funding to support increased staff in
headquarters.

FAIR HOUSING AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

Appropriations, 2010.................................... $71,800,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 67,964,000
Committee recommendation................................ 70,363,435

This account provides salary and benefits funding to
support staff in headquarters and in 42 field locations,
(funding for the immediate office of Assistant Secretary is
provided out of the Executive Direction account) in the Office
of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity [FHEO]. FHEO is
responsible for investigating, resolving, and prosecuting
complaints of housing discrimination and conducting education
and outreach activities to increase awareness of the
requirements of the Fair Housing Act. The Office also develops
and interprets fair housing policy, processes complaints,
performs compliance reviews and provides oversight and
technical assistance to local housing authorities and community
development agencies regarding section 3 of the Housing and
Urban Development Act of 1968.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $70,363,435,
which is 2,399,435 more than the budget request and $1,436,565
less than the fiscal year 2010 enacted level.
The President's budget proposed to reduce FHEO by nearly
$4,000,000. A decrease of this size would reduce the number of
enforcement personnel potentially undermining a core
responsibility of the office. Therefore, the Committee has
provided funding over the President's budget to ensure that
enforcement staffing is not reduced. Since the Department
expects FHEO to lapse a portion of its fiscal year 2010 budget,
the Committee recommendation does not fully restore this
account to its fiscal year 2010 level.

OFFICE OF HEALTHY HOMES AND LEAD HAZARD CONTROL

Appropriations, 2010.................................... $7,151,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 6,762,000
Committee recommendation................................ 7,151,000

This account provides salary and benefits funding to
support the Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control
[OHHLHC] headquarters staff. OHHLHC administers and manages the
lead-based paint and healthy homes activities of the
Department, and is directly responsible for the administration
of the Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction program. The Office
also develops lead-based paint regulations, guidelines, and
policies applicable to HUD programs, designs lead-based paint
and healthy homes training programs, administers lead-hazard
control and healthy homes grant programs, and implements the
lead and healthy homes research program.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $7,151,000 for
this account, which is $389,000 more than the budget request
and equal to the fiscal year 2010 enacted level.

TRANSFORMING RENTAL ASSISTANCE

Appropriations, 2010....................................................
Budget estimate, 2011................................... $350,000,000
Committee recommendation................................

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Transforming Rental Assistance [TRA] is intended to fund
the preservation of public and HUD-assisted housing, as well as
enhance housing choice for residents. Incentives would also be
provided through this program to increase administrative
efficiency. Participation in the program by public and assisted
housing owners would be voluntary and involve the conversion to
an improved form of property-based rental assistance. This form
of rental assistance would enable public housing agencies and
assisted housing owners to leverage private sector resources in
order to recapitalize this housing stock and maintain these
units of affordable housing.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation does not include $350,000,000
as requested for the administration's TRA initiative in fiscal
year 2011.
TRA is an ambitious proposal by the administration intended
to preserve public and other HUD-assisted housing. This
critical supply of affordable housing has suffered from
inadequate funding and neglect, which has resulted in the loss
of thousands of units of affordable housing. The loss of these
units only exacerbates the affordable housing crisis in the
country, where today nearly 5,500,000 Americans pay more than
50 percent of their income for housing. The Committee applauds
the administration's commitment to preserving this supply of
affordable housing, and also commends the administration's
effort to look beyond Federal funding to recapitalize it. The
Committee agrees that in order to address the backlog in public
housing, which is estimated to be between $20,000,000,000 and
$30,000,000,000, it will be necessary to leverage private
sector resources. Nevertheless, the issue is too important to
begin implementation without an extensive review of all
possible options and costs.
Therefore, while the Committee supports the goals of the
program, it does not believe that this program is ready for
implementation, and cannot justify a substantial Federal
investment at this time. Since this initiative represents a
radical change from current policy, the administration must
consider how changes in the program would affect the operation
of this housing and its tenants, as well as how this investment
might impact funding for other core programs in the future.
The Committee is also concerned that the administration has
not adequately addressed how the involvement of the private
market would impact these properties in the short- and long-
term. This includes the ability of different properties to
leverage adequate private sector resources in different markets
to make needed capital improvements, as well as the fate of
tenants living in properties that may face foreclosure. The
possible risk of the loss of this housing through foreclosure
remains a substantial concern that must be fully understood.
The greatest concern of the Committee, however, is the
long-term costs of the program. The Committee appreciates the
administration's effort to determine the costs of the
initiative, but feels that this analysis falls short. Many of
the assumptions underlying the cost models lack the necessary
specificity to instill confidence in the accuracy of long-term
cost estimates put forth by the administration. For example,
the cost per unit is not based on the actual needs of
properties, but rather a calculation based on the overall
capital needs backlog and the number of public and assisted
units eligible for the program. Without understanding the needs
of projects and the subsidy that the local market would
support, it is not known if the increased subsidy would enable
public housing authorities to leverage sufficient funding to
recapitalize the property. If the estimated cost of addressing
the capital needs of eligible housing units are low, the
funding requested may serve far fewer than the 300,000 units
anticipated to be funded with the budget request.
The long-term cost of the conversion of all of this public
and assisted housing, as envisioned by the Department, is
difficult to determine without an accurate assessment of the
true capital needs of the properties. The administration
expects to complete its capital needs assessment this fall,
which will be an important tool to help the administration, and
Congress, understand the capital needs of the assisted housing
portfolio. Moreover, the projects needs assessments will
provide the necessary details on where these housing units are
located and their true capital needs. This data is essential to
understanding the full costs of the initiative.
The Committee expects the Department to improve its cost
models and refine its costs estimates for the proposal.
Improved data will help to assure the Committee that the
investment is sound, and can be sustained over the long-term.

Public and Indian Housing

TENANT-BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2009 \1\................................ $18,184,200,000
Budget estimate, 2010 \1\............................... 19,550,663,180
Committee recommendation \1\............................ 19,495,663,000

\1\ Includes an advance appropriation of $4,000,000,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides funding for the section 8 tenant-
based (voucher) program. Section 8 tenant-based housing
assistance is one of the principle appropriations for Federal
housing assistance and provides rental housing assistance to
approximately 2 million families. The program also funds
incremental vouchers to assist nonelderly disabled families and
vouchers for tenants who live in projects where the owner of
the project has decided to leave the section 8 program. The
program also provides for the replacement of units lost from
the assisted housing inventory through its tenant protection
vouchers. Under these programs, eligible low-income families
pay 30 percent of their adjusted income for rent, and the
Federal Government is responsible for the remainder of the
rent, up to the fair market rent or some other payment
standard. This account also provides funding for the Contract
Administrator program, Family Self-Sufficiency [FSS], Housing
and Urban Development Veterans Supportive Housing [HUD-VASH]
Program and the Family Unification program. Under FSS, families
receive job training and employment that should lead to a
decrease in their dependency on government assistance and help
them move toward economic self-sufficiency.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of
$19,495,663,000 for fiscal year 2011; including $4,000,000,000
as an advance appropriation to be made available on October 1,
2011. This amount is $55,000,000 less than the budget request
and $1,311,463,000 more than the fiscal year 2010 enacted
level.
The Committee recommends $17,165,000,000 for the renewal
costs for section 8 contracts, which is $145,000,000 less than
the budget request and $825,800,000 more than the fiscal year
2010 enacted level. However, the Committee is reducing the
amount provided for renewals as a result of more recent
estimates of need.
The section 8 rental assistance program is a critical tool
that enables over 2 million low-income individuals and families
to access safe, stable and affordable housing in the private
market. Over the last decade, the supply of affordable housing
has diminished and the number of Americans forced to pay more
than half of their income for housing has increased.
In recognition of the section 8 program's central role in
ensuring housing for vulnerable Americans, the Committee has
worked to provide sufficient resources so that no voucher
holders are put at risk of losing their housing. At the same
time, it is essential that cost estimates of renewal needs are
accurate, and public housing agencies [PHAs] manage their
programs within their budgets. To ensure poor management
doesn't put voucher holders at-risk of losing their housing,
the Committee directs HUD to increase its oversight of PHAs,
especially those that have had difficulty managing their
finances. For example, if public housing agencies expend
resources at a rate that will outpace their yearly budget, HUD
must take steps to correct overspending before families are put
at risk. To do this, HUD must dedicate more time and staff
resources to overseeing PHAs. This increased oversight must
focus on instilling a culture of fiscal discipline in PHAs. HUD
must also be willing to take action against PHAs that are not
following program rules and requirements, or operating beyond
their budget or voucher caps. For oversight and enforcement to
be fair and effective, HUD must have clear policies. Therefore
the Committee directs HUD to provide the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations with a report within 120 days of
the enactment of this act detailing how the Department will
monitor PHAs to ensure they manage their programs within
budget, what actions they will take to assist PHAs that are
leasing over their budget or unit caps, as well as enforcement
actions that they will take for PHAs that exceed their caps for
more than 2 years. In addition, HUD shall report to the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations at the end of 2010 on
the number of PHAs that are over-leased.
The Committee also expects HUD to improve its understanding
and management of the program. Congress has provided additional
resources for HUD to develop a new voucher management system to
improve access to data on the section 8 program. However, the
Committee will not wait for this system to be developed. The
Committee expects HUD to be able to provide real-time
information on the program, including leasing data and net
restricted assets. Without accurate and current data, oversight
is compromised.
Formula Adjustment.--In 2007, the Committee modified the
formula for allocating resources among PHAs. This modified
formula based allocations primarily on resource utilization
during the course of the most recent Federal fiscal year while
accounting for inflation. Since that time, the formula has
remained fairly constant in order to provide consistency and
stability to PHAs managing voucher programs. This year, the
Committee is recommending a modification that would change the
period of re-benchmarking for the formula allocation from the
Federal fiscal year to the calendar year. This would align the
period on which funding is based with how PHAs manage their
programs.
The Committee used the Federal fiscal year so that the time
it takes for HUD to verify PHA data would not delay program
allocations as PHAs begin their programs. However, this
misalignment created other challenges to managing the program.
Now that HUD is receiving more timely data, this delay should
be minimized.
The Committee is not including additional language
requested by the Administration to authorize the reallocation
of reserve funding. The Committee is concerned that this
proposed change has the potential to quickly and significantly
increase the amount of resources needed for the program. At
this point, the Committee does not have the confidence that
such changes and their potential costs can be managed by HUD
and its IT systems.
HUD-Veterans Affairs Supported Housing [HUD-VASH].--The
Committee has included $75,000,000 to support 10,000 additional
HUD-VASH vouchers. The President's budget did not include
funding for any new HUD-VASH vouchers. In May 2010, the
Committee held a hearing with HUD Secretary Donovan and VA
Secretary Shinseki to assess the status of the program. Both
Secretaries noted the effectiveness of this program in solving
veterans' homelessness. It is also clear that these vouchers
are critical to supporting the Administration's goal of ending
homelessness among the Nation's veterans in 5 years.
The Secretaries also pointed to steps their Departments are
taking to improve the program's operation. These improvements
helped to increase the rate at which vouchers were issued by 44
percent in the first quarter of fiscal year 2010. As a result
of the improvements, the Committee feels confident that
additional vouchers can be effectively used in fiscal year
2011. Moreover, the Committee is concerned that halting new
vouchers would threaten partnerships among HUD, the VA, housing
authorities and non-profit organizations that are being
developed in communities across the country.
While progress is being made in strengthening partnerships
around HUD-VASH, challenges remain. It continues to take excess
time to get vouchers to veterans and place them in housing. One
of the reasons for the delay is the slow hiring of case
managers. The Committee recognizes that this delay is due, in
part, to the rigorous evaluation of data and capacity that HUD
and the VA undertake to determine where to allocate vouchers.
While this process is important, the Committee directs HUD to
work with the VA to identify ways to streamline the process, so
that VA case managers will be on board when PHAs receive their
vouchers.
The ultimate success of this program will be demonstrated
by veterans remaining housed and off the street. The Committee
therefore expects HUD to work with the VA to track the
stability of participating veterans, so that if housing
stability isn't being achieved program modifications can be
made.
The Committee notes that the HUD and the VA have been
involved in a demonstration in Washington, DC, which has
achieved improved leasing rates. These improvements have
resulted from efforts by the DC Public Housing Authority to
streamline many of its processes, including screening of
clients and inspection of units. The Committee expects HUD to
share and encourage these best practices with other PHAs.
Homelessness Demonstrations.--The Committee recommends
$85,000,000 for two homelessness demonstrations: one to prevent
and end homelessness for homeless and at-risk families, and one
to target the chronically homeless.
As part of the demonstration to address the needs of
homeless and at-risk families, HUD will competitively award
6,000 vouchers to public housing authorities [PHAs] that
partner with entities administering Temporarily Assistance for
Needy Families [TANF] and other health and human services
funding to deliver housing and services to targeted families.
The local partnership should also involve homelessness liaisons
funded through the Department of Education's Education for
Homeless Children and Youth program to help identify children
and families suitable for this program. The Committee supports
the goal of demonstrating how mainstream service programs
coupled with housing can be more effectively used to improve
outcomes for families and children.
The Committee wants to ensure that successful applicants
are able to demonstrate a commitment to providing services, and
it expects successful applicants to identify specific examples
of services and funding that will be provided to support
families receiving vouchers. Since there are a limited number
of vouchers available for the demonstration, the Committee
believes it is important to demonstrate how cooperation among
PHAs, TANF administrators, and homelessness liaisons can
improve outcomes for families. The Committee expects the
lessons learned will result in best practices that can be
replicated by PHAs not receiving new vouchers. Therefore, the
Committee encourages HUD to consider applicants that can
demonstrate how their local partnership will enhance access to
mainstream services or housing for families currently being
served by PHAs or through TANF.
In addition, the Committee expects homelessness liaisons to
assist in identifying children and families that are homeless
or at-risk. Since school stability and educational attainment
are important to the long-term success of families and
children, the Committee expects outcomes for both to be
monitored and evaluated as part of the demonstration.
The Committee also notes the importance of improving job
training and employment opportunities for at-risk families and
encourages HUD to consider how the Department of Labor and
local Workforce Investment Boards could enhance this
demonstration.
HUD will also competitively award 4,000 vouchers to PHAs
that partner with eligible State Medicaid agencies and State
behavioral health entities to provide housing in conjunction
with Medicaid case management, substance abuse treatment, and
mental health services. Numerous studies have proven the
effectiveness of permanent supportive housing to end
homelessness for the chronically homeless. The Committee has
also observed the HUD-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing [HUD-
VASH] program's success in serving chronically homeless
veterans. This demonstration will provide vouchers to be
combined with similar services through State Medicaid and
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
[SAMHSA] to serve this target population. The Committee expects
this demonstration to provide best-practices that can be shared
with States that will soon expand Medicaid eligibility to
enable additional persons with need to qualify.
Family Unification Program.--The Committee has provided
$15,000,000 for incremental voucher assistance through the
Family Unification Program. This level of funding is the same
as the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and $15,000,000 more than
the budget request. The Committee has included language that
requires the Secretary to make this funding available to
entities with sufficient experience and resources available to
provide voucher recipients with appropriate supportive
services.
The Family Unification Program assists families that have
been separated, or are facing separation due to a lack of
housing. The program also provides vouchers to youths age 18 to
21 that are aging out of foster care, or those age 16 or older
who lack adequate housing. The Committee also hopes that these
vouchers will be used to serve victims of domestic violence who
lack a safe and stable home environment.
The vouchers the Congress has already funded have helped
parents improve their lives and reunited families. In addition,
the program is creating an important dialogue between child
welfare agencies and housing providers. The Committee continues
to encourage HUD to coordinate the release of these vouchers
with providers that are part of HUD's Continuum of Care, who
can assist housing providers identify the housing needs of
families and youth, as well as helping child welfare agencies
understand the resources available to assist families,
particularly as more resources are devoted to prevention.
Set-asides for Special Circumstances.--The Committee
provides a set-aside of $150,000,000 to allow the Secretary to
adjust allocations to PHAs under certain prescribed
circumstances. The Committee expects this will provide the
Secretary with a means of assisting PHAs with unexpectedly high
unemployment and loss of income. Qualifying factors include:
(1) public housing agencies that experienced a significant
increase, as determined by the Secretary, in renewal costs of
tenant-based rental assistance resulting from unforeseen
circumstances and voucher utilization or the impact from
portability under section 8(r) of the act; (2) public housing
agencies with vouchers that were not in use during the 12-month
period in order to be available to meet a commitment pursuant
to section 8(o)(13) of the act; (3) for any increase in the
costs associated with deposits to family self-sufficiency
program escrow accounts; (4) one-time adjustments for PHAs in
receivership that had fungibility plans for 2009; and (5) for
public housing agencies that need allocation adjustments to
prevent termination of assistance to families receiving
assistance under the disaster voucher program. A PHA should not
receive an adjustment to its allocation from the funding
provided under this section if the Secretary determines that
such PHA, through negligence or intentional actions, would
exceed its authorized level.
Administrative Fees and Family Self-sufficiency
Coordinators.--The Committee recommends $1,851,000,000 for
administrative fees, which is $60,000,000 more than the budget
request and $276,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2010 enacted
level. The Committee moved funding for the family self-
sufficiency program back under the Administrative Fees heading
in order to ensure that this funding is awarded to eligible
PHAs in a timely manner. While the Committee supports the goals
of adding new PHAs to the program, it is important to maintain
adequate resources for PHAs that already operate programs, and
expects this prioritization will be reflected in allocations
for fiscal year 2011.
Mainstream Vouchers.--Funding is included under this
heading to support the renewal of vouchers previously funded
under Housing for Persons with Disabilities, but which have
long been administered by the Housing Choice Voucher office.
The Committee supports the Administration's proposal to
transfer the funding under this heading to more accurately
reflect how the program is administered. These vouchers are not
included as part of the renewal base because the Committee
wants to ensure that these vouchers remain dedicated to serving
persons with disabilities as intended.
Transformation Initiative.--The Committee has included
language allowing the Secretary to transfer up to $100,000,000
from this account to the Transformation Initiative. This is
less than the 1 percent the President's budget proposed to
transfer from this account. The Committee directs that some of
the funding will be dedicated to improving the voucher
management system or other investments that will directly
benefit the program.

PUBLIC HOUSING CAPITAL FUND

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2010.................................... $2,500,000,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 2,044,200,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,510,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides funding for modernization and capital
needs of public housing authorities (except Indian housing
authorities), including management improvements, resident
relocation, and homeownership activities.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,510,000,000
for the Public Housing Capital Fund, which is $465,800,000 more
than the budget request and $10,000,000 more than the fiscal
year 2010 enacted level.
Of the amount made available under this section,
$50,000,000 is for supportive services for residents of public
housing and up to $8,820,000 is made available to pay the costs
of administrative and judicial receiverships. The Committee
recommends up to $15,345,000 to support the ongoing financial
and physical assessment activities at the Real Estate
Assessment Center [REAC]. This amount is equal to the budget
request. The Committee has also set aside $30,000,000 for
emergency capital needs including safety and security measures
necessary to address crime and drug-related activity, as well
as needs resulting from unforeseen or unpreventable emergencies
and natural disasters, excluding presidentially declared
emergencies and natural disasters. The Committee directs that
of this amount, not less than $10,000,000 shall be for safety
and security measures.
The Public Housing Capital Fund supports the maintenance of
critical affordable housing, which provides more than 1.2
million low-income households with safe and stable housing.
Unfortunately, limited resources have affected the ability of
public housing authorities to upgrade and preserve these
facilities, leading to a backlog in capital needs of between
$20,000,000,000 and $30,000,000,000.
The President's budget proposed an ambitious plan--
Transforming Rental Assistance--to leverage private sector
resources to address the capital needs backlog of public
housing. The Committee appreciates that the Secretary is
demonstrating a commitment to preserving public housing, but
does not feel that this program is ready for implementation. In
addition, the Committee is concerned that while this effort
would direct funding to help address the needs associated with
up to 300,000 units of public and HUD-assisted housing, capital
funding for the entire country would be cut. Therefore the
Committee has restored this funding in order to ensure that
capital needs do not continue to mount.
This fall, HUD is expected to report the findings of the
Capital Needs Assessment [CNA]. The Committee expects this
report will be more comprehensive than previous CNAs, and will
provide a guide for maintaining public housing, as well as how
additional investments could achieve energy efficiency or
improve the lives of public housing residents. In addition to
the CNA, Project Needs Assessments are important to understand
the needs of individual projects. Obtaining a better
understanding of both the overall needs of the Nation's public
housing portfolio and the requirements and locations of
specific projects will be critical to determining the cost of
Transforming Rental Assistance, or other attempts to address
the long-term preservation of public housing.
Early Childhood Education Facilities.--The Committee has
included up to $40,000,000 to fund grants for public housing
agencies to construct, rehabilitate or acquire facilities to
provide quality early childhood education and care to children
living in and around public housing. Research has demonstrated
that effective early learning can have an enormous impact on a
child's future success in school and in society. However, the
cost of building adequate facilities that best serve children
is high, which poses a particular challenge to serving low-
income children. These grants will provide public housing
agencies the necessary capital to leverage additional resources
and increase their ability to work with State, local, nonprofit
and private sector partners to bring quality early childhood
education and childcare opportunities to children living in and
around public housing. The funding provided can also be used
for facilities that provide other important services to public
housing residents, including: job and employment training,
adult education, financial literacy education, or other
appropriate supportive services.
The Committee is disappointed that HUD has not yet released
a notice of funding availability [NOFA] for the resourced
provide for early education centers in fiscal year 2010. In
order to ensure that this funding is available to public
housing agencies, the Committee has included language requiring
HUD to publish the NOFA within 90 days of the enactment of this
act.

PUBLIC HOUSING OPERATING FUND

Appropriations, 2010.................................... $4,775,000,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 4,829,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 4,829,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides funding for the payment of operating
subsidies to approximately 3,100 public housing authorities
(except Indian housing authorities) with a total of
approximately 1.2 million units under management in order to
augment rent payments by residents in order to provide
sufficient revenues to meet reasonable operating costs.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,829,000,000
for the public housing operating fund, which is equal to the
budget request and $54,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2010
enacted level. The Committee applauds the administration's goal
to fully fund the cost of operating public housing. Adequate
funding is necessary to ensure quality housing for residents.
The bill includes language from the fiscal year 2004
appropriation bill that prohibits the use of operating funds to
pay for the operating expenses for a prior year.

REVITALIZATION OF SEVERELY DISTRESSED PUBLIC HOUSING [HOPE VI]

Appropriations, 2010.................................... $200,000,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................................
Committee recommendation................................................

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Revitalization of Severely Distressed Public Housing
[HOPE VI] account makes awards to public housing authorities on
a competitive basis to demolish obsolete or failed developments
or to revitalize, where appropriate, sites upon which these
developments exist. This is a focused effort to eliminate
public housing which was, in many cases, poorly located, ill-
designed, and not well constructed. Such unsuitable housing has
been very expensive to operate, and difficult to manage
effectively due to multiple deficiencies.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The HOPE VI program has been a vital tool used to
revitalize low-income neighborhoods and improve the lives of
public housing residents. The Committee remains supportive of
the goal of the HOPE VI program to replace severely distressed
public housing with new housing and stronger communities. The
Committee has included funding for the President's proposed
Choice Neighborhoods Initiative, which builds on the successes
of HOPE VI and expands the program to other HUD-assisted
housing. The Committee is therefore not recommending any
additional funding for HOPE VI in fiscal year 2010.

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS

Appropriations, 2010....................................................
Budget estimate, 2011................................... $250,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 250,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Choice Neighborhoods Initiative will provide
competitive grants to transform impoverished neighborhoods into
functioning, sustainable mixed-income neighborhoods with co-
location of appropriate services, schools, public assets,
transportation options, and access to jobs or job training. The
goal of the program is to demonstrate that concentrated and
coordinated neighborhood investments from multiple sources can
transform a distressed neighborhood and improve the quality of
life of current and future residents.
Choice Neighborhoods grants will primarily fund the
preservation, rehabilitation, and transformation of public and
HUD-assisted housing. The program builds on the successes of
public housing transformation under HOPE VI with a broader
approach to concentrated poverty. Grantees will include public
housing authorities, local governments, and nonprofit
organizations. For-profit developers may also apply in
partnership with another eligible grantee. Grant funds can be
used for resident and community services, community development
and affordable housing activities in surrounding communities.
Grantees will undertake comprehensive local planning with input
from residents and the community. A strong emphasis will be
placed on local community planning for school and educational
improvements, including early childhood initiatives. Up to 10
percent of the appropriation will be used for planning grants
to assist local partnerships.
The Department will place a strong emphasis on coordination
with other Federal agencies, notably the Departments of
Education, Labor, Transportation, and Health and Human Services
and the Environmental Protection Agency, to leverage additional
resources. Where possible, the program will be coordinated with
the Department of Education's Promise Neighborhoods proposal.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $250,000,000
for the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative. This amount is equal
to the level requested by the President. The fiscal year 2010
appropriations bill included $200,000,000 for the HOPE VI
program, which replaces the most severely distressed public
housing with mixed-income, mixed-use neighborhoods. Choice
Neighborhoods seeks to build on the HOPE VI program by
expanding the types of eligible grantees and allowing funding
to be used on HUD-owned or assisted housing, as well as the
surrounding community.
The Committee agrees that expanding HUD's ability to direct
funds to revitalization efforts that reach beyond public
housing will broaden the impact of the Department's community
revitalization efforts. However, the Committee notes that the
work to replace distressed public housing is not yet complete.
Therefore the Committee has included language that stipulates
that not less than $135,000,000 of the funding provided shall
be awarded to projects where public housing authorities are the
lead applicant.
Choice Neighborhoods recognizes that community
transformation requires more than replacing housing. The
creation of vibrant, sustainable communities also requires
greater access to services and increased opportunities for
community residents. However, HUD funding cannot support all of
these activities, so the Committee supports the emphasis Choice
Neighborhoods places on both local and Federal partnerships.
The administration has identified partners such as the
Departments of Education, Health and Human Services and
Transportation. The Committee expects that through better
coordination at the Federal level, communities can successfully
combine Federal funding to achieve broader improvement.
The Committee notes that in addition to services, it is
critical to create or expand economic opportunities in these
communities. As HUD works to structure its Notice of Funding
Availability and evaluate grantees, it should encourage
partnerships with entities that can support small businesses
and job creation.
However, while the Committee supports the administration's
efforts to push communities to work in partnership with other
organizations and different State and local agencies, the
Committee also expects HUD to recognize that communities have
different local needs and structures. So, in developing the
criteria for this initiative, HUD should not be overly
prescriptive or unnecessarily limiting in what types of
partnerships are required or how they are defined.
Green Buildings and Green Jobs.--As HUD seeks to define the
projects that it will fund, the Committee encourages the
Department to prioritize investments in green buildings and
energy efficient technologies. Furthermore, the Committee
encourages the Secretary to consider grantees that have
demonstrated experience in creating green, affordable housing
and redeveloping distressed neighborhoods. Green and energy
efficient investments are not only beneficial to the
environment, but they can also result in important energy cost
savings for public housing authorities and low-income housing
residents.
Moreover, as Choice Neighborhoods grantees undertake
construction, the Committee expects HUD to promote grantees
that successfully integrate green jobs training into projects
with an emphasis on providing training and job opportunities to
public housing and community residents.

NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANT

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2010.................................... $700,000,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 580,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 700,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account funds the Native American Housing Block Grants
Program, as authorized under title I of the Native American
Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996
[NAHASDA]. This program provides an allocation of funds on a
formula basis to Indian tribes and their tribally designated
housing entities to help them address the housing needs within
their communities. Under this block grant, Indian tribes will
use performance measures and benchmarks that are consistent
with the national goals of the program, but can base these
measures on the needs and priorities established in their own
Indian housing plan.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $700,000,000
for the Native American Housing Block Grants, of which
$2,000,000 is set aside for a credit subsidy to support a loan
level not to exceed $18,000,000 for the section 601 Loan
Guarantee Loan Program. The recommended level of funding is
equal to the level provided in fiscal year 2010 and
$120,000,000 more than the budget request.
As the Nation struggles with high unemployment and economic
challenges, the Committee recognizes that these challenges have
long plagued Native Americans, which the current crisis has
only exacerbated. According to the most recent data, Native
Americans are twice as likely as the rest of the Nation to live
in poverty. As a result, the housing challenges on tribal lands
are daunting. For example, nearly three times as many Native
Americans live in overcrowded housing as compared to the rest
of the Nation. Given the housing challenges and needs of Native
Americans, the Committee was perplexed by the administration's
proposal to cut funding for the Indian Housing Block Grant
[IHBG] by more than 17 percent in fiscal year 2011. Such a cut
would undermine efforts made by Congress through the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act and the fiscal year 2010
Appropriations Act to increase housing investments in Native
American communities.
The Committee is also concerned that such a cut would
disproportionately affect tribes that receive smaller IHBG
grants. According to a report issued by the Government
Accountability Office [GAO] in February 2010, many recipients
of smaller grants that receive insufficient funding to
construct new housing use their IHBG funding for rental
assistance. Therefore, any significant cuts could jeopardize
rental assistance for Native Americans.
Consultation With Tribes on Housing Needs Assessment.--In
fiscal year 2010, Congress required HUD to conduct a housing
needs assessment for Native Americans, including how
sustainable building practices can be used in Native American
communities. The Committee intends for this assessment to take
a comprehensive look at the housing needs and challenges facing
Native American tribes. This document should provide a
quantifiable assessment of need, but it should also look at
barriers and opportunities to address their housing needs. In
order to ensure the most usable and informative document, the
Committee expects HUD to consult with Native American tribes in
conducting this evaluation. In order to ensure a broad array of
perspectives, the Committee expects HUD to provide technical
assistance that will enable tribes to participate, especially
smaller tribes with limited access to data.
Technical Assistance.--The Committee continues to include
$3,500,000 for technical assistance through a national
organization representing Native American housing interests and
$4,250,000 for inspections of Indian housing units, contract
expertise, training, technical assistance, oversight, and
management.
The Committee noted GAO's assessment that limited capacity
hinders the ability of many tribes to effectively address their
housing needs. The Committee expects HUD to use the technical
assistance funding provided to aid tribes with capacity
challenges, especially tribes receiving small grant awards. The
funding should be used for training, contract expertise, and
other services necessary to improve data collection, increase
leveraging, and address other needs identified by tribes. The
Committee expects that any assistance provided by HUD will
reflects the unique needs and culture of Native Americans.
As HUD works to address the needs of tribes, especially
smaller tribes, the Committee hopes that HUD will look to
identify opportunities to coordinate with other agencies,
including the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Indian Health
Service.

NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANT

Appropriations, 2010.................................... $13,000,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 10,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 13,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Hawaiian Homelands Homeownership Act of 2000 created
the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant program to provide
grants to the State of Hawaii Department of Hawaiian Home Lands
for housing and housing-related assistance to develop,
maintain, and operate affordable housing for eligible low-
income Native Hawaiian families.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $13,000,000
for the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant Program, which is
$3,000,000 more than the budget request and equal to the fiscal
year 2011 enacted level. Of the amount provided, $300,000 shall
be for training and technical assistance activities, including
up to $100,000 for related travel for Hawaii-based HUD
employees.

INDIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation on
Program account guaranteed
loans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2010.................. $7,000,000 $919,000,000
Budget estimate, 2011................. 9,000,000 994,000,000
Committee recommendation.............. 9,000,000 994,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This program provides access to private financing for
Indian families, Indian tribes, and their tribally designated
housing entities that otherwise could not acquire housing
financing because of the unique status of Indian trust land. As
required by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, this account
includes the subsidy costs associated with the loan guarantees
authorized under this program.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $9,000,000 in
program subsidies to support a loan level of $994,000,000. This
subsidy amount is equal to the budget request and $2,000,000
more than the fiscal year 2010 enacted level.

NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation on
Program account guaranteed
loans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2010.................. $1,044,000 $41,504,255
Budget estimate, 2011................. ............... ...............
Committee recommendation.............. 1,044,000 41,504,255
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This program provides access to private financing for
native Hawaiians who otherwise could not acquire housing
finance because of the unique status of the Hawaiians Home
Lands as trust land. As required by the Federal Credit Reform
Act of 1990, this account includes the subsidy costs associated
with the loan guarantees authorized under this program.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,044,000 in
program subsidies to support a loan level of $41,504,255, which
is equal to the subsidy and loan levels provided in fiscal year
2010. The budget request did not include any subsidy to support
this program.

Community Planning and Development

HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS [HOPWA]

Appropriations, 2010.................................... $335,000,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 340,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 340,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS [HOPWA]
Program provides States and localities with resources and
incentives to devise long-term comprehensive strategies for
meeting the housing and supportive services needs of persons
living with HIV/AIDS and their families.
Statutorily, 90 percent of appropriated funds are
distributed by formula to qualifying States and metropolitan
areas on the basis of the number and incidence of AIDS cases
reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention by
March 31 of the year preceding the appropriation year. The
remaining 10 percent of funds are distributed through a
national competition.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $340,000,000
for the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS program.
This level of funding is $5,000,000 more than the fiscal year
2010 enacted level and equal to the budget request. The
Committee has included language requiring HUD to allocate these
funds in a manner that preserves existing HOPWA programs to the
extent that these programs are determined to be meeting the
needs of persons with AIDS.
The HOPWA program has proven effective at helping
individuals with HIV/AIDS avoid homelessness and achieve
housing stability. Research has demonstrated that providing
stable housing to persons with HIV/AIDS can improve their
health outcomes. For example, a June 2009 article published in
the American Journal of Public Health discussed a comparison of
housing outcomes for persons who received respite care after
hospitalization with those who were unable to find housing. The
research found that the individuals with housing had improved
health outcomes and fewer hospitals stays. These data
demonstrate, once again, that housing not only improves the
health and quality of life of persons living with HIV/AIDS, but
is also more cost-effective than frequent hospital stays.
Grantees receiving HOPWA funding have demonstrated similar
success in their performance reports. According to information
HUD gathered from its grantees, from 2008-2009, 96 percent of
households receiving rental assistance achieved housing
stability with related support. In the same reporting period,
individuals receiving short term or transitional housing
support maintained their housing stability, or reduced their
risk of homelessness by 69 percent.
While the HOPWA program has demonstrated success, there is
still substantial work to do to meet the housing demand of low-
income persons with HIV/AIDS. The Committee supports the budget
request to increase assistance this fiscal year.

community development fund

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2010.................................... $4,450,000,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 4,380,100,000
Committee recommendation................................ 4,450,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Under title I of the Housing and Community Development Act
of 1974, as amended, the Department is authorized to award
block grants to units of general local government and States
for the funding of local community development programs. A wide
range of physical, economic, and social development activities
are eligible with spending priorities determined at the local
level, but the law enumerates general objectives which the
block grants are designed to fulfill, including adequate
housing, a suitable living environment, and expanded economic
opportunities, principally for persons of low and moderate
income. Grant recipients are required to use at least 70
percent of their block grant funds for activities that benefit
low- and moderate-income persons.
Funds are distributed to eligible recipients for community
development purposes utilizing the higher of two objective
formulas, one of which gives somewhat greater weight to the age
of housing stock. Seventy percent of appropriated funds are
distributed to entitlement communities and 30 percent are
distributed to nonentitlement communities after deducting
designated amounts for set-asides.
The resources provided as part of this program will also
fund the Sustainable Communities Initiative as a joint HUD-
Department of Transportation [DOT] effort to improve
coordination of transportation and housing investments that
result in more regional and local sustainable development
patterns, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and more transit
accessible housing choices for residents. These funds will
stimulate more integrated regional planning to guide State,
metropolitan, and local decisions, investments, and reforms in
land use, transportation, and housing.
Program funding will support the Rural Innovation Fund,
which will provide grants to Indian tribes, State housing
finance agencies, State community and/or economic development
agencies, and local rural nonprofits through a competitive
process to promote innovative and cost-effective approaches to
improving housing conditions in rural communities.
Resources made available under this heading will also be
awarded to eligible colleges and universities to implement
community activities, revitalize neighborhoods, address
economic development and housing issues, and promote energy
conservation and homeownership counseling and training.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,450,000,000
for the Community Development Fund in fiscal year 2011. This
level is $69,900,000 more than the budget request and equal to
the fiscal year 2010 enacted level.
The Committee has provided $3,990,000,000 for Community
Development Block Grants. This funding provides States and
entitlement communities across the Nation with resources that
allow them to undertake a wide range of community development
activities, including public infrastructure improvements,
housing rehabilitation and construction, job creation and
retention, and public services that primarily benefit low and
moderate income persons. As States and communities struggle
with budget constraints, this funding will allow States and
communities to undertake new housing and community development
projects, and maintain important services.
The Committee includes $65,000,000 for grants to Indian
tribes for essential economic and community development
activities which is equal to the budget request and the fiscal
year 2010 enacted level.
Sustainable Communities Initiative.--The Committee has
recommended $150,000,000, as requested, to support the
President's Sustainable Communities Initiative. The funding
provided will support an interagency collaboration among HUD,
DOT, and the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]. The
resources provided include: $100,000,000 for Regional
Integrated Planning grants; $40,000,000 for Community Challenge
Planning grants; and $10,000,000 for joint HUD and DOT research
and capacity building to support and enhance the creation of
sustainable, livable communities. The Committee has included
language stipulating that not less than $25,000,000 of Regional
Integrated Planning funding shall go to metropolitan areas with
fewer than 500,000 persons.
The interagency partnership among HUD, DOT, and EPA is a
first step to removing barriers that limit the ability of
communities to coordinate the housing, transportation, and
water infrastructure resources that support smart community
development. The objective of this interagency partnership is
to create new opportunities to design and build communities
that link the housing, transportation, services, and commercial
assets that comprise vibrant, economically diverse communities.
After HUD received funding for the Sustainable Communities
Initiative in 2010, it conducted outreach to regions, local
communities, and stakeholders as it established the
requirements, criteria and performance metrics for both the
Regional Integrated Planning Grants and the Community Challenge
Planning Grants. The Committee believes that efforts to create
sustainable communities must be driven by local decisions, so
it supported the administration's effort to seek extensive
input as it designed these programs.
As required, HUD submitted a report to Congress in which it
provided details for how the programs would be designed,
including eligible grantees and activities, selection criteria
and performance measures. Within these guidelines, HUD intends
to provide flexibility to meet communities where they are. In
the report to Congress, HUD lays out performance metrics, which
will be adapted to each grant recipient, so that they are
appropriate to each community. It will be critical that HUD
work with grant recipients to establish specific targets and
dates to ensure that funding is well spent and is achieving the
desired outcomes.
In fiscal year 2011, the Committee expects HUD to utilize
the funding provided for Regional Integrated Planning Grants
and Community Challenge Planning Grants consistent with
guidelines established for the programs in fiscal year 2010.
The Committee notes that in fiscal year 2011, DOT will be
receiving funding for transportation planning capacity grants.
The Committee appreciates that the administration has assigned
specific roles to each agency within the partnership, with DOT
as the lead on capacity building. However, the Committee
expects HUD to use the funding provided to increase capacity of
grantees, since capacity needs extend beyond the transportation
community.
Sustainability in Rural Communities.--The Committee
continues a set-aside of at least $25,000,000 within the
Regional Integrated Planning Grants funding for smaller
communities to ensure that planning assistance will be provided
to all types of communities. The Committee supports HUD's
recognition of the needs of smaller communities, including the
additional set-aside it has created in fiscal year 2010 for
communities with a population of less than 200,000. The
Committee expects HUD to continue to pay special attention to
the unique needs of small and rural communities that would also
benefit from coordinated transportation and housing planning.
List of Federal Barriers.--In May, Secretary Donovan
testified before the Committee with DOT Secretary LaHood on the
Partnership for Sustainable Communities. At that hearing, and
again in the report delivered to Congress on how it will use
its 2010 funding, it was stated that ``HUD should not get in
the way of communities''. The Committee agrees, and believes
that in order to ensure that HUD is not in the way, it must
identify and address any existing Federal barriers to better
utilization and coordination of Federal transportation and
housing funding. Since HUD expects that planning initiatives
will lead to more effective use of traditional HUD programs to
create sustainable communities, such as section 8, the HOME
Investment Partnership Program, and Community Development Block
Grants, it must work to address these barriers before
communities reach the implementation stage.
Since the Partnership for Sustainable Communities was
announced, the Committee has sought a list of Federal
regulations and laws that act as barriers to better
transportation and housing investments. The Committee sought
this list in order to understand what actions the Departments
could take--without new programs or funding--to make
sustainable investments easier for local communities. To date,
the Committee has not received the comprehensive list that it
is seeking. While HUD recently provided staff with a list of
barriers and challenges, it did not adequately address the
Committee's request. Therefore, the Committee directs the
Department to work with DOT to produce a comprehensive list of
provisions in federal regulation and law that act as a barrier
to local efforts to coordinate housing and transportation
investment. This list must include a brief description of the
barrier, specific citations in the Code of Federal Regulations
and public law, and an explanation of how the particular
provision acts as a barrier to coordination between housing and
transportation at the local level. The Committee underlines the
importance of having each item in the list relate to specific
citations in Federal regulations and public law so that the
list can act as a working document for the Committee and the
administration. The Committee understands that the
administration may want to include other kinds of barriers on
the list--such as the lack of available data--but the Committee
believes that these items are extraneous, and therefore expects
the administration to keep these barriers separate from the
rest of the list. The Committee instructs the Department to
transmit a comprehensive list to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations no later than May 15, 2011.
Rural Innovation Fund.--In fiscal year 2010, the Committee
supported HUD's proposal to create the Rural Innovation Fund.
However, the Committee is disappointed that HUD has yet to
establish criteria for the program, and eliminated funding for
the program in fiscal year 2011. The Committee has restored
funding to this program in recognition of the housing and
economic development needs of rural communities. Eligible
recipients of this funding include Indian tribes, State housing
finance agencies, and local nonprofits and community
development organizations.
While the administration justified the elimination of this
funding because of complementary programs at the U.S.
Department of Agriculture [USDA], the Committee believes that
instead HUD should seek ways to improve collaboration with
USDA. In order to ensure that funding reaches rural communities
in a more timely fashion, the Committee directs HUD to publish
the Notice of Funding Availability for this program within 120
days of the enactment of this act.
Continuing HUD's Partnerships with Colleges and
Universities.--The Committee has included funding for colleges
and universities as authorized under section 107 of the Housing
and Community Development Act of 1974. Consistent with prior
years, funding will be awarded to historically black colleges
and universities, tribal colleges and universities, Alaska
Native and Native Hawaiian institutions, and Hispanic-serving
institutions. The Committee expects the Secretary to use the
resources provided in a manner that will support the goals of
assisting residents and revitalizing neighborhoods surrounding
these colleges and universities.
Distressed Communities in Appalachia.--The Committee
understands that the Department is cooperating with appropriate
Federal, regional, State and local entities to help diversify
and strengthen the Appalachian regional economy. The Committee
encourages the Department to focus on improving the energy
efficiency of the housing stock in rural Appalachia, as well as
emphasize economic diversification through programs in
Community Planning and Development and other appropriate means
in counties designated by the Appalachian Regional Commission
as distressed or at-risk in fiscal year 2010. The Committee
requests a report within 90 days of enactment on efforts by the
Department to promote economic diversification in Appalachia.
Portable Generators.--The Committee notes that portable
generators can assist communities impacted by natural
disasters. However, portable generators are not eligible under
CDBG guidelines. The Committee appreciates that using CDBG
funding to purchase equipment poses a challenge for HUD in
conducting oversight to ensure that the funds are being used to
meet the requirements of the CDBG statue. However, the
Committee encourages the Department to examine if it can allow
such equipment purchase while protecting against any misuse of
CDBG funds.
The Committee recommends funding for the Economic
Development Initiative [EDI] and the Neighborhood Initiatives
program [NI]. The Committee clarifies that funding provided
through EDI and NI cannot be used to reimburse costs already
incurred on a project before an award is made by HUD for that
specific project.
The Committee includes language making technical
corrections to economic development initiatives funded under
this heading in prior appropriation acts.
The Economic Development Initiatives are as follows:

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
Recipient and location Project purpose recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allegheny County, PA........................... For infrastructure improvements around the Allegheny Ludlum site in order to spur economic growth and create jobs............. $600,000
Allen Place Center, Tacoma, WA................. For facility improvements at a community center in a low-income neighborhood.................................................. 1,000,000
Appalachia Service Project, TN................. For free home repair to low-income families in southern West Virginia......................................................... 400,000
Arkansas State University-Mountain Home, MH, AR For construction of the Vada Sheid Community Development Center............................................................... 500,000
Associated Early Care and Education, MA........ For the construction of a child and family development center................................................................. 500,000
Big Brothers Big Sisters of Northern Ohio, For renovations of the facilities at Camp Oty'Okwa............................................................................ 300,000
Columbus, OH.
Big Sky Economic Development Authority, For infrastructure and land acquisition in East Billings...................................................................... 500,000
Billings, MT.
Board of Directors of St. Louis Municipal To renovate the historic St. Louis Central Library including compliance with ADA requirements in MO........................... 1,000,000
Library, MO.
Bolivar County, MS............................. For the restoration of the historic Bolivar County First Judicial District Courthouse......................................... 350,000
Bonnie Brae, Liberty Corner, NJ................ For the renovation of cottages that service New Jersey's at-risk children and youth........................................... 200,000
Booneville, MS................................. For the Booneville Hardware Building Restoration Project...................................................................... 425,000
Boys & Girls Club of Carbon County, Red Lodge, For renovations and expansion................................................................................................. 350,000
MT.
Boys and Girls Club of Wagner, Wagner, SD...... For repairs and upgrades to the Boys and Girls Club facility.................................................................. 200,000
Boys and Girls Club, Bellevue, WA.............. For facilities improvements and expansion at community centers for youth...................................................... 500,000
Boys and Girls Club, Spokane, WA............... For facilities acquisition, improvements and expansion for a community center for youth....................................... 775,000
Builders Development Corporation, KS........... For the Central Baptist Redevelopment Project in Kansas City, KS.............................................................. 800,000
Center for Veterans Issues, Ltd., Milwaukee, WI For the construction of supportive housing for veterans....................................................................... 400,000
Chippewa Cree Tribe, Box Elder, MT............. For renovations and safety upgrades of a tribal TANF building................................................................. 200,000
Pickaway County, OH............................ For construction of an economic development center............................................................................ 600,000
City of Albany, NY............................. For the rehabilitation of a building in a neighborhood targeted for revitalization............................................ 500,000
City of Anderson, IN........................... For the Flagship Enterprise Center Certified Technology Park Buildings Project for infrastructure and laboratory equipment for 650,000
hybrid electric vehicle technologies and related technologies.
City of Bangor, ME............................. For event and meeting space infrastructure at the Bangor Regional Arena and Meeting Complex................................... 1,000,000
City of Bend, OR............................... For design and construction of new research and development facility.......................................................... 200,000
City of Brewer, ME............................. For the development of a riverfront trail system as part of the West Bayside Neighborhood Development Project................. 700,000
City of Bristol, CT............................ To acquire blighted property and renovate facilities to create an industrial park............................................. 500,000
City of Chicopee, MA........................... For the construction of a community and senior center......................................................................... 350,000
City of Coffman Cove, AK....................... For the construction of an elevated concrete dock with related improvements................................................... 300,000
City of Columbus, MS........................... For the Columbus Riverwalk Lighting Extension project......................................................................... 300,000
City of Council Bluffs, IA..................... For demolition of facilities located near 1st Avenue in Council Bluffs for the purpose of improving the West Broadway Corri- 400,000
dor.
City of Covington, LA.......................... For the acquisition of facilities in Covington, LA to be used for community services and economic development................. 1,000,000
City of East Hartford, CT...................... For the repair and upgrade of crucial public infrastructure in and around North Meadows Industrial Park....................... 500,000
City of Flint, MI.............................. For the upgrade of energy efficiency and services at an economic and community development center which provides economic and 700,000
community development.
City of Grants Pass, OR........................ For the acquisition and renovation of a community center...................................................................... 500,000
City of Grenada, MS............................ For the Taylor Hall Renovation Project........................................................................................ 250,000
City of Gretna, LA............................. For planning and construction of a new Senior Center to meet the demands of the elderly population............................ 500,000
City of Hattiesburg, MS........................ For redevelopment of the Hattiesburg East Jerusalem Municipal Center Complex including acquisition of equipment............... 600,000
City of Hyattsville, MD........................ For the rehabilitation of an existing structure to a mixed-use, community meeting facility.................................... 250,000
City of Inkster, MI............................ For construction of a senior wellness center.................................................................................. 1,000,000
City of Jackson, MS............................ For the renovation of youth-oriented public facilities........................................................................ 500,000
City of Kingstree, SC.......................... For the Kingtree Train Depot Renovation Project including meeting ADA compliance.............................................. 200,000
City of Lacey, WA.............................. For expansion of a community facility providing services for seniors.......................................................... 500,000
City of Lancaster, PA.......................... For renovation buildings and streetscaping as part of the revitalization of the City's Market District........................ 800,000
City of Las Cruces, NM......................... For expansion of a central kitchen and associated equipment to provide home meal delivery services to seniors................. 400,000
City of Las Vegas, NV.......................... For construction of low-income elderly housing................................................................................ 1,000,000
City of Linton, ND............................. For housing and commercial redevelopment...................................................................................... 700,000
City of Madison, WI............................ For construction of a public market for regionally grown and produced products................................................ 200,000
City of Marshalltown, IA....................... For the removal of blight and related housing development requirements for the Grant Park Redevelopment Project............... 700,000
City of Memphis, TN............................ For improvements to the Pigeon Harbor Industrial Park......................................................................... 1,300,000
City of Milan, MO.............................. To renovate the historic Sullivan County Building including enhancing safety, spurring economic development and for 250,000
streetscape investments.
City of New Orleans, LA........................ For the Federal City Urban Redevelopment Project.............................................................................. 500,000
City of Pascagoula, MS......................... For construction of a Beach Park Promenade in Pascagoula, MS.................................................................. 900,000
City of Peoria, IL............................. For revitalization efforts on Peoria's Southside.............................................................................. 200,000
City of Piedmont, OK........................... For the Elevated Water Storage Tower project for water storage and water line installations................................... 700,000
City of Rockford, IL........................... For land acquisition, demolition, and infrastructure improvements............................................................. 500,000
City of Ruleville, MS.......................... For the development of a walking trail........................................................................................ 125,000
City of Springfield, IL........................ For construction of a new building for a Crisis Nursery in Springfield........................................................ 200,000
City of Springfield, MA........................ For improvements to public buildings in downtown Springfield.................................................................. 350,000
City of Springfield, MO........................ For improvements to the Commercial Club Building including making it ADA compliant............................................ 750,000
City of Springfield, OH........................ For the redevelopment of an industrial Brownfield site........................................................................ 750,000
City of West Warwick, RI....................... For planning and community development, including the acquisition and rehabilitation of property and the improvement of public 500,000
infrastructure.
City of Wilkes-Barre, PA....................... For the planning, design, and renovations in a downtown business district..................................................... 200,000
City of Winsted, CT............................ For renovations and streetscape enhancements in the downtown business district................................................ 200,000
City of Woonsocket, RI......................... For site demolition and environmental remediation to accommodate a public drinking water facility............................. 600,000
City of Clearfield, UT......................... For Clearfield City Downtown Development Project West Phase 1 & 2 for the city to acquire blighted properties................. 100,000
Clyde Malone Community Center, Lincoln, NE..... For the expansion and renovation of the Malone Center facilities.............................................................. 300,000
Commission on Economic Opportunity for the For construction of community building to serve as a child care and family resource center for low- to moderate-income 250,000
Greater Capital Region, Troy, NY. individuals.
Community Foundation of NJ, Newark, NJ......... For facility renovations to the Essex County Family Justice Center............................................................ 500,000
Copper River Native Association, Glenallen, AK. For the construction of a health and multi-use facility serving tribal members medical and basic health service needs......... 500,000
County of Santa Barbara, CA.................... For repairs and renovations to the Lompoc Veterans Building Renovation........................................................ 450,000
Covenant House Alaska, Anchorage, AK........... For construction of a new facility for Covenant House, a center providing immediate and long-term needs of homeless youth in 500,000
Alaska.
Crow Creek Sioux Tribe, Fort Thompson, SD...... For construction of a new community facility in Fort Thompson, SD to serve low-income tribal members.......................... 300,000
CRSA Wounded Warrior Care Project, Augusta, GA. For the Wounded Warrior Transitional Housing Project.......................................................................... 2,100,000
Dayton, OH..................................... For Improved Solutions for Urban Systems, Inc. to renovate workshops and laboratories using LEED Standards and renewable 250,000
energy technology.
Delta City, UT................................. For improvements and construction related to the Delta City Learning and Community Center..................................... 500,000
Denton, TX..................................... For the Denton Downtown Improvement Project to upgrade the streets and streetscape............................................ 500,000
Department of Community Services Housing For the installation and/or repair of indoor plumbing for the poor............................................................ 300,000
Authority, Charles County, MD.
Domestic Violence Services of Snohomish County, For expansion and rehabilitation of a domestic violence facility.............................................................. 500,000
Everett, WA.
Easter Seals Hawaii, HI........................ For the construction and renovation of building space to provide programs and services for children and adults with disabili- 300,000
ties.
Enosburg Falls Economic Development For improvements to an industrial park........................................................................................ 200,000
Corporation, Enosburg Falls, VT.
Eritrean Association, Seattle, WA.............. For facility improvements and expansion of a community center................................................................. 600,000
Family Crisis Center, Inc., Farmington, NM..... For expansion of the existing Family Crisis Center............................................................................ 643,500
Family Service Association of San Antonio, TX.. For facility repairs to the Family Service Center............................................................................. 1,000,000
Fargo Housing & Redevelopment Authority, Fargo, For rehabilitation of low-income housing...................................................................................... 700,000
ND.
Federal Way Chamber of Commerce, Federal Way, For acquisition and facility improvements of a regional small business incubator.............................................. 1,200,000
WA.
First Best Place, Columbia Falls, MT........... For construction of a community center........................................................................................ 1,000,000
First Steps Primeros Pasos, Georgetown, DE..... For construction and start-up costs for a bilingual early care and education facility......................................... 175,000
Food Self-Reliance, The Kohala Center, HI...... For equipment purchase to make infrastructure improvements to increase economic development opportunities, for low- and 250,000
moderate-income farmers in rural communities.
Forgotten Harvest, Oak Park, MI................ For facilities improvements, equipment, and service fleet..................................................................... 542,000
Franklin County, MS............................ For restoration of the Historic Franklin County Courthouse.................................................................... 175,000
Friends of Buena Library, Buena, WA............ For construction of a community center in a high-poverty area................................................................. 400,000
Gaston County, NC.............................. To create a Gastonia Technology Park in Gaston County, NC..................................................................... 760,000
Grace Hill Settlement House, St. Louis, MO..... To renovate housing for low-income working families at the College Hill Community Redevelopment Project....................... 1,000,000
Grand Rapids Downtown Development Authority, MI For the construction of a mixed-use facility for use as a farmers market in a distressed urban area........................... 700,000
Great Falls Development Authority, Great Falls, For infrastructure improvements for development of an industrial park......................................................... 800,000
MT.
Great Rivers Greenway, St. Louis, MO........... For the removal of blight and related redevelopment concerns at the St. Louis Regional Greenways project...................... 1,000,000
Hancock County, KY............................. For expansion of the Owensboro Community Technical College--Hancock County Extension Campus for local training prog- rams.... 300,000
Hanover Township, Washington County, PA........ For construction and excavation in Hanover Township, Washington County, Pennsylvania to new business to distressed community.. 200,000
Harriet Tubman Center, Maplewood, MN........... For the renovation of a building in order to consolidate youth and family services, and relocate two domestic violence shel- 600,000
ters.
Heritage Services, Omaha, NE................... For construction of facility that will accommodate an education and interactive learning center............................... 800,000
Hocking Co. Community Improvement Corporation, To construct an incubator/light manufacturing building........................................................................ 750,000
Logan, OH.
Housing Vermont, Burlington, VT................ For expansions and improvements to low-income housing......................................................................... 500,000
Iowa Department of Economic Development, Des For the restoration and rehabilitation of buildings, re-introduce upper floor housing, and add economic value in Iowa's 1,000,000
Moines, IA. historic Main Street districts.
Ivins, UT...................................... For the Old Town Ivins Street Improvements Project including safety concerns.................................................. 100,000
Jackson Medical Mall, Jackson, MS.............. For the expansion of the Jackson Medical Mall Development Project............................................................. 600,000
Jefferson County Department of Human Services, For a facility for Jefferson County Department of Human Services in Colorado to provide housing for homeless veterans......... 600,000
CO.
Jewish Family Service, Seattle, WA............. For improvements and expansion of a facility providing family and community services.......................................... 800,000
Jewish Vocational Service, MO.................. To renovate the facility for the Jewish Vocational Service and to provide equipment and furnishings........................... 1,000,000
John Hope Settlement House, Providence, RI..... For facility upgrades and energy retrofits.................................................................................... 200,000
Kauai Economic Development Board, Kauai, HI.... For the rehabilitation and improvement of an abandoned facility, to provide employment training for low- and moderate-income 300,000
agricultural workers.
Keene Family YMCA, Keene, NH................... For the construction of a new Keene YMCA allowing for the expansion childcare and other services.............................. 300,000
Kentucky Blood Center, Somerset, KY............ For construction of a Kentucky Blood Center Building.......................................................................... 1,000,000
Laiopua 2020, Kailua-Kona, HI.................. For planning, design, and construction of the Laiopua 2020 Community Center................................................... 300,000
Logan, UT...................................... For the Logan Northwest Park Project to continue an ongoing park project...................................................... 200,000
Longview Housing Authority, Longview, WA....... For acquisition and improvements of a facility to serve as a regional center for Veterans..................................... 675,000
Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule, SD....... For the Domestic Violence Building Project.................................................................................... 400,000
Luke-Dorf, Inc., Portland, OR.................. For the construction of a Behavioral Healthcare Housing Facility, with medically monitored treatment, for individuals......... 300,000
Mandell Jewish Community Center, West Hartford, For community facilities renovations and improvements......................................................................... 700,000
CT.
MARC Community Services Corporation, KS........ To acquire and renovate vacant and abandoned properties as part of the NeighborhoodsNOW Redevelopment Plan in Wyandotte 400,000
County, Kansas.
Maui Economic Development Board, HI............ For equipment purchase and construction to support business incubation and economic development for Molokai coopera- tives... 250,000
Milwaukee Department of City Development, For the preservation and improvement of affordable housing.................................................................... 400,000
Milwaukee, WI.
Missouri Institute for Biotechnology and To renovate and equip the historic Missouri Institute for Biotechnology and Innovation in Cole County, Missouri............... 1,000,000
Innovation, MO.
Molokai Habitat for Humanity, HI............... For construction and rehabilitation of low- and very low-income housing using the Molokai Habitat for Humanity self-help 400,000
housing model.
New Hampshire Community Loan Fund, Concord, NH. For support for Community Loan Fund programs for the New Hampshire Community Loan Fund........................................ 500,000
North Carolina Research Campus, Kannapolis, NC. For the High Speed Optical Networking at NCRC................................................................................. 500,000
Northeast Iowa Food Bank, Waterloo, IA......... For construction of a new facility to serve as a food warehouse and distribution center for northeast Iowa.................... 300,000
Northern Hills Alliance for Children, Deadwood, For Childcare Center building modifications................................................................................... 550,000
SD.
Nye County-Pahrump, NV......................... For the construction and expansion of a senior center......................................................................... 200,000
Ocean Community YMCA Westerly, RI.............. For construction of a drop-off area for children.............................................................................. 250,000
Opportunity Resources, Inc., Missoula, MT...... For facility improvements for an employment and service organization for the disabled......................................... 200,000
Our City Reading, Inc., PA..................... For the planning, design, renovation, and construction of housing............................................................. 200,000
Parents and Children Together, HI.............. For renovation and equipment purchase to expand the Community Technology Center at Kuhio Park Terrace......................... 300,000
Pillar Community Development Corporation, For the construction of a community wellness center........................................................................... 200,000
Bloomfield, CT.
Port of Lewiston, ID........................... For expansion of the container dock........................................................................................... 850,000
Puerto Rican Action Board, New Brunswick, NJ... For the repair of facilities that assist low-income families with foreclosure mitigation and other economic independence 260,000
initiatives.
Regional Economic Development, Inc., Columbia, For renovations and equipment for a small business incubator at the Enterprise Center......................................... 425,000
MO.
Regional Foodbank, Akron-Canton, OH............ For energy conservation improvements for the food bank facility............................................................... 250,000
River Ridge Development Authority, For the development of housing as part of the River Ridge Commerce Center Infrastructure Planning Project..................... 350,000
Jeffersonville, IN.
Roadrunner Food Bank, Albuquerque, NM.......... For a permanent warehouse for the Roadrunner food collection agency for homeless and poverty stricken families in New Mexico. 250,000
Tuscaloosa Housing Authority, Tuscaloosa, AL... For rehabilitation of distressed low-income housing, including renovation and reconstruction to promote safety and security... 5,000,000
Rural Alaska Community Action Program in To construct a early childhood development center............................................................................. 500,000
Toksook Bay, AK.
Salt Lake County, UT........................... For construction related to the Salt Lake County Transitional Housing project................................................. 750,000
Share of Vancouver, Clark and Cowlitz County, For rehabilitation of a facility to provide for transitional homeless housing and other services.............................. 900,000
Vancouver, WA.
Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate, Agency Village, SD.... For restoration efforts and safety upgrades at the Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate pow wow grounds.................................... 150,000
South Coast Development Council, Coos Bay, OR.. For site preparation and construction of a public plaza....................................................................... 500,000
Springfield YMCA, Springfield, IL.............. For construction of a new building............................................................................................ 500,000
St. Joseph Community Center, Lorain, OH........ For demolition, remediation, and renovation of the St. Joseph Community Center facility....................................... 400,000
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, Ft. Yates, ND....... For housing renovation........................................................................................................ 300,000
Storey County Community Chest, Virginia City, For the creation of the Storey County Youth and Community Center.............................................................. 400,000
NV.
Syracuse, UT................................... For the Legacy Park Handicap Renovations project, including meeting ADA requirements.......................................... 100,000
The Ministry of Caring, Inc., Wilmington, DE... For the renovation of the Josephine Bakhita House............................................................................. 300,000
The Planning Office for Urban Affairs, Boston, For the construction of affordable housing and mixed-use space................................................................ 400,000
MA.
Tierra Madre, Sunland Park, NM................. For construction of a capacity building center to help facilitate homeownership opportunities................................. 200,000
Tooele, UT..................................... For infrastructure development to the Tooele City Commercial Park............................................................. 750,000
Town of Carmel, NY............................. For acquisition and construction of a new economic center..................................................................... 400,000
Town of Cheraw, SC............................. To eliminate blighted housing structures under the Cheraw Stabilization Program............................................... 200,000
Town of Dover-Foxcroft, ME..................... For infrastructure improvements to the former Moosehead Manufacturing facility................................................ 700,000
Town of Silas, AL.............................. To renovate abandoned school property into a community center................................................................. 300,000
TRF Development Partners, City of Baltimore, MD For the planning, design, rehabilitation, and construction of affordable housing in the Oliver neighborhood................... 500,000
Turtle Mountain Chippewa Tribe, Belcourt, ND... For construction of a youth center............................................................................................ 300,000
Union County Child Advocacy Center, Elizabeth, For construction and renovation of new child advocacy center for sexually abused children in Union County..................... 200,000
NJ.
United Community Center, Milwaukee, WI......... For construction of a senior center within a low-income elderly housing complex............................................... 2,000,000
United Indians of All Tribes Foundation, For rehabilitation and revitalization of a facility serving disadvantaged youth............................................... 600,000
Seattle, WA.
Urban League of Metropolitan Seattle, Seattle, For improvements to a facility to allow for the expansion of affordable housing............................................... 300,000
WA.
Ute Mountain Housing Authority, Durango, CO.... For an affordable housing project for Ute Mountain Ute tribal members......................................................... 800,000
Valley Council of Governments, Derby, CT....... For property renovation and reconstruction.................................................................................... 400,000
Vermont Community Loan Fund, Montpelier, VT.... For the construction of community facilities, including child care centers.................................................... 300,000
Vermont Division for Historic Preservation, For historic preservation improvements throughout Vermont..................................................................... 200,000
Montpelier, VT.
Vermont Housing & Conservation Board For enhancement of affordable housing, community development initiatives, economic development, land conservation, and 3,000,000
Montpelier, VT. historic preservation.
Waterboro, ME.................................. For a technology and infrastructure project for the Waterboro Community Center................................................ 500,000
Waterloo, IA................................... For building renovation and improvements for Cedar Valley TechWorks for laboratory and incubator space........................ 300,000
West DuPage, IL................................ For construction of an Educare center in West Dupage to serve at-risk children................................................ 200,000
Western Arkansas Regional Intermodal For infrastructure improvements related to the development of an industrial park.............................................. 500,000
Transportation Authority, Fort Smith, AR.
Western Nebraska Community College, For the construction and equipment purchase in support of a renewable energy training center.................................. 400,000
Scottsbluff, NE.
Westminster College, Salt Lake City, UT........ For improvement to the Garfield School Renovation and Revitalization project.................................................. 500,000
Women's Intercultural Center, Anthony, NM...... For renovation of a facility that provides educational and economic opportunities to women.................................... 450,000
Yakima Housing Authority, Granger, WA.......... For development activities and construction of affordable housing for farmworkers............................................. 675,000
YMCA of Pierce and Kitsap Counties, Silverdale, For the construction of a community center.................................................................................... 1,000,000
WA.
YWCA of Greater Portland, OR................... For design and construction of a facility that provides safety and services to victims of Human Trafficking................... 300,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Neighborhood Initiatives are as follows:

NEIGHBORHOOD INITIATIVES
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
Recipient and location Project purpose recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abyssinian Development Corporation, New York, For the development and rehabilitation of new and existing low- and moderate-income housing units in the central Harlem area. $300,000
NY.
Center for Planning Excellence, LA............. To build capacity in land use planning and community preservation throughout Louisiana........................................ 750,000
City of Boise, ID.............................. For a Petroleum Terminal Relocation Feasibility Study......................................................................... 350,000
City of Cranston, RI........................... For community planning and development........................................................................................ 200,000
City of Longview, WA........................... For revitalization and renewal of the city's downtown region.................................................................. 1,000,000
City of Philadelphia, PA....................... For mixed-use transit oriented development in the area around the 9th and Berks rail station.................................. 350,000
City of Ranson, WV............................. For the redevelopment of a blighted former industrial site into a mixed-used center, including retail and affordable workforce 400,000
housing using smart growth design and green infrastructure.
City of Spokane, WA............................ For the restoration and redevelopment of a blighted area...................................................................... 2,000,000
Community Voice Mail, Seattle, WA.............. To improve and expand employment services for homeless veterans............................................................... 350,000
Consumer Credit Counseling Services, Las Vegas, For foreclosure related assistance services................................................................................... 500,000
NV.
Florida's Heartland Rural Economic Development To create a research park..................................................................................................... 400,000
Initiative, Sebring, FL.
Hire America's Heroes, Redmond, WA............. To expand employment services for veterans.................................................................................... 250,000
Mississippi State University, Mississippi For the Development of the Civic Capacity Development Initiative Project at Mississippi State University...................... 750,000
State, MS.
New Hampshire Food Bank, Manchester, NH........ To expand the food assistance program for the New Hampshire Food Bank......................................................... 1,250,000
Northern Comm. Investment Corp., St. Johnsbury, To continue to expand high-speed, high-technology broadband connectivity as part of the North Country Community Broadband 1,000,000
VT. Initiative.
Ocean Springs, MS.............................. For the construction of the Walter Anderson Education Center.................................................................. 400,000
Scott County Housing Council, IA............... For loans and grants to local nonprofit housing service providers and developers to create affordable housing................. 300,000
Southwest Organizing Project, Chicago, IL...... To assist the Southwest Organizing Project ``Keep Our Homes'' campaign, a foreclosure prevention initiative in Chicago 250,000
neighborhoods.
TechRanch, Bozeman, MT......................... For entrepreneurship programs and support for a business incubator............................................................ 200,000
Vermont Housing and Conservation Board, For expansion and improvement of low-income housing........................................................................... 300,000
Montpelier, VT.
Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund, Montpelier, VT.. For capitalizing a revolving loan fund........................................................................................ 500,000
Washington State Farmworker Housing Trust, For capacity building to support the expansion of affordable housing for farmworkers.......................................... 200,000
Seattle, WA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LOAN GUARANTEES PROGRAM ACCOUNT

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Section 108 of the Housing and Community Development Act of
1974, as amended, authorizes the Secretary to issue Federal
loan guarantees of private market loans used by entitlement and
nonentitlement communities to cover the costs of acquiring real
property, rehabilitation of publicly owned real property,
housing rehabilitation, and other economic development
activities.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee has recommended an appropriation of
$6,435,000 to support a loan level guarantee of $275,000,000
for the section 108 loan guarantees account for fiscal year
2011. This guaranteed loan level is equal to both the fiscal
year 2010 level.
This loan level is $225,000,000 less than the President's
request. However, the President proposed to charge fees for
this program, which the Committee has not approved.
This program enables Community Development Block Grant
recipients to use their CDBG dollars as leverage as part of
economic development projects and housing rehabilitation
programs. Communities are allowed to borrow up to five times
their most recent CDBG allocation. The Committee strongly
supports this program, which is even more critical with limited
credit in the private market.

BROWNFIELDS REDEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2010.................................... $17,500,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................................
Committee recommendation................................................

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Section 108(q) of the Housing and Community Development Act
of 1974, as amended, authorizes the Brownfields Redevelopment
program. This program provides competitive economic development
grants in conjunction with section 108 loan guarantees for
qualified brownfields projects. Grants are made in accordance
with section 108(q) selection criteria. The program supports
the cleanup and economic redevelopment of contaminated sites.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee does not recommend an appropriation for the
Brownfield Redevelopment program, consistent with the budget
request. The Committee notes that other Federal appropriations
are available for the same purpose through the Environmental
Protection Agency [EPA]. Communities may also use CDBG funds to
redevelop Brownfield's sites.

HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2010.................................... $1,825,000,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 1,650,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,825,000,000

program description

Title II of the National Affordable Housing Act, as
amended, authorizes the HOME Investment Partnerships Program.
This program provides assistance to States and units of local
government for the purpose of expanding the supply and
affordability of housing to low- and very low-income people.
Eligible activities include tenant-based rental assistance,
acquisition, and rehabilitation of affordable rental and
ownership housing and, also, construction of housing. To
participate in the HOME program, State and local governments
must develop a comprehensive housing affordability strategy.
There is a 25 percent matching requirement for participating
jurisdictions which can be reduced or eliminated if they are
experiencing fiscal distress.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,825,000,000
for the Home Investment Partnership Program. This amount is the
same funding level provided in fiscal year 2010, and
$175,000,000 above the budget request.
The Home Investment Partnership Program is HUD's major
housing production program. Since 1992, the HOME program has
succeeded in producing over 925,000 units. The majority of the
units produced serve low-income or extremely low-income
residents and include homeownership, rental and homeowner
rehabilitation. In addition to construction and rehabilitation,
HOME funds can also be used for rental assistance. Since its
inception, over 228,000 households have received rental
assistance through the HOME program. The flexibility provided
in the HOME program allows participating jurisdictions to use
HOME funds to effectively meet the needs of their communities.
In recent years, HUD has encouraged the use of green
buildings and energy efficient technologies in the HOME
program, a practice the Committee continues to support.
Technical Assistance.--The Committee has not included
funding for technical assistance within the amount provided for
the HOME Investment Partnerships Program, but has instead
allowed funding provided under this heading to go toward the
Transformation Initiative as requested. However, the Committee
expects that technical assistance funding will still be awarded
to qualified nonprofit intermediaries to provide technical
assistance to Community Housing and Development Organizations
[CHDOs], as well as for technical assistance for jurisdictions
participating in the HOME program.

SELF-HELP AND ASSISTED HOMEOWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2010.................................... $82,000,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 82,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Self-Help and Assisted Homeownership Opportunity
Program is comprised of the Self-Help Homeownership Program
[SHOP], which assists low-income homebuyers willing to
contribute ``sweat equity'' toward the construction of their
houses. The funds will increase nonprofit organizations'
ability to leverage funds from other sources and produce
approximately 2,000 new homeownership units. This account also
includes funding for the Capacity Building for Community
Development and Affordable Housing Program, as well as
assistance to rural communities as authorized under sections
6301 through 6305 of Public Law 110-246. These grantees develop
the capacity of nonprofit community development entities to
undertake community development and affordable housing
projects.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $82,000,000 for the Self-Help and
Assisted Homeownership Program, which is $82,000,000 more than
the budget request and the same as the fiscal year 2010 enacted
level. The Committee has included $27,000,000 for the Self-Help
Homeownership Opportunity Program authorized under section 11
of the Housing Opportunity Extension Act of 1996.
The Committee recommends $50,000,000 for capacity building
as authorized by section 4 of the HUD Demonstration Act of
1993. The Committee notes that funding provided under this
section requires a statutory 3-to-1 match to further leverage
resources to assist more communities. The Committee provides
$5,000,000 to carry out capacity building activities in rural
communities as authorized under section 6301 through 6305 in
Public Law 110-246.
During this economic crisis, the need for affordable
housing has only increased. Congress has provided funding
through such programs as the Neighborhood Stabilization Program
to create additional affordable housing, and undertake economic
development in communities across the Nation, especially those
hardest hit by the foreclosure crisis and recession. However,
the success of these efforts relies, in large part, on the
capacity of States, local governments, and organizations to
develop and implement effective housing and community
development plans. The funding recommended under this program
is intended to ensure that these communities have the skills
and technical capabilities necessary to undertake effective
community development activities. In addition, resources have
been targeted to rural communities to address their unique
needs and challenges.

HOMELESS ASSISTANCE GRANTS

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2010.................................... $1,865,000,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 2,055,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,055,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Homeless Assistance Grants Program provides funding to
break the cycle of homelessness and to move homeless persons
and families to permanent housing. This is done by providing
rental assistance, emergency shelter, transitional and
permanent housing, prevention, rapid re-housing, and supportive
services to homeless persons and families. The emergency
solutions grant is a formula funded grant program, while the
Continuum of Care and Rural Housing Stability Programs are
competitive grants. Homeless assistance grants provide Federal
support to one of the Nation's most vulnerable populations.
These grants assist localities in addressing the housing and
service needs of a wide variety of homeless populations while
developing coordinated Continuum of Care [CoC] systems that
ensure the support necessary to help those who are homeless to
attain housing and move toward self-sufficiency.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,055,000,000
for Homeless Assistance Grants in fiscal year 2011. This amount
is equal to the President's request, and $190,000,000 more than
the fiscal year 2010 enacted level.
As part of the Committee recommendation, $1,844,000,000
will support the Continuum of Care Program, including the
renewal of existing projects, and the new Rural Housing
Stability Assistance Program. The recommendation also includes
$200,000,000 for the emergency solutions grants program,
representing an increase of 25 percent over what was formerly
the emergency shelter grant program. This increased funding
will allow communities to take advantage of the additional
flexibility provided under the Homeless Emergency and Rapid
Transition to Housing [HEARTH] Act to allow communities to do
prevention and rapid re-housing. Finally, $6,000,000 is
included for technical assistance and data analysis.
The economic recession has had a significant impact on the
Nation's most vulnerable, pushing many low-income families into
homelessness. In 2009, 1.56 million Americans spent at least
one night in a shelter. While homelessness among individuals
has decreased 7 percent since 2007, the number of homeless
families has increased by 30 percent during that same time.
The HEARTH Act represents an important step in addressing
the needs of persons experiencing homelessness by allowing
providers to modify their programs to incorporate the most
effective strategies into their existing housing models. The
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act [ARRA] included
$1,500,000,000 to jumpstart this change by providing
communities with the resources to do prevention and rapid re-
housing activities. These models are especially effective for
homeless families that lack housing due to economic hardship.
The Committee is focused on ensuring that communities have the
ability to continue programs supported by ARRA funding by
transitioning these activities into existing homeless programs.
Permanent Housing.--In fiscal year 1999, the Committee
began to include a requirement that 30 percent of McKinney
homeless funding be set-aside for permanent housing. This
policy supported research demonstrating the effectiveness of
permanent housing in ending homelessness, particularly for the
chronically homeless. This requirement has had the intended
effect. In 2009, the number of beds in permanent supportive
housing surpassed the number of beds in emergency or
transitional housing. As a result, we are seeing real decreases
in chronic homelessness. According to the point-in-time
estimate, there was a 10 percent decrease in chronic
homelessness from 2008 to 2009, which builds on declines seen
for the past several years. The Committee is pleased that the
HEARTH Act put this 30 percent requirement into permanent law,
so that we can continue to create more permanent housing, and
permanent solutions for those experiencing homelessness.
Annual Homeless Assessment Report [AHAR].--The Annual
Homeless Assessment Report stems from congressional directives
begun in 2001 that charged the Department with collecting
homeless data through the implementation of a new Homeless
Management Information System [HMIS]. The AHAR report included
HMIS data, information provided by Continuums of Care, and a
count of sheltered and unsheltered persons from one night in
January of each year. The Committee applauds the Secretary's
efforts to improve and collect more real time data on
homelessness in our communities. Because of the importance of
these data and the AHAR report, the Committee has retained some
funding within the account to support those efforts.
The Committee requests that HUD submit the AHAR report by
June 14, 2011. The Committee further hopes that HUD's efforts
to increase participation in the HMIS effort will lead to
improved information about and understanding of the Nation's
homeless.
Renewal Costs.--The Committee reiterates the directive
included in the conference report for the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2005 (House Report 108-792) regarding out-
year costs of renewing HUD's permanent housing programs. The
Department should continue to include 5-year projections, on an
annual basis, for the cost of renewing the permanent housing
component of the Supportive Housing Program and the Shelter
Plus Care Program in its fiscal year 2011 budget
justifications.

Housing Programs

PROJECT-BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2010 \1\................................ $8,551,525,000
Budget estimate, 2011 \1\............................... 9,382,328,000
Committee recommendation \1\............................ 9,382,328,000

\1\ Includes an advance appropriation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Section 8 project-based rental assistance provides a rental
subsidy to a private landlord that is tied to a specific
housing unit as opposed to a voucher which allows a recipient
to seek a unit, subject primarily to certain rent caps. Amounts
in this account include funding for the renewal of and
amendments to expiring section 8 project-based contracts,
including section 8, moderate rehabilitation, and single room
occupancy [SRO] housing. This account also provides funds for
contract administrators.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total appropriation of
$9,382,328,000 for the annual renewal of project-based
contracts, of which not to exceed $322,000,000 is for the cost
of contract administrators. The recommended level of funding is
$830,803,000 more than the amount provided for this program in
fiscal year 2010 and equal to the budget request.
The section 8 project-based rental assistance [PBRA]
program provides more than 1,300,000 low-income Americans with
safe, stable and sanitary housing. For many years, the program
was plagued by inadequate budgets that threatened this supply
of affordable housing. Moreover, its policy of short-funding
contracts devised to keep the program within its budget
jeopardized the Department's credibility. Congress provided
significant resources through the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act to address this shortfall and enable HUD to
fully fund contracts; sufficient funding was then provided in
fiscal year 2010 to continue this practice. Now that the
program is on sound footing, HUD must focus its attention on
improving program management to preserve this housing while
better controlling costs.
Operating Cost Adjustment Factors [OCAF].--The annual
growth in the cost of providing PBRA is driven by both the
first-time renewal of expiring contracts, as well as an
adjustment factor intended to account for increased costs of
operating the housing. The Committee notes that in publishing
the OCAF for fiscal year 2010, HUD acknowledged flaws in its
methodology for determining it. The Federal Register notice
states, ``[t]he Department continues to reexamine the
methodology for computing the operating cost adjustment factors
so that they more closely mirror actual operating expenses.''
It further states, ``Future OCAF releases will likely include
methodology improvements.''
HUD must improve its ability to accurately determine the
cost of operating these projects. The increasing cost of the
program, as well as expected budget constraints in future
years, demand that HUD give its full attention to aligning
actual operating costs with the OCAF. The Committee directs HUD
to include the methodology for determining the OCAF when it
publishes the Federal Register notice for fiscal year 2011.
In addition, HUD must include detailed information about
the OCAF in its fiscal year 2012 congressional justification,
including how the methodology has changed, and the projected
rate for fiscal year 2012. The justification should also
include detail on the number of contracts and required funding
associated with first-time renewal of expiring contracts in
fiscal year 2012 and subsequent years.

HOUSING FOR THE ELDERLY

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2010.................................... $825,000,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 273,700,000
Committee recommendation................................ 825,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides funding for housing for the elderly
under section 202. Under this program, the Department provides
capital grants to eligible entities for the acquisition,
rehabilitation, or construction of housing for seniors and
provides project-based rental assistance [PRAC] to support
operational costs for such units.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $825,000,000
for the section 202 program. This level is $551,300,000 more
than the budget request and equal to the fiscal year 2010
enacted level. The Committee recommends $90,000,000 for service
coordinators and for the continuation of existing congregate
service grants; up to $25,000,000 for the conversion of
projects to assisted living housing or for substantial
rehabilitation for emergency capital repairs; $20,000,000 for
grants to nonprofits for architectural and engineering work,
site control, and planning activities.
The Committee is disappointed by the administration's
budget request for Housing for the Elderly. The budget proposes
to redesign the program to better meet the housing and
supportive services needs of very low-income elderly
households, but the Committee can point to no progress by the
Department in this area in the 6 months since the release of
the budget. In the absence of a roadmap to strengthen the
program and put it on a sustainable path, the Department has
instead proposed a steep reduction, all the while acknowledging
the significant needs of this vulnerable and growing
population. While the Department has its hands full responding
to the mortgage crisis, reforming the Department's operations,
and pursuing a number of potentially promising innovations in
other programs, the Committee expects it to also devote
attention and resources to addressing the effectiveness of
Housing for the Elderly. The Committee has a long history of
rejecting arbitrary cuts to this program.
The Committee notes that the number of Americans aged 65
and older is growing in number, as well as a percentage of the
total U.S. population. Unfortunately, the supply of affordable
housing to assist our Nation's low-income elderly is not
sufficient to meet this increased demand. According to a May
2010 report from HUD to Congress, elderly households
constituted 21 percent of the Nation's worst case housing needs
in 2007, a slight improvement from 2005 findings, but still far
worse than the 2003 level. In order to address these housing
needs, new units of affordable elderly housing are needed.
HUD's section 202 program, the HUD program exclusively for the
elderly, is an important source of additional units to meet
this growing need. As such, the Committee has increased
resources for this account above the request in order to
increase the supply of housing for the elderly.
The Committee expects HUD to use the additional funding,
and make any programmatic changes necessary to ensure that we
are increasing our production of affordable housing for the
low-income elderly. The Committee directs HUD, within 120 days
of enactment of this act, to submit to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations a comprehensive list of both
nonlegislative ``regulatory'' changes and legislative changes
that would improve the effectiveness of the program; this
information shall include a schedule for making all needed
regulatory changes.

HOUSING FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2010.................................... $300,000,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 90,037,000
Committee recommendation................................ \1\ 200,000,000

\1\ The recommended level reflects the transfer in fiscal year 2011 of
$113,600,000 in mainstream vouchers to the Tenant-Based Rental
Assistance account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides funding for housing for the persons
with disabilities under section 811. Under this program, the
Department provides capital grants to eligible entities for the
acquisition, rehabilitation, or construction of housing for
persons with disabilities. Funding may be made available for
project-based rental assistance [PRAC] to support operational
costs for such units. Funding for mainstream vouchers formerly
funded under this heading has been moved to the Tenant-Based
Rental Assistance account.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $200,000,000
for the section 811 program. This level is $109,963,000 more
than the budget request and $100,00,000 below the fiscal year
2010 enacted level. However, this level does not reflect
$113,600,000 in mainstream vouchers previously funded in this
account that the Committee has moved to the Tenant-Based Rental
Assistance account, consistent with the request. The Committee
directs HUD to ensure these vouchers remain available for
persons with disabilities upon turnover. Factoring in the
vouchers increases the total level of funding available for
section 811-related activities to $313,600,000 in fiscal year
2012.
In addition, section 811 funds may be used for inspections
by HUD's Real Estate Assessment Center [REAC] and for related
inspection activities. HUD is directed to submit a budget to
the Committees on Appropriations before funding REAC
inspections. The Committee urges HUD to evaluate REAC's
effectiveness and ensure the inspectors are competent in their
expertise. The Committee recommends the use of State housing
finance agencies for REAC, where appropriate.
The Committee is disappointed by the steep cuts to Housing
for the Disabled proposed in the administration's budget. In
May 2010, HUD issued its Worst Case Housing Needs Assessment
based on 2007 data. As in earlier reports, HUD found that more
than 1,000,000 households with disabilities had some of the
Nation's worst case housing needs. This information underscores
the importance of the section 811 program, which provides both
capital and rental assistance to help low-income disabled
Americans find affordable housing in order to live
independently. The Committee has restored funding for the
section 811 program in order to increase the number of units
created for low-income disabled Americans. The Committee
expects that in addition to utilizing this funding to support
more supportive housing projects to serve the disabled, the
Department will also examine ways to make the program and
project process more efficient. The Committee directs HUD,
within 150 days of enactment of this act, to identify and
submit a list of all regulatory issues for this program that
will improve implementation, as well as a proposed schedule for
issuing such reforms.

HOUSING COUNSELING ASSISTANCE

Appropriations, 2010.................................... $87,500,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 88,000,000
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 100,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Housing Counseling Assistance Program provides
comprehensive housing counseling services to eligible
homeowners and tenants through grants to nonprofit
intermediaries, State government entities, and other local and
national agencies. Eligible counseling activities include pre-
and postpurchase education, personal financial management,
reverse mortgage product education, foreclosure prevention,
mitigation, and rental counseling.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $100,000,000
for the Housing Counseling Assistance program, which is
$12,000,000 more than the budget request and $12,500,000 more
than the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. The Committee has
increased funding over the President's budget to ensure that
HUD can meet all of its responsibilities under the ``Dodd-Frank
Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act'' recently
passed by Congress. In addition, the Committee expects that the
increased funding will enable HUD to meet the demand for
housing counseling services for minorities that have been
severely impacted by the foreclosure crisis.
The current housing crisis has resulted in millions of
Americans defaulting on their mortgages, with many losing their
homes to foreclosure. Housing counselors are a critical tool in
helping troubled borrowers. They can assess the financial
standing of troubled homeowners, work with lenders to obtain
mortgage modifications, and help homeowners through the
foreclosure process.
In addition to foreclosure prevention activities, HUD
counseling funds also support activities such as pre-purchase
counseling, rental counseling, and Home Equity Conversion
Mortgage [HECM] counseling. While using HUD counseling funds to
address the foreclosure crisis is necessary to meet the great
demand for assistance, HUD must continue to support pre-
purchase and other forms of counseling to help renters and
first-time homebuyers make judicious decisions.
Federal Coordination Around Foreclosure Prevention.--The
Committee continues to emphasize the importance of coordination
with other Federal partners around foreclosure prevention
activities. In addition to foreclosure prevention counseling,
HUD funding in fiscal year 2011 will also be dedicated to
combating fair lending abuse, as well as outreach and education
to vulnerable homeowners. Since demand for foreclosure
prevention assistance will continue to outstrip available
resources, HUD must work to coordinate its efforts across the
Department and with other Federal agencies to maximize the
effective use of Federal funding including, where appropriate,
tying counseling efforts with enforcement. The Committee notes
that the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation is working on
outreach and public education around loan scams. The Committee
directs HUD to work with NRC on any materials developed to
ensure a clear and consistent message to consumers.

ENERGY INNOVATION FUND

Appropriations, 2010.................................... $50,000,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................................
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................................

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The objective of the Energy Innovation Fund is to provide
support for promising local initiatives that can be replicated
across the Nation, and to stimulate private investment in cost-
saving energy efficiency retrofits of existing housing through
improved use of FHA single family and multifamily mortgage
products.
In the single-family housing sector, the Energy Innovation
Fund will be used to develop an Energy Efficient Mortgage [EEM]
Innovation pilot program, which will extend the benefits of the
existing FHA EEM and title I Energy Efficient Property
Improvement loan programs to more homeowners. Funding will also
be used to develop a Multifamily Energy Pilot [MEP], which will
target borrowers in the FHA Multifamily programs seeking energy
efficiency improvements in multifamily rehabilitation projects.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee does not recommend any funding for the Energy
Innovation Fund in fiscal year 2011. The recommended level is
equal to the budget request and $50,000,000 less than the
fiscal year 2010 enacted level.
The Committee continues to support the goal of improving
the energy efficiency of housing, and looks forward to the
results of the pilot. However, additional funds cannot be
justified at this time.

OTHER ASSISTED HOUSING PROGRAMS

RENTAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE

Appropriations, 2010.................................... $40,000,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 40,600,000
House allowance......................................... 40,600,000
Committee recommendation................................ 40,600,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides amendment funding for housing
assisted under a variety of HUD housing programs.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $40,600,000 for HUD-assisted,
State-aided, noninsured rental housing projects, which is the
same as the budget request and $600,000 more than the fiscal
year 2010 enacted level.

RENT SUPPLEMENT

(RESCISSION)

The Committee recommends a rescission of $40,600,000 for
section 236 payments to State-aided, noninsured projects, which
is equal to the budget request and $31,436,000 less than the
2010 enacted level.

FLEXIBLE SUBSIDY FUND

(TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 authorized
HUD to establish a revolving fund for the collection of rents
in excess of the established basic rents for section 236
projects. Subject to appropriations, HUD is authorized to
transfer excess rent collection received after 1978 to the
Flexible Subsidy Fund.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends that the account continue to serve
as the repository for the excess rental charges appropriated
from the Rental Housing Assistance Fund; these funds will
continue to offset flexible subsidy outlays and other
discretionary expenditures to support affordable housing
projects. The language is designed to allow surplus funds in
excess of allowable rent levels to be returned to project
owners only for purposes of the rehabilitation and renovation
of projects.

MANUFACTURED HOUSING FEES TRUST FUND

Appropriations, 2010.................................... $16,000,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 14,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 14,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety
Standards Act of 1974, as amended by the Manufactured Housing
Improvement Act of 2000, authorizes the Secretary to establish
Federal manufactured home construction and safety standards for
the construction, design, and performance of manufactured
homes. All manufactured homes are required to meet the Federal
standards, and fees are charged to producers to cover the costs
of administering the act.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $14,000,000 to support the
manufactured housing standards programs, of which $7,000,000 is
expected to be derived from fees collected and deposited in the
Manufactured Housing Fees Trust Fund account and not more than
$7,000,000 shall be available from the general fund. The total
amount recommended is equal to the budget request.
The Manufactured Housing Standards Program [MHSP] continues
to transform its enforcement program to emphasize production
quality control, as well as better controlling enforcement
cost. The Committee commends these initiatives and supports
HUD's efforts to ensure manufacturers are code-compliant.
Eliminating defects and safety hazards in manufactured housing
is central to MHSP's mission, and HUD should continually look
for ways to make its enforcement more effective. The Committee
expects HUD to provide annual updates with MHSP's congressional
budget justification detailing the progress of its oversight
transformation and the cost-efficiency/effectiveness
initiatives.
Prior to fiscal year 2009, MHSP was funded exclusively
through revenue generated by label fees. Since then, however,
perennial production decreases have necessitated direct
appropriations in order to maintain the program. The proposed
label fee increase will help restore label proceeds, and the
Committee expects to see data on the revenue generated by the
fee increase. In addition, the direct appropriation will allow
MHSP to begin to implement its new Installation and Dispute
Resolution programs. As these programs are implemented, the
Committee expects to receive data regarding actual and expected
user fee revenue.
Manufactured housing serves as a quality affordable housing
option for millions of American families. The Committee is
concerned that, despite strong congressional guidance in this
area, there has been a lack of effort in dutifully serving the
needs of the manufactured housing market, as specified in the
Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008. In its role as a
lead regulator of the manufactured housing industry, the
Department of Housing and Urban Development is directed to work
with the Government-sponsored enterprises, including Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac, and the Federal Housing Finance Agency to
establish a secondary market for manufactured home loans
secured by personal property.

Federal Housing Administration

mutual mortgage insurance program account

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation on Limitation on Administrative
direct loans guaranteed loans contract expenses Program costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2010............ $50,000,000 $400,000,000,000 $188,900,000 ..................
Budget estimate, 2011........... 50,000,000 400,000,000,000 207,000,000 $250,000,000
Committee recommendation........ 50,000,000 400,000,000,000 220,000,000 150,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Administrative expenses for MMI are funded within the Office of Housing.

GENERAL AND SPECIAL RISK PROGRAM ACCOUNT

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation on Limitation on
direct loans guaranteed loans Program costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2010................................... $20,000,000 $15,000,000,000 $8,600,000
Budget estimate, 2011.................................. 20,000,000 20,000,000,000 ................
Committee recommendation............................... 20,000,000 20,000,000,000 ................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Administrative expenses for GSR are funded within the Office of Housing.

program description

The Federal Housing Administration [FHA] fund covers the
mortgage and loan insurance activity of HUD mortgage/loan
insurance programs. These include the mutual mortgage insurance
[MMI] fund, cooperative management housing insurance [CMHI]
fund, general insurance fund [GI] fund, and the special risk
insurance [SRI] fund. For presentation and accounting control
purposes, these are divided into two sets of accounts based on
shared characteristics. The unsubsidized insurance programs of
the mutual mortgage insurance fund and the cooperative
management housing insurance fund constitute one set; and the
general risk insurance and special risk insurance funds, which
are partially composed of subsidized programs, make up the
other.

committee recommendation

The Committee has included the following amounts for the
``Mutual Mortgage Insurance Program'' account: a limitation on
guaranteed loans of $400,000,000,000; a limitation on direct
loans of $50,000,000; and $220,000,000 for administrative
contract expenses, of which up to $71,500,000 may be
transferred to the Working Capital Fund to be used solely for
the maintenance of FHA information technology systems.
The Committee has also provided an appropriation of
$150,000,000 to support guaranteed loans under the Home Equity
Conversion Mortgage, or reverse mortgage program. The HECM
program provides an opportunity for our Nation's elderly to
take equity out of their homes so they can pay for medicine or
other critical services while remaining in their homes. This
program is especially important for many elderly today who have
experienced financial losses in their retirement accounts.
For the GI/SRI account, the Committee recommends
$20,000,000,000 as a limitation on guaranteed loans and a
limitation on direct loans of $20,000,000.
Since its inception in 1934, the FHA has played a critical
role in meeting the demands of borrowers that the private
market would not serve--creating housing products that have
insured over 34 million homes.
Since the foreclosure crisis began, FHA's presence in the
housing market has expanded dramatically--now representing
nearly 30 percent of all mortgage originations. FHA has
provided mortgage insurance to eligible first time homebuyers
as well as existing homeowners seeking to refinance, enabling
millions of Americans to take advantage of low interest rates
and affordable home prices. In this role, FHA has provided
much-needed liquidity to the market. Yet, this increased role
comes with its own risks. Last fall, FHA reported that its
capital reserve had fallen below the 2 percent required by
Congress.
For many years, the Committee has sounded the alarm about
the solvency of FHA's Mutual Mortgage Insurance [MMI] Fund. The
recent losses sustained by the Fund, and the diminished capital
reserve validate those concerns. But the Committee has not
simply sounded the alarm, it has also provided FHA with
additional resources to increase its staff and modernize its IT
systems in an effort to improve the agency's capacity to detect
and mitigate risk. In fiscal year 2011, the Committee has once
again provided resources for FHA to continue modernizing its IT
systems and increase its staff. The Committee has closely
monitored FHA staffing and believes that FHA has made progress
in bringing on a more robust and experienced workforce, but
expects FHA to continue providing regular updates to the
Committee on its staffing in fiscal year 2011.
As part of improving its workforce, FHA named its first
Chief Risk Officer. It is also reorganizing the agency to place
a greater focus on risk. The Committee supports these efforts
and believes FHA must continue to enhance its risk analysis,
including improving its modeling to more accurately project
revenues and losses to the MMI Fund.
In addition to an enhanced focus on risk, FHA has also made
several policy changes to improve the quality of its portfolio,
including increasing upfront premiums, establishing minimum
FICO scores, increasing downpayment requirements for riskier
borrowers, and expanding enforcement authorities. FHA has also
sought additional legislative authorities, and the Committee
has included language, as requested, that will allow HUD to
increase annual premiums on FHA-insured mortgages. Increased
premiums will provide FHA with additional revenue to offset
future losses and help to ensure that the American taxpayer is
not forced to subsidize the cost of FHA.
While FHA is appropriately focusing on attracting quality
borrowers, it is also stepping up enforcement against
fraudulent and predatory lenders. Over the past year, FHA has
moved to suspend or remove lenders from the program that have
violated FHA rules and subjected the agency--and the taxpayer--
to increased losses. FHA has taken enforcement actions against
six times as many lenders during the past 20 months as it did
over the preceding 9 years. This focus on enforcement must
continue, since FHA's larger role in the market makes it more
vulnerable to fraudulent and predatory lenders. The Committee
also expects FHA to continue working with the OIG to hold
fraudulent lenders accountable and recoup losses to the MMI
Fund.
Improving HAMP and Holding Servicers Accountable.--Last
year, the administration announced the Home Affordable
Modification Program [HAMP] to provide eligible homeowners an
opportunity to obtain loan modifications in order to avoid
foreclosure. While the program has the potential to help
millions of homeowners, many continue to face excessive delays
in receiving permanent modifications from lenders. In some
instances, these delays end up leaving homeowners further
behind financially than when they started the process. The
Committee is dismayed that many of the banks participating in
the program continue to drag their feet or unfairly deny loan
modifications to troubled homeowners after receiving billions
in taxpayer dollars. As such, the Committee expects the
administration to hold these institutions accountable for
fulfilling their commitment to participate in the program and
assist eligible homeowners. With continued instability in the
housing market, it is vital that the program do a better job of
helping eligible families avoid foreclosure. Thus, the
Committee directs FHA to submit a report to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations within 90 days of enactment
of this act outlining the measures the administration is taking
to increase oversight of servicers, and hold them accountable
for providing eligible homeowners with a permanent modification
in a fair and timely manner.

Government National Mortgage Association

guarantees of mortgage-backed securities loan guarantee program account

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2010: Limitation on guaranteed loans

$500,000,000,000

Budget estimate, 2011: Limitation on guaranteed loans

500,000,000,000
Committee recommendation: Limitation on guaranteed loans
500,000,000,000

program description

The Government National Mortgage Association [Ginnie Mae],
through the mortgage-backed securities program, guarantees
privately issued securities backed by pools of mortgages.
Ginnie Mae is a wholly owned corporate instrumentality of the
United States within the Department. Its powers are prescribed
generally by title III of the National Housing Act, as amended.
Ginnie Mae is authorized by section 306(g) of the act to
guarantee the timely payment of principal and interest on
securities that are based on and backed by a trust, or pool,
composed of mortgages that are guaranteed and insured by the
Federal Housing Administration [FHA], the Rural Housing
Service, or the Department of Veterans Affairs. Ginnie Mae's
guarantee of mortgage-backed securities is backed by the full
faith and credit of the United States.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation on new commitments on
mortgage-backed securities of $500,000,000,000. This level is
the same as the budget request and the fiscal year 2010 level.
Since the near collapse of the private mortgage market,
homeowners have relied on Federal programs, such as FHA, to
purchase or refinance homes. Given that Ginnie Mae serves as a
secondary market for FHA, its market share has also grown
dramatically. In fact, over the past 2 years, the value of
Ginnie Mae's portfolio has nearly doubled. The Committee
understands the important role that FHA and Ginnie Mae are
currently playing in providing liquidity to the housing market.
However, this increased role cannot come at the price of
greater risk for the American taxpayer.
The HUD Inspector General has raised concerns about Ginnie
Mae's focus on risk, particularly its ability to identify
fraudulent lenders. The Committee expects the new leadership at
Ginnie Mae to focus greater attention on improving risk
management, and to work closely with the Office of the
Inspector General to implement measures that will strengthen
risk management practices. The Committee has also provided
Ginnie Mae with additional resources to significantly expand
its staffing to improve its oversight. This staffing is
critical to conducting the level of oversight necessary to
protect taxpayers from risk, and the Committee expects Ginnie
Mae to move swiftly to bring the appropriate staff on board.

Policy Development and Research

research and technology

Appropriations, 2010.................................... $48,000,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 87,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 62,000,000

program description

Title V of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970,
as amended, directs the Secretary of the Department of Housing
and Urban Development to undertake programs of research,
evaluation, and reports relating to the Department's mission
and programs. These functions are carried out internally and
through grants and contracts with industry, nonprofit research
organizations, educational institutions, and through agreements
with State and local governments and other Federal agencies.
The research programs seek ways to improve the efficiency,
effectiveness, and equity of HUD programs and to identify
methods to achieve cost reductions. Additionally, this
appropriation is used to support HUD evaluation and monitoring
activities and to conduct housing surveys.

committee recommendation

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $62,000,000
for research, technology, and community development activities
in fiscal year 2011. This level is $14,000,000 more than the
fiscal year 2010 enacted level and $25,000,000 less than the
budget request.
The Committee has included significant new resources to
support increased data collection and research at the
Department. HUD is the Federal agency responsible for
developing and implementing the Nation's housing policy. In
order to address the housing needs of the country, it is
critical for HUD to have current and comprehensive data to
develop and support effective housing policies.
The effects of risky subprime mortgages on the housing
market, and the economy as a whole, have been devastating.
While HUD must continue to work to address the problems
stemming from the foreclosure crisis, it must also work to
better anticipate other areas of risk in the housing market. In
order to effectively do this, HUD must have the necessary
information on which to base policy decisions and resource
allocation. The Committee expects that the additional funding
provided in fiscal year 2011 will allow the Department to
gather the data necessary to track and evaluate trends in the
housing market, including better regional data. This
information should allow the agency to identify, among other
things, the potential impacts various mortgage products may
have on the stability of the housing market in different
regions and across the entire country. In particular, the
Committee expects the Department to gather better data on
Alternative documentation or Alt-A loans, a large number of
which are going to reset in the near future. HUD must seek to
ensure that the Department has the necessary tools to respond
to any needs or problems associated with these mortgages. The
Committee encourages HUD to also collect data on and consider
how other areas of the economy are affecting credit markets,
access to credit for prospective homebuyers and how
deterioration in credit markets can affect homeownership,
foreclosure rates and the housing market overall. Further, the
Committee directs the Agency to provide additional information
on the specific research projects, reports, studies, and
demonstrations being conducted by the Office of Policy,
Development and Research, including the budget for each
activity and proposed completion date, in the annual budget
justification to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations.

Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity

fair housing activities

Appropriations, 2010.................................... $72,000,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 61,100,000
Committee recommendation................................ 72,000,000

program description

The fair housing activities appropriation includes funding
for both the Fair Housing Assistance Program [FHAP] and the
Fair Housing Initiatives Program [FHIP].
The Fair Housing Assistance Program helps State and local
agencies to implement title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of
1968, as amended, which prohibits discrimination in the sale,
rental, and financing of housing and in the provision of
brokerage services. The major objective of the program is to
assure prompt and effective processing of title VIII complaints
with appropriate remedies for complaints by State and local
fair housing agencies.
The Fair Housing Initiatives Program is authorized by
section 561 of the Housing and Community Development Act of
1987, as amended, and by section 905 of the Housing and
Community Development Act of 1992. This initiative is designed
to alleviate housing discrimination by increasing support to
public and private organizations for the purpose of eliminating
or preventing discrimination in housing, and to enhance fair
housing opportunities.

committee recommendation

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $72,000,000
for the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. Of the
amounts provided, $29,500,000 is for the fair housing
assistance program [FHAP] and $42,500,000 is for the fair
housing initiatives program [FHIP]. The total amount is
$10,900,000 more than the budget request and equal to the
fiscal year 2010 enacted level.
With the increasing number of Americans falling behind on
mortgage payments and at risk of foreclosure, mortgage rescue
scams have become more prevalent. In 2009, Congress provided an
increase to FHIP to increase enforcement efforts against those
perpetrating mortgage rescue scams. Last year, Congress
supported an increase in FHIP funding to bolster and expand
this effort to also include discriminatory lending practices
and other illegal practices related to the housing crisis. The
Committee is disappointed that the administration has been slow
to allocate funding for this purpose, and has not requested
additional funding to combat mortgage rescue scams and assist
homeowners affected by the crisis. The Committee has provided
funding above the President's request to assist local fair
housing organizations address these needs. It is critical that
HUD moves quickly to distribute these resources to local
communities so that assistance doesn't arrive too late to help
families. Therefore, the Committee has dedicated $10,000,000 to
efforts to combat mortgage rescue scams and unfair lending
practices in fiscal year 2011, and has added language requiring
HUD to publish a notice of funding availability for this
funding within 60 days of the bill's enactment.
The Committee expects this funding will be awarded to
national and local organizations to identify loans scams, build
the capacity of local fair housing groups to address emerging
issues, and support enforcement against those behind these
scams and other discriminatory activities related to the
housing crisis. The Committee notes the prevalence of both
Internet scams and toll-free phone numbers that may be
difficult to address locally, and may be better addressed on
the national level. The Committee also encourages HUD to work
with FHA and other relevant entities to improve information
sharing and cooperation between fair housing groups and
services that may be receiving information from consumers about
scams.
The Committee urges HUD to work closely with the other
Federal partners including the Federal Trade Commission,
Department of Justice and NeighborWorks to increase the
effectiveness of Federal efforts to target mortgage rescue
scams. The Committee advises that State housing finance
agencies have a unique perspective on State and local housing
issues, where such experience may be valuable in limiting and
eliminating mortgage rescue scams.
The Committee notes that Congress has provided
NeighborWorks America with resources to continue its public
education and awareness of scams, so this funding should not be
used to develop new materials or Web sites. However, HUD and
its fair housing grantees can provide enforcement components
which will strengthen awareness and education efforts.
Section 3.--The Committee notes a statutory requirement
that when HUD resources are used for housing or community
development, economic opportunities must be given to section 3
residents and businesses located nearby. This preference
provides public housing residents with a greater opportunity to
improve their financial circumstances and increase their self-
sufficiency, as well as supporting small businesses in
communities where HUD funding is being spent. The Committee
appreciates the Department's increased attention to tracking
how closely grant recipients are following this requirement.
Tracking this information signals the importance of the
requirement, and can also help to identify any barriers that
limit its application. The Committee hopes that with greater
focus on these requirements, an increasing number of public
housing residents and small businesses will benefit
economically.
The Committee has also provided $500,000 for HUD to
continue the creation and promotion of translated materials
that support the assistance of persons with limited English
proficiency.

Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control

LEAD HAZARD REDUCTION

Appropriations, 2010.................................... $140,000,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 140,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 140,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Title X of the Housing and Community Development Act of
1992 established the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard
Reduction Act under which HUD is authorized to make grants to
States, localities, and Native American tribes to conduct lead-
based paint hazard reduction and abatement activities in
private low-income housing. This has become a significant
health hazard, especially for children. Based on information
from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC],
about 210,000 children had elevated blood levels in 2009, down
from 1.7 million in the late 1980s. Despite this improvement,
lead poisoning remains a serious childhood environmental
condition, with some 1.1 percent of all children aged 1 to 5
years having elevated blood lead levels. This percentage is
much higher for low-income children living in older housing.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $140,000,000
for lead-based paint hazard reduction and abatement activities
for fiscal year 2010. This amount is equal to both the budget
request and amounts available in fiscal year 2010. Of this
amount, HUD may use up to $40,000,000 for the Healthy Homes
Initiative under which HUD conducts a number of activities
designed to identify and address housing-related illnesses. The
Committee includes bill language requiring $250,000 of the
total amount made available to the Lead Hazard Reduction
Program to be used in conducting communications and outreach
activities to potential applicants of the Lead Hazard Reduction
Demonstration Grant program.
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $48,000,000
for the lead hazard reduction program established in fiscal
year 2003 to focus on major urban areas where children are
disproportionately at risk for lead poisoning. These funds are
awarded on a competitive basis to the areas with the highest
lead abatement needs.
There remains significant lead risks in privately owned
housing, particularly in unsubsidized low-income units. For
that reason, approximately 1 million children under the age of
6 in the United States suffer from lead poisoning. While lead
poisoning crosses all socioeconomic, geographic, and racial
boundaries, the burden of this disease falls disproportionately
on low-income and minority families. In the United States,
children from poor families are eight times more likely to be
poisoned than those from higher income families. Nevertheless,
the risks associated with lead-based paint hazards can be
addressed fully over the next decade.
The Committee also encourages HUD to work with grantees on
its lead-based paint abatement hazards programs so that
information is disclosed to the public on lead hazard
abatements, risk assessment data and blood lead levels through
publications and Internet sites such as Lead-SafeHomes.info.

Management and Administration

WORKING CAPITAL FUND

Appropriations, 2010.................................... $200,000,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 243,500,000
Committee recommendation................................ 243,500,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Working Capital Fund, authorized by the Department of
Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965, finances information
technology and office automation initiatives on a centralized
basis.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $243,500,000
for the Working Capital Fund for fiscal year 2011. This level
of funding is $43,500,000 more than the fiscal year 2010
enacted level and equal to the budget request. The Working
Capital Fund is also supported with additional funding provided
through a transfer of $71,500,000 from the FHA's Mutual
Mortgage Insurance Fund as proposed by the President.
The Committee notes that HUD proposed, and the Committee
has approved, to address the major systems changes necessary at
HUD through the Transformation Initiative. As such the funding
provided to the Working Capital Fund will be used to support
the maintenance and operations of HUD systems.

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2010.................................... $125,000,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 122,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 125,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation will finance all salaries and related
expenses associated with the operation of the Office of the
Inspector General [OIG].

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $125,000,000
for the Office of Inspector General [OIG]. The amount of
funding is equal to the level provided in fiscal year 2010 and
$3,000,000 more than the President's request.
The Committee expects the OIG to continue to monitor and
conduct oversight over HUD's programs. This is especially
important as HUD implements new initiatives funded in this
bill.
The Committee directs the HUD OIG to use the additional
$3,000,000 above the budget request to target fraud and abuse
by lenders, sellers, mortgage bankers and brokers, and
homebuyers, including those seeking to refinance mortgages
under the FHA Mutual Mortgage Insurance program. The HUD OIG
should seek to maximize its funding by partnering with other
Federal agencies and entities with similar programs, and take
advantage of individuals with financial expertise. FHA single
family mortgage has exploded as a share of the market, growing
from 3 percent in 2006 to nearly 30 percent today. FHA is
filling an important role in the market today, as credit in the
private market remains limited. However, the Committee has
provided the additional resources to the OIG to ensure that
since FHA has grown so significantly, it is not taking on
excessive risk, and has the necessary expertise to manage and
oversee the increased volume.

TRANSFORMATION INITIATIVE

Appropriations, 2010.................................... $20,000,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 20,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 20,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Transformation Initiative is the Department's effort to
improve and streamline the systems and operations at HUD.
Managed by the Office of Strategic Planning and Management,
this initiative has four elements: (1) research, evaluation,
and program metrics; (2) program demonstrations; (3) technical
assistance and capacity building; and (4) information
technology. Funding to support these activities is provided by
transfer from HUD programs. In addition, the funding provided
will support the administration's efforts to combat rescue
fraud by investing in anti-fraud technologies and conducting
education and outreach to counseling providers and consumers.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee includes a recommended level of funding of up
to $228,731,000 for the Transformation Initiative. This level
of funding includes an appropriation of $20,000,000 for efforts
to combat mortgage fraud, which is equal to the President's
request. In addition, up to $208,731,000 is included by
transfer from other HUD accounts, to be available for 3 years.
In fiscal year 2010, the administration launched the
Transformation Initiative [TI] to improve the operations and
capacity of HUD. TI funds research, demonstrations and systems
modernization to better equip HUD and to address the Nation's
housing needs. In addition to improving HUD's own operations,
TI also includes funding to improve the capacity and
performance of its grantees through technical assistance.
While the Committee supports making these investments, it
also believes that oversight of TI funding is critical.
Therefore, the Committee has once again limited the flexibility
to use these funds requested by HUD. As it did when funding was
provided last year, the Committee is recommending minimum
funding levels for IT modernization and technical assistance.
The Committee is also requiring HUD to submit a plan for
approval detailing how much funding will be transferred from
each program and how that funding is intended to be used within
30 days of enactment of this act.
The Committee notes that for the second year in a row, the
Department has submitted a request for the Transformation
Initiative while providing limited information in the
congressional justification on the specific projects and
activities it will fund. The Committee has had to separately
request this detailed information. For fiscal year 2012, the
Committee directs HUD to include detailed information in the
budget on the activities it is seeking to fund within the TI
account, the benefits of each activity, as well as the
estimated cost.
Technology.--Of the amount provided, the Committee has set
at least $80,000,000 aside for information technology
investments. The Committee has placed the greatest priority on
this activity because it is elemental to improving the
operations of the Department and to protecting taxpayer
dollars.
The Committee has focused particular attention on the
modernization of FHA's IT systems and the Voucher Management
System [VMS]. FHA processes and manages a portfolio of millions
of mortgages for single-family homes, multi-family properties
and healthcare facilities. It is critical that HUD have the
technical capabilities to do automated underwriting, as well as
track and analyze loan performance and participating lenders.
Therefore, development of FHA IT systems that can better assess
risk is critical.
An upgraded Voucher Management System [VMS] is also
urgently needed. Public Housing Authorities [PHAs] input
section 8 voucher data in VMS so that HUD can track their
leasing and use of funds. However the system lacks the
capabilities to accurately capture many of the variations in
the program. Since the section 8 tenant-based rental assistance
program is market-based program, it is dynamic and varies
greatly by local market. HUD must develop the capabilities to
conduct market level analysis in order to evaluate cost and use
trends in the program.
While these investments are critical, they are also multi-
year, multi-million dollar projects that require oversight to
ensure that they deliver the capabilities needed while
remaining on-time and on-budget. In fiscal year 2010, the
Committee required HUD to produce a spend plan for its IT
investments funded under TI, which the Government
Accountability Office [GAO] was instructed to review. GAO's
input in the process has been invaluable to the Committee.
While the Committee awaits GAO's final briefing on the spend
plan, it is clear that GAO's involvement in the process is
helping to ensure that HUD is focused both on completing these
projects, as well as on identifying and addressing potential
risks. Therefore, the Committee is once again requiring HUD to
develop a spend plan for its information technology projects.
This plan should include the identification of projects to be
undertaken, project goals and costs. In addition, the Committee
directs the GAO to evaluate this plan, and monitor HUD's
progress in achieving project goals and staying on time and on
budget. This plan may also include additional IT system
investments that will improve the efficiency of HUD programs.
Technical Assistance.--The Committee has provided at least
$60,000,000 for technical assistance. The Committee supports
the administration's effort to evaluate grant recipients and
target them for additional oversight and technical assistance
[TA]. The Committee also appreciates that HUD is refocusing its
technical assistance on improving outcomes, and not just
concentrating on timely execution of activities and funding.
The Committee expects that HUD will spend at least $23,000,000
on the OneCPD: Integrated Practitioner Assistance System to
deliver comprehensive TA to HUD grantees. This assistance
should support improving grantees' ability to achieve results
using HUD funding, such as CDBG and HOME. In addition, the
Joint Core Skills Certification proposal to provide grantees
with core skills to administer HUD programs across Public and
Indian Housing, Community Planning and Development, and
Multifamily Housing will also help increase the capacity of HUD
grantees. The Committee also directs HUD to work with the OIG
to identify grantees that have capacity challenges and provide
additional assistance to them to ensure that problems are
resolved.
Among the technical assistance activities funded in fiscal
year 2010 were section 3 training for HUD grant recipients to
increase coordination to help low-income residents and local
businesses successfully competed for HUD-funded contracts. In
addition, HUD funded the Fair Housing Initiatives Program
[FHIP] enforcement testing and training for FHA's business and
industry. The Committee expects these activities to be funded
in fiscal year 2011.
Research, Demonstrations, and Evaluations.--The Committee
supports HUD's effort to fund important research that will
result in more informed and data-driven housing policies. The
Committee has provided the Secretary flexibility to determine
how much funding will be allocated to research and how much
will be allocated to demonstrations and evaluations. However,
the Committee notes the TI plan that was approved reduced the
number of research and demonstrations, and instead sought to
fully-fund a more limited number of projects. The Committee
still believes that HUD should focus its efforts and attention
on fewer projects instead of trying to undertake too many
initiatives at once.
In allocating funding, the Committee expects HUD to provide
the funding to continue any projects not fully funded in fiscal
year 2010. In addition, HUD should prioritize research designed
to get better information and cost estimates for core programs,
as well as for proposed projects such as Transforming Rental
Assistance [TRA]. The Committee encourages HUD to seek outside
expertise to improve it cost modeling for TRA.
HUD should use research funding to conduct a comprehensive
assessment of the worst public housing. HUD is directed to
report to the House and Senate Committee on Appropriations
within 6 months of enactment on the location of this housing
and its condition and provide a cost estimate for the repair of
the worst or obsolete (where the cost to repair outstrips the
cost to replace) public housing. The report should include an
evaluation and viability of the various options available to
these PHAs for the payment of these capital costs.
The Committee also supports HUD's plans to conduct a review
of trouble PHA policies, and evaluate the homeless
demonstration initiative funded within the tenant-based rental
assistance program.
The foreclosure crisis continues to hit families and
communities across the country. While at the beginning of the
crisis most foreclosures were the result of subprime mortgages,
today an increasing number are the result of unemployment.
Today, States and communities are developing innovative
approaches to addressing these issues. For example, in
Connecticut they have developed a program that combines
foreclosure mitigation efforts with job training. The Committee
encourages HUD to evaluate the effectiveness of these
innovative approaches, and share ideas and best-practices with
other communities.
Combating Mortgage Fraud Initiative.--In addition to
amounts transferred into this account, the President has
requested, and the Committee has included, and appropriation of
$20,000,000 to support the Combating Mortgage Fraud Initiative.
Activities for this effort supported by the transformation
initiative include, but are not limited to, developing anti-
fraud IT data tools and providing technical assistance to
assist housing counseling agencies in combating fraud.

Administrative Provisions

The Committee recommends administrative provisions. A brief
description follows.
Sec. 201. This section promotes the refinancing of certain
housing bonds.
Sec. 202. This section clarifies a limitation on use of
funds under the Fair Housing Act.
Sec. 203. This section clarifies the allocation of HOPWA
funding for fiscal year 2006.
Sec. 204. This section requires HUD to award funds on a
competitive basis unless otherwise provided.
Sec. 205. This section allows funds to be used to reimburse
GSEs and other Federal entities for various administrative
expenses.
Sec. 206. This section limits HUD spending to amounts set
out in the budget justification.
Sec. 207. This section clarifies expenditure authority for
entities subject to the Government Corporation Control Act.
Sec. 208. This section requires quarterly reports on all
uncommitted, unobligated and excess funds associated with HUD
programs.
Sec. 209. This section makes a number of corrections to the
award of HOPWA funding.
Sec. 210. This section requires HUD to submit its fiscal
year 2011 budget justifications according to congressional
requirements.
Sec. 211. This section exempts Los Angeles County, Alaska,
Iowa, and Mississippi from the requirement of having a PHA
resident on the board of directors for fiscal year 2006.
Instead, the public housing agencies in these States are
required to establish advisory boards that include public
housing tenants and section 8 recipients.
Sec. 212. This section allows HUD to authorize the transfer
of existing project-based subsidies and liabilities from
obsolete housing to housing that better meets the needs of the
assisted tenants.
Sec. 213. This section provides allocation requirements for
Native Alaskans under the Native American Indian Housing Block
Grant program.
Sec. 214. This section exempts GNMA from certain
requirements of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990.
Sec. 215. This section reforms certain section 8 rent
calculations as to athletic scholarships.
Sec. 216. This section expands the availability of Home
Equity Conversion Mortgages during fiscal year 2011.
Sec. 217. This section requires HUD to maintain section 8
assistance on HUD-held or owned multifamily housing.
Sec. 218. This section authorizes the Secretary to waive
certain requirements on adjusted income for certain assisted
living projects for counties in Michigan.
Sec. 219. This section requires HUD to report quarterly to
the Appropriations Committees on the use of sole-source
contracting by HUD.
Sec. 220. This section allows the recipient of a section
202 grant to establish a single-asset nonprofit entity to own
the project and may lend the grant funds to such entity.
Sec. 221. This section clarifies the use of the 108 loan
guaranteed program for nonentitlement communities.
Sec. 222. This section extends the HOPE VI program until
September 30, 2011.
Sec. 223. This section allows public housing authorities
with less than 400 units to be exempt from management
requirements in the operating fund rule.
Sec. 224. This section restricts the Secretary from
imposing any requirement or guideline relating to asset
management that restricts or limits the use of capital funds
for central office costs, up to the limit established in QWHRA.
Sec. 225. This section requires allotment holders to meet
certain criteria of the CFO.
Sec. 226. This section requires the Secretary to report
quarterly on the status of all project-based section 8 housing.
Sec. 227. This section limits attorney fees.
Sec. 228. The section modifies the NOFA process to include
the Internet.
Sec. 229. This section would allow refinancing of certain
section 202 loans.
Sec. 230. The section makes reforms to the Federal Surplus
Property Program under the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance
Act.
Sec. 231. This section establishes reprogramming and
reallocation requirements within HUD's salaries and expenses
accounts.
Sec. 232. This section allows the Disaster Housing
Assistance Programs to be considered a program of the
Department of Housing and Urban Development for the purpose of
income verification and matching.
Sec. 233. This section allows the Secretary to transfer
funding from salaries and expenses accounts to the ``Working
Capital Fund'' or the ``Transformation Initiative'' to support
technology improvements.
Sec. 234. This section provides the Secretary with the
authority to increase annual premiums on Federal Housing
Administration [FHA] mortgage insurance by up to 1.5 percent.
Sec. 235. This section eliminates an unnecessary transfer
from the Rental Housing Assistance Fund to the Flexible Subsidy
Fund.
Sec. 236. This section extends the current FHA loan limits
for high cost areas through fiscal year 2011.
Sec. 237. This section extends the current GSE loan limits
for high cost areas through fiscal year 2011.
Sec. 238. This section extends the current HECM loan limits
for high cost areas through fiscal year 2011.

TITLE III

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Access Board

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010.................................... $7,300,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 7,300,000
Committee recommendation................................ 7,367,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Access Board (formerly known as the Architectural and
Transportation Barriers Compliance Board) was established by
section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The Access Board
is responsible for developing guidelines under the Americans
with Disabilities Act, the Architectural Barriers Act, and the
Telecommunications Act. These guidelines ensure that buildings
and facilities, transportation vehicles, and telecommunications
equipment covered by these laws are readily accessible to and
usable by people with disabilities. The Board is also
responsible for developing standards under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act for accessible electronic and information
technology used by Federal agencies, and for medical diagnostic
equipment under section 510 of the Rehabilitation Act. The
Access Board also enforces the Architectural Barriers Act. In
addition, the Board provides training and technical assistance
on the guidelines and standards it develops to Government
agencies, public and private organizations, individuals and
businesses on the removal of accessibility barriers.
In 2002, the Access Board was given additional
responsibilities under the Help America Vote Act. The Board
serves on the Board of Advisors and the Technical Guidelines
Development Committee, which helps Election Assistance
Commission develop voluntary guidelines and guidance for voting
systems, including accessibility for people with disabilities.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $7,367,000 for the operations of
the Access Board. This level of funding is $67,000 more than
the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and the President's fiscal
year 2011 request.
Across all levels of government, Access Board is regarded
as a leading source of information on accessible design, and as
an effective coordinating body. The Committee encourages Access
Board to continue to take a leadership role in developing
standards of accessibility, and to further harmonize Federal
and private requirements by identifying model codes and
cooperating with other standards-setting organizations. The
Committee provides $67,000 more than the President's fiscal
year 2010 request in order to provide the Access Board with
sufficient resources to manage the expanded responsibilities
described below.
Access Board has taken steps to contain some administrative
costs, including making greater use of teleconferencing to
reduce travel expenses, bringing IT support services in-house,
and pursuing a reimbursable usage agreement for renting meeting
space to another agency. The Committee supports these efforts
and expects Access Board to continue to seek ways to reduce
expenses.
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.--With the
passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
[PPACA], Access Board is charged with developing accessibility
standards for medical diagnostic equipment within 24 months of
the law's enactment. Previous standards, as defined in the
Americans with Disabilities Act, did not address medical
diagnostic equipment, and consequently Access Board generally
lacked such guideline-setting authority. The additional funding
provided by the Committee will support the additional
rulemaking requirements mandated by the PPACA. The Committee
encourages Access Board to become a leader in developing state-
of-the-art accessibility codes and standards for medical
diagnostic equipment. Ultimately, ensuring that individuals
with disabilities can physically access such equipment is
fitting to the spirit and tenor of the PPACA's aims, and
consistent with Access Board's mission.
Performance Metrics.--The Committee encourages Access Board
to develop and improve its performance metrics and data
collection capabilities. Accordingly, the agency should follow
through on plans to transition from an inadequate and outdated
database to a new, state-of-the-art system to ensure the
usefulness of collected information. Bolstering the quality and
utility of collected data will allow Access Board to create
more meaningful metrics, and further improve its programs. The
Committee expects Access Board to ensure that the new system is
useful for collecting a wide range of data, and conducive to
the development of sound and informative metrics for relevant
programs.
Training and Technical Assistance.--Continuing the
intensified rulemaking process initiated in fiscal year 2010,
Access Board will issue four final rules and two new proposed
rules in fiscal year 2011. This includes the new rule required
by the PPACA. The Committee recognizes potential demand
increases for training and technical assistance stemming from
the new rules, particularly from new medical equipment
accessibility guidelines. Access Board has a track record of
providing timely and judicious guidance to agencies. In order
to strengthen this capability, the Committee encourages the
continued development of relevant training and technical
assistance materials and tools.

Federal Maritime Commission

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010.................................... $24,135,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 25,498,000
Committee recommendation................................ 25,498,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal Maritime Commission [FMC] is an independent
regulatory agency which administers the Shipping Act of 1984
(Public Law 98-237) as amended by the Ocean Shipping Reform Act
of 1998 (Public Law 105-258); section 19 of the Merchant Marine
Act, 1920 (41 Stat. 998); the Foreign Shipping Practices Act of
1988 (Public Law 100-418); and Public Law 89-777.
FMC regulates the international waterborne commerce of the
United States. In addition, the FMC has responsibility for
licensing and bonding ocean transportation intermediaries and
assuring that vessel owners or operators establish financial
responsibility to pay judgments for death or injury to
passengers, or nonperformance of a cruise, on voyages from U.S.
ports.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee includes $25,498,000 for the salaries and
expenses of the Federal Maritime Commission for fiscal year
2011. This amount is $1,363,000 more than the fiscal year 2010
enacted level and equal to the budget request.

National Railroad Passenger Corporation

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010.................................... $19,000,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... \1\ 22,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 19,500,000

\1\ The administration requested this funding as a grant from the
Federal Railroad Administration.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Inspector General [OIG] for Amtrak was
created by the Inspector General Act Amendment of 1988. The Act
recognized Amtrak as a ``designated Federal entity'' and
required the railroad to establish an independent and objective
unit to conduct and supervise audits and investigations
relating to the programs and operations of Amtrak; to provide
leadership and coordination and recommend policies for
activities designed to promote economy, efficiency, and
effectiveness in the administration of Amtrak, and for
activities designed to prevent and detect fraud and abuse in
Amtrak operations; and to provide a means for keeping the
Amtrak leadership and the Congress fully and currently informed
about problems and deficiencies relating to the administration
of Amtrak and the necessity for and progress of corrective
action.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $19,500,000 for the Amtrak Office
of Inspector General. This funding level is $2,500,000 less
than the budget request and $500,000 more than the fiscal year
2010 enacted level.
Direct Appropriations to the Amtrak OIG.--Historically, the
Amtrak OIG received its funding from Amtrak itself. Last year,
however, animosity between the Amtrak OIG and the railroad cast
doubt on Amtrak's willingness to act in good faith with its
OIG, as well as the OIG's ability to offer unbiased oversight
of Amtrak. As a result of this strife, the Committee provided
appropriations directly to the Amtrak OIG for fiscal year 2010,
asserting that the office can no longer be dependent on Amtrak
for its funding. The Committee argued, ``The budgets of these
two entities must be separated in order to support an
independent and objective OIG for the railroad.''
The Committee continues to believe that the Amtrak OIG must
have an independent source of funding. For fiscal year 2011,
the Committee recommendation again provides the Amtrak OIG with
direct appropriations in order to protect its role in
monitoring Amtrak without bias. This policy is consistent with
the funding recommendation for the Department of
Transportation's OIG, which provides all of the resources for
the OIG directly to that office rather than funding a portion
of the OIG's activities through transfers and reimbursements
from the agencies that the OIG oversees.
The administration has proposed to fund the Amtrak OIG with
grants awarded by the Federal Railroad Administration.
According to the administration, these grants would mirror the
Federal grants that FRA awards to Amtrak. The Committee reminds
the administration that awarding grants to Amtrak gives FRA a
role in overseeing the railroad. In fact, FRA's responsibility
to oversee Amtrak has grown in recent years. FRA, however, does
not--and should not--assume a similar role for the Amtrak OIG.
FRA advocates for specific policies related to Amtrak and
railroads in general, and so it cannot monitor the Amtrak OIG
absent a potential conflict of interest.
Amtrak OIG Staffing Levels.--The current IG for Amtrak
accepted his position at a time when many publicly questioned
whether the Amtrak OIG had the skills necessary to oversee the
railroad. The Committee commends the IG for taking these
concerns seriously, and for working to improve the OIG's
reputation for objective and analytical work.
The Amtrak OIG also has submitted an ambitious budget
request, seeking to increase its staffing levels by 10 FTE in
fiscal year 2011. This budget request would result in an
increase of 20 full time positions by fiscal year 2012. The
Committee recognizes the importance of building a strong
workforce for the Amtrak OIG, but notes that the office
continues to experience a high level of staff turnover. The
Committee therefore encourages the office to use its vacancies
as an opportunity to hire staff with the necessary experience
and expertise.
In addition, the Committee continues to include language
that requires the Amtrak OIG to submit a budget request in
similar format and substance to those submitted by executive
agencies in the Federal Government. The Committee first
included this requirement last year, and for fiscal year 2011
the Amtrak OIG submitted documents that provide most of
information the Committee required. The documents, however, do
not delineate what part of the OIG request represents mandatory
adjustments to the previous year's funding level, and what part
represents funding for new activities. Such delineation is
especially useful in evaluating requests for additional staff
members. The Committee directs the Amtrak OIG to include this
information in the budget documents for its fiscal year 2012
budget request.
Reports Posted on the Web.--The Committee believes that the
Amtrak OIG must conduct its work with a high level of
transparency and accountability. Therefore, the Committee
directs the Amtrak OIG to post all of its final reports on its
Web site, and to maintain a Web site that is well organized and
easy to navigate.

National Transportation Safety Board

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010.................................... $98,050,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 100,400,000
Committee recommendation................................ 104,300,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Initially established along with the Department of
Transportation [DOT], the National Transportation Safety Board
[NTSB] commenced operations on April 1, 1967, as an independent
Federal agency. The board is charged by Congress with
investigating every civil aviation accident in the United
States as well as significant accidents in the other modes of
transportation--railroad, highway, marine, and pipeline--and
issuing safety recommendations aimed at preventing future
accidents. Although it has always operated independently, NTSB
relied on DOT for funding and administrative support until the
Independent Safety Board Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-633)
severed all ties between the two organizations starting in
1975.
In addition to its investigatory duties, NTSB is
responsible for maintaining the Government's database of civil
aviation accidents and also conducts special studies of
transportation safety issues of national significance.
Furthermore, in accordance with the provisions of international
treaties, NTSB supplies investigators to serve as U.S.
accredited representatives for aviation accidents overseas
involving U.S-registered aircraft, or involving aircraft or
major components of U.S. manufacture. NTSB also serves as the
``court of appeals'' for any airman, mechanic, or mariner
whenever certificate action is taken by the Federal Aviation
Administration [FAA] or the U.S. Coast Guard Commandant, or
when civil penalties are assessed by FAA.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $104,300,000 for the National
Transportation Safety Board, which is $3,900,000 more than the
budget request and $6,250,000 more than the fiscal year 2010
enacted level. The Committee has also continued to include
language that allows NTSB to make payments on its lease for the
NTSB training facility with funding provided in the bill.
Staffing Levels.--The Administration's budget request for
the NTSB would have significant consequences for the agency. In
order to accommodate its new board members and still live
within funding level requested by the Administration, the NTSB
would need to slash its workforce by 13 FTE. The Committee does
not consider such cuts to be acceptable.
The NTSB plays a unique and vital role in ensuring the
safety of our Nation's transportation system. The board
investigates every aviation accident and significant accidents
in all other modes of transportation. The NTSB maintains a
highly skilled workforce with the expertise necessary to
investigate accidents, determine their probable causes, and
extract important lessons so that future accidents may be
prevented. In fulfilling its duties, the NTSB acts as an honest
broker, offering unbiased analysis and safety recommendations.
Unfortunately, the NTSB experienced years of disinvestment.
Between fiscal years 2003 and 2007, the staff of the NTSB
dropped by a total of 50 FTE. For the past 3 years, however,
the Committee placed a clear priority on rebuilding the NTSB
workforce, and the Committee will not see its investment go to
waste. For this reason, it has recommended a funding level that
would protect the NTSB's current workforce as well provide an
additional $1,177,000 to increase its staff by 11 FTE.
Maintenance of the NTSB Laboratory.--The Committee
recommendation includes $800,000 for continued investment in
the NTSB laboratory.
Last year, the Committee provided additional funds for the
NTSB to modernize its data recorder laboratory. The Committee
noted at the time that data recorders play an increasingly
large role in determining the probable cause of an accident in
all modes of transportation. The NTSB laboratory, however, had
become outdated as the technology used in data recorders grew
more sophisticated over the years. Too often, the NTSB had been
forced to turn to agencies outside of the United States in
order to perform data analysis that is essential to its own
investigations.
After making this initial investment in modernizing its
laboratory, the NTSB developed a 5-year plan for maintaining
the currency of its technology. Consistent with this plan, the
funding provided by the Committee recommendation will allow the
NTSB to sustain its laboratory and keep its capabilities from
being lost as technology continues to improve.
Reimbursements for the OIG.--For the past several years,
the Committee has provided an additional $100,000 for the NTSB
to reimburse the Department of Transportation's OIG for the
cost of auditing the NTSB's financial statements. In order to
simplify the relationship between the OIG and the agencies that
it audits, the Committee recommendation provides all funding
for OIG activities directly to the OIG itself. The Committee
has therefore lowered its funding recommendation for the NTSB
by $100,000. This funding decrease will have no impact on the
level of resources available to the board for its own
activities.

Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation

PAYMENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT CORPORATION

Appropriations, 2010.................................... $233,000,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 250,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 300,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation was created by
the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation Act (title VI of the
Housing and Community Development Amendments of 1978, Public
Law 95-557, October 31, 1978). Neighborhood Reinvestment
Corporation now operates under the trade name, ``NeighborWorks
America.'' NeighborWorks America helps local communities
establish efficient and effective partnerships between
residents and representatives of the public and private
sectors. These partnership-based organizations are independent,
tax-exempt, nonprofit entities and are frequently known as
Neighborhood Housing Services [NHS] or mutual housing
associations.
Collectively, these organizations are known as the
NeighborWorks network. Nationally, 235 NeighborWorks
organizations serve nearly 3,000 urban, suburban, and rural
communities in 49 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto
Rico.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $300,000,000
for the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation [NRC] for fiscal
year 2011. This amount is $50,000,000 more than the budget
request and $67,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2010 enacted
level. The Committee continues to support the set-aside of
$5,000,000 for the multifamily rental housing initiative, which
has been successful in developing innovative approaches to
producing mixed-income affordable housing throughout the
Nation. The Committee directs NRC to provide a status report on
this initiative in its fiscal year 2011 budget justification.
Housing Counseling Assistance.--The Committee has included
$125,000,000 to continue the National Foreclosure Mitigation
Counseling Program [NFMC] initiated by Congress in fiscal year
2008.
According to the most recent data from Lender Processing
Services, more than 12 percent of U.S. mortgages are in default
or foreclosure, with many more struggling to stay current on
their payments. As a result, there continues to be a great need
for housing counseling. NeighborWorks reported more than 3
times as much funding being requested by counseling agencies
than was available in the last round of NFMC funding. The NFMC
funding is being put to use across the country and is
successfully helping troubled homeowners modify mortgages,
reduce their monthly payments, and avoid foreclosure. A
preliminary analysis of the program by the Urban Institute
found that it was achieving its goals. According to this
analysis, homeowners that were in foreclosure that sought help
from an NFMC counselor were more than one-and-a-half times more
likely to avoid foreclosure than homeowners who received no
counseling.
The Committee supports NeighborWorks's effort to target
funds not only to areas of greatest need, as required, but also
to low-income and minority communities, since minorities have
been affected disproportionately by the foreclosure crisis. The
Committee will continue to track the use of these funds through
the required regular reporting by NeighborWorks, and looks
forward to the complete study by the Urban Institute.
Mortgage Rescue Scams.--Of the amount provided for the
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, $3,000,000 shall be
available to continue its outreach and education campaign to
combat mortgage rescue scams. Congress initially funded these
efforts in fiscal year 2009, and with these funds NeighborWorks
launched a multi-language anti-rescue scam public education
campaign in October 2009. The campaign includes public service
announcements, fliers, and a Web site that assists people in
finding help, as well as to report scams. The Committee expects
the funding provided in fiscal year 2011 will be used to
maintain the loanscamalert.org Web site, and continue outreach
and education activities in target communities.
NeighborWorks is also part of a national coalition called
the Anti-Fraud Campaign Coordination Committee, which includes
partners such as HUD, the Federal Trade Commission, the
Department of Justice, and State Attorneys General. Since
outreach and education will be strengthened by strong
enforcement action, it is important that the coalition includes
partners that can use their authority to catch and punish those
perpetrating loan scams. The Committee expects NeighborWorks to
continue its work with these groups, and to consider adapting
its messages to incorporate an enforcement component, while
ensuring a clear, consistent message.
Capital Assistance To Create or Sustain Affordable
Housing.--The Committee has included an additional $35,000,000
for capital grants to assist NeighborWorks organizations in
lacquering or rehabilitating affordable housing, as well as
creating financing or lending tools. The Committee has included
this additional funding in order to assist communities that
have been adversely impacted by the foreclosure crisis and the
economic recession.
With the additional funding provided in fiscal year 2010,
NeighborWorks grantees in nearly every State received an award.
These grants will enable organizations to take advantage of the
supply of affordable housing, as well as low-cost financing, to
acquire and rehabilitate properties. In the process, grantees
expect to create more than 1,100 local jobs. The Committee
expects that the funding provided in fiscal year 2011 will
allow additional grantees to create more, needed affordable
housing, particularly in smaller and rural communities.
Rural Areas.--The Committee also continues to support
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation's efforts in building
capacity in rural areas. The Committee urges the Corporation to
continue its efforts in addressing the needs of rural
communities.

United States Interagency Council on Homelessness

OPERATING EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010.................................... $2,450,000
Budget estimate, 2011................................... 2,680,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,680,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The United States Interagency Council on Homelessness is an
independent agency created by the McKinney-Vento Homeless
Assistance Act of 1987 to coordinate and direct the multiple
efforts of Federal agencies and other designated groups. The
Council was authorized to review Federal programs that assist
homeless persons and to take necessary actions to reduce
duplication. The Council can recommend improvements in programs
and activities conducted by Federal, State, and local
government as well as local volunteer organizations. The
Council consists of the heads of 18 Federal agencies, such as
the Departments of Housing and Urban Development, Health and
Human Services, Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Commerce,
Defense, Education, Labor, and Transportation; and other
entities as deemed appropriate.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,680,000 for
the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness [ICH].
This amount is $230,000 more than the fiscal year 2010 enacted
level and equal to the budget request.
In June 2010, the Interagency Council on Homelessness
released Opening Doors: The Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent
and End Homelessness. This plan includes goals for ending
homelessness in America, including: finishing the job of ending
chronic homelessness in 5 years; preventing and ending
homelessness among Veterans in 5 years; preventing and ending
homelessness for families, youth and children in 10 years; and
setting a path to ending all types of homelessness. The
Committee is pleased that the ICH put forward a plan that
included specific goals, as well as objectives and strategies
for achieving them. This is the first step to achieving these
ambitious goals. Implementation of the plan will be both more
important and challenging. It will require the effort of
various Federal agencies, as well as State and local
governments and the private sector. Since the plan was
developed with input from all of these partners, a good
foundation for collaboration has been set.
The ICH has also demonstrated a clear understanding of its
role to improve communication and collaboration among Federal
agencies--a role that was minimized for far too long. The
effect of better collaboration can be seen in the results of
the partnership between HUD and the Department of Veterans
Affairs [VA]. As HUD has shared its knowledge of the Housing
First approach to housing the chronically homeless, as well as
homeless prevention models, these strategies are now being
incorporated into VA homeless programs. This Federal
collaboration should be replicated across the Federal
Government to address the needs of those experiencing
homelessness comprehensively.
Importantly, Federal Departments are assigned leadership
roles for each of the 10 objectives included in the plan. By
assigning responsibilities, each of the Federal partners now
has ownership of the plan. This is a good start, and the
Committee expects that in future reports, the strategies and
objectives will be refined further so that there are clear
targets and benchmarks to measure progress in reaching the
plan's goals.
Preventing Veterans' Homelessness.--The ICH is encouraged
to work with the Department of Defense, Department of Veterans
Affairs and HUD, as well as other Federal and local agencies,
regarding the risks of homelessness to newly discharged
military veterans. This is a critical point in time to make
homeless prevention programs available and to provide positive
intervention to newly discharged veterans to prevent or limit
the risk of homelessness, now or in the future, and help create
positive outcomes. In many cases, veterans often face a higher
risk of homelessness, as well as other significant problems,
such as post traumatic stress syndrome at the time of
discharge. As a result, the Committee believes the ICH and its
Federal and State and local partners should focus on addressing
the needs of veterans at the time of discharge to the maximum
extent possible or feasible.
Workforce Training.--Preventing and ending homelessness
isn't simply about housing; it is about addressing the
underlying problems that cause people to become homeless. This
includes providing help to address mental illness, physical
disabilities, and substance addiction. It also involves
addressing inadequate income. Yet, many low-income and homeless
persons have difficulty accessing the job training services
that will assist them in gaining self-sufficiency. The
Committee sees an opportunity for the ICH to assist in
expanding opportunities for homeless persons by improving the
relationships between Workforce Investment Boards [WIB], public
housing authorities [PHA], and homeless service providers
involved in HUD's Continuum of Care. These entities all have a
role in assisting low-income and homeless persons, and better
coordination on the local level will result in improved
outcomes for those most in need. The Committee directs the ICH
to identify ways in which these relationships can be improved,
and to conduct joint trainings with WIBs, PHAs and members of
homeless Continuums of Care in order to share best practices
and build relationships among these different groups.
Department of Education's Role in Ending Homelessness.--
Education plays a critical role in shaping a child's future;
for low-income and homeless children, it can be the key to
breaking the cycle of poverty. Therefore, any effort to prevent
and end homelessness for children must include the Department
of Education [ED]. As part of Opening Doors, ED shares
responsibility for 4 of the 10 objectives. The Committee would
like to see additional detail about the actions that ED will
take in order make the goal of ending homelessness among
children in 10 years a reality. The Committee expects ICH to
provide greater detail on the specific actions that ED is
taking as part of this effort in the next annual update of the
strategic plan to end homelessness.

TITLE IV

GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS ACT

Section 401 requires pay raises to be absorbed within
appropriated levels in this act or previous appropriations
acts.
Section 402 prohibits pay and other expenses for non-
Federal parties in regulatory or adjudicatory proceedings
funded in this act.
Section 403 prohibits obligations beyond the current fiscal
year and prohibits transfers of funds unless expressly so
provided herein.
Section 404 limits expenditures for consulting service
through procurement contracts where such expenditures are a
matter of public record and available for public inspection.
Section 405 authorizes the reprogramming of funds and
specifies the reprogramming procedures for agencies funded by
this act.
Section 406 ensures that 50 percent of unobligated balances
may remain available for certain purposes.
Section 407 requires departments and agencies under this
act to report information regarding all sole-source contracts.
Section 408 prohibits the use of funds for employee
training unless such training bears directly upon the
performance of official duties.
Section 409 prohibits the use of funds for eminent domain
unless such taking is employed for public use.
Section 410 prohibits funds in this act to be transferred
without express authority.
Section 411 protects employment rights of Federal employees
who return to their civilian jobs after assignment with the
Armed Forces.
Section 412 prohibits the use of funds for activities not
in compliance with the Buy American Act.
Section 413 prohibits funding for any person or entity
convicted of violating the Buy American Act.
Section 414 prohibits funds for first-class airline
accommodation in contravention of section 301-10.122 and 301-
10.123 of title 41 CFR.
Section 415 prohibits funds from being used to purchase
light bulbs for an office building unless, to the extent
practicable, the light bulb has an Energy Star or Federal
Energy Management Program designation.
Section 416 prohibits funds from being used to establish,
issue, implement, administer, or enforce any prohibition or
restriction on occupancy preference for veterans in HUD
facilities located/leased on VA property.
Section 417 prohibits funds in this act or any prior act
for going to the group ACORN or any of its affiliates,
subsidiaries, or allied organizations.
Section 418 requires the Department of Transportation and
the Department of Housing and Urban Development to provide
through each department's Web site a disclosure of all primary
information for each program that is equal to or exceeds
$100,000,000 in its annual budget. The primary information is
first required once all applications for a program are received
by a department, and includes a summary of each application as
well as grantee information. Once awards are made, a department
is then required to post on its Web site the successful
grantees, grant amounts, selection criteria and program goals.
This information is expected to provide the public with needed
transparency on grant information and assist with program
information and credibility. These requirements are not
intended to overburden Government with unnecessary work to the
detriment of a program but instead to provide the American
people with insights that will allow a candid and frank
understanding of how taxpayer money is spent for the overall
benefit of the Nation.

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7, RULE XVI, OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE

Paragraph 7 of rule XVI requires that Committee reports on
general appropriations bills identify each Committee amendment
to the House bill ``which proposes an item of appropriation
which is not made to carry out the provisions of an existing
law, a treaty stipulation, or an act or resolution previously
passed by the Senate during that session.''
The Committee is filing an original bill, which is not
covered under this rule, but reports this information in the
spirit of full disclosure.
The Committee recommends funding for the following programs
or activities which currently lack authorization for fiscal
year 2011:

Title I--Department of Transportation

Federal Aviation Administration:
Operations
Facilities and Equipment
Research, Engineering, and Development
Grants-in-Aid for Airports
Federal Highway Administration:
Federal-aid Highways
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration:
Motor Carrier Safety Operations and Programs
Motor Carrier Safety Grants
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration:
Operations and Research
National Driver Register
National Driver Register Modernization
Highway Traffic Safety Grants
Federal Transit Administration:
Administrative Expenses
Formula and Bus Grants
Research and University Research Centers
Capital Investment Grants
Grants for Energy Efficiency and Greenhouse Gas
Reduction
Maritime Administration:
Operations and Training
Ship Disposal
Maritime Security
Title XI
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration:
Administration Expenses
Pipeline Safety
Research and Innovative Technology Administration:
Research and Development
Surface Transportation Board

Title II--Department of Housing and Urban Development

Rental Assistance:
Section 8 Contract Renewals and Administrative Expenses
Section 441 Contracts
Section 8 Preservation, Protection, and Family
Unification
Contract Administrators
Public Housing Capital Fund
Public Housing Operating Fund
Choice Neighborhoods
Native American Housing Block Grants:
Native American Housing Block Grants
Federal Guarantees
Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund
Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant
Native Hawaiian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund
Housing Opportunities for Persons with Aids
Rural Housing and Economics Development
Community Development Fund:
Community Development Block Grants
Economic Development Initiatives
Neighborhood Initiatives
HOME Program:
HOME Investment Partnership
Self Help and Assisted Homeownership Opportunity:
Capacity Building
Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program
National Housing Development Corporation
Housing for the Elderly
Housing for Persons with Disabilities
Energy Innovation Fund
FHA General and Special Risk Program Account:
Limitation on Guaranteed Loans
Limitation on Direct Loans
Credit Subsidy
Administrative Expenses
GNMA Mortgage Backed Securities Loan Guarantee Program
Account:
Limitation on Guaranteed Loans
Administrative Expenses
Policy Development and Research
Fair Housing Activities, Fair Housing Program
Lead Hazards Reduction Program
Salaries and Expenses

Title III--Related Agencies

National Transportation Safety Board

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7(c), RULE XXVI, OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE

Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on July 22, 2010,
theCommittee ordered reported en bloc an original bill (S.
3636) making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and
Justice, and Science, and related agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2011, and for other purposes; an original
bill (S. 3635) making appropriations for energy and water
development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2011, and for other purposes; and an original
bill (S. 3644) making appropriations for the Departments of
Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and related
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2011, and for
other purposes; with each subject to amendment and subject to
the Committee spending guidance, and authorized the chairman of
the committee or the chairman of the subcommittee to offer the
text of the Senate-reported bill as a committee amendment in
the nature of a substitute to the House companion measure, by a
recorded vote of 17-12, a quorum being present. The vote was as
follows:
Yeas Nays
Chairman Inouye Mr. Cochran
Mr. Leahy Mr. Bond
Mr. Harkin Mr. McConnell
Ms. Mikulski Mr. Shelby
Mr. Kohl Mr. Gregg
Mrs. Murray Mr. Bennett
Mr. Dorgan Mrs. Hutchison
Mrs. Feinstein Mr. Brownback
Mr. Durbin Mr. Alexander
Mr. Johnson Ms. Collins
Ms. Landrieu Mr. Voinovich
Mr. Reed Ms. Murkowski
Mr. Lautenberg
Mr. Nelson
Mr. Pryor
Mr. Tester
Mr. Specter

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 12, RULE XXVI OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE

Paragraph 12 of rule XXVI requires that Committee reports
on a bill or joint resolution repealing or amending any statute
or part of any statute include ``(a) the text of the statute or
part thereof which is proposed to be repealed; and (b) a
comparative print of that part of the bill or joint resolution
making the amendment and of the statute or part thereof
proposed to be amended, showing by stricken-through type and
italics, parallel columns, or other appropriate typographical
devices the omissions and insertions which would be made by the
bill or joint resolution if enacted in the form recommended by
the committee.''
In compliance with this rule, the following changes in
existing law proposed to be made by the bill are shown as
follows: existing law to be omitted is enclosed in black
brackets; new matter is printed in italic; and existing law in
which no change is proposed is shown in roman.

TITLE 12--BANKS AND BANKING

Chapter 13--National Housing

Sec. 1709. Insurance of mortgages

(a) Authorization

* * * * * * *

(1) * * *
(2) * * *
(A) * * *
[(B) In addition to the premium under subparagraph
(A), the Secretary shall establish and collect annual
premium payments in an amount not exceeding 0.50
percent of the remaining insured principal balance
(excluding the portion of the remaining balance
attributable to the premium collected under
subparagraph (A) and without taking into account
delinquent payments or prepayments) for the following
periods:]
(B) In addition to the premium under subparagraph
(A), the Secretary may establish and collect annual
premium payments in an amount not exceeding 1.50
percent of the remaining insured principal balance
(excluding the portion of the remaining balance
attributable to the premium collected under
subparagraph (A) and without taking into account
delinquent payments or prepayments). The Secretary, by
publication of a notice in the Federal Register, may
establish or change the amount of the premium under
subparagraph (A) or the annual premium, and the period
of the mortgage term for which an annual premium amount
shall apply.
------

TITLE 42--THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE

Chapter 8--Low-Income Housing

Subchapter I--General Program of Assisted Housing

Sec. 1437v. Demolition, site revitalization, replacement housing, and
tenant-based assistance grants for projects

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(m) Funding

(1) Authorization of appropriations

There are authorized to be appropriated for grants
under this section $574,000,000 for [fiscal year 2010.]
fiscal year 2011.

* * * * * * *

(o) Sunset

No assistance may be provided under this section after
[September 30, 2010.] September 30, 2011.
------

McKINNEY-VENTO HOMELESS ASSISTANCE ACT, 1986, PUBLIC LAW 100-77

TITLE II--INTERAGENCY COUNCIL ON THE HOMELESS

SEC. 209. TERMINATION.

The Council shall cease to exist, and the requirements of
this title shall terminate, on [October 1, 2010] October 1,
2012.
------

CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005, PUBLIC LAW 108-447

DIVISION I--DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005

TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Housing Programs

[FLEXIBLE SUBSIDY FUND]

[(TRANSFER OF FUNDS)]

[From the Rental Housing Assistance Fund, all uncommitted
balances of excess rental charges as of September 30, 2004, and
any collections made during fiscal year 2005 and all subsequent
fiscal years, shall be transferred to the Flexible Subsidy
Fund, as authorized by section 236(g) of the National Housing
Act, as amended.]
------

SAFE, ACCOUNTABLE, FLEXIBLE, EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT: A
LEGACY FOR USERS, 2005, PUBLIC LAW 109-59

SEC. 1702. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

Subject to section 117 of title 23, United States Code, the
amount listed for each high priority project in the following
table shall be available (from amounts made available by
section 1101(a)(16) of this Act) for fiscal years 2005 through
2009 to carry out each such project:

Highway Projects High Priority Projects
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. State Project Description Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 CA Construct safe access to $400,000
streets for bicyclists and
pedestrians including
crosswalks, sidewalks and
traffic calming measures,
Covina....................
* * * * * *
*
54 IA [Study of a direct link to $400,000
I-80, Pella] Study of a
direct link to 1-80 and
Iowa Highway 92, in
proximity to Pella........
* * * * * *
*
249 WA [Complete preliminary $1,500,000
engineering and
environmental analysis for
SR 14 through Camas and
Washougal] Complete
preliminary engineering,
environmental and
construction for SR 14
through Camas and
Washougal.................
* * * * * *
*
[374 NJ Reconstruct Route 168 from $526,400]
Route 41 to 6th Avenue in
Runnemede.................
* * * * * *
*
382 MI Construct Road Improvements [$2,160,000]
to North Henry St. from $20,446,640
Vermont Ave. to Wilder Rd.
Bay City..................
* * * * * *
*
400 AK [Unalaska, AK Construction $7,500,000
of AMHW ferry terminal
including approach,
staging, and upland
improvements] Road,
sidewalk, and drainage
constuction and
improvements, City of
Unalaska..................
* * * * * *
*
549 FL Construct Flagler Avenue $808,000
Improvements, City of Key
West, Florida.............
* * * * * *
*
744 WA [Widen I-5 through Lewis $3,750,000
County] I-5 Frontage Road
and I-5 Interchange
Improvements in Lewis
County....................
* * * * * *
*
1399 NM [I-40/Munoz Reconstruction $1,200,000
in the City of Gallup] I-
40 Frontage Road
Reconstruction in the City
of Gallup.................
* * * * * *
*
1934 WA I-90 Two-Way Transit-HOV $3,200,000
Project (to include the
Montgomery Outer Loop)....
* * * * * *
*
2406 TX Construct U.S. Business 287 $6,400,000
through the Trinity Uptown
Project from 7th St. NE to
11th St. NE [in Fort
Worth] , or construct SH
199 (Henderson St.)
through the Trinity Uptown
Project between the West
Fork and Clear Fork of the
Trinity River, in Fort
Worth.....................
* * * * * *
*
2827 WA [Construct SR 9 Pedestrian $880,000
Overpass in Arlington]
State Route 9/Crown Ridge
Blvd. Improvements........
* * * * * *
*
3557 WA [Improve Mill Plain Blvd. $1,250,000
between SE 172nd and SE
192nd in Vancouver] Extend
18th Street between 87th
Avenue and NE 192nd Avenue
in Vancouver..............
* * * * * *
*
3730 AL Preliminary Engineering, $50,000,000
Design, ROW Acquisition
and Construction of the I-
85 Extension (to include
the Montgomery Outer Loop)
* * * * * *
*
[4892 SD Construction of 4-lane $27,000,000]
highway on U.S. 79 between
Maverick Junction, and the
Nebraska border...........
* * * * * *
*
4924 SD South Dakota Department of [$3,450,000]
Transportation; for those $6,149,733.82
projects it has identified
as its highest priorities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * * *
SEC. 1934. TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

Transportation Improvements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. State Project Description Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
105. IA [Study of Direct Link to I- $110,000
80, Pella (HP: 54)] Study
of a direct link to 1-80
and Iowa Highway 92, in
proximity to Pella.........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * * *
TITLE III--PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

SEC. 3044. PROJECTS FOR BUS AND BUS-RELATED FACILITIES AND CLEAN FUELS
GRANT PROGRAM.

(a) Projects.--Of the amounts made available to carry out
section 5309(m)(2)(C) of title 49, United States Code, for each
of fiscal years 2006 through 2009, the Secretary shall make
funds available for the following projects in not less than the
amounts specified for the fiscal year:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Description FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Glendale, CA Purchase of CNG $88,833 $92,696 $100,420 $104,283
Buses for Glendale Beeline
Transit System................. * * * * * * *
160. [Kearney, Nebraska--RYDE $384,560 $401,280 $434,720 $451,440
Transit Bus Maintenance and
Storage Facility] Nebraska
Statewide Vehicles, Facilities
and Related Equipment.......... * * * * * * *
422. [C Street Expanded bus $1,150,000 $1,200,000 $1,300,000 $1,350,000
facility and intermodal parking
garage, Anchorage, AK]
Anchorage People Mover transit
needs, Anchorage, AK........... * * * * * * *
586. [Nebraska Department of $458,000 $476,000 $517,000 $549,000
Roads/Bus Maintenance and
Storage Facility for RYDE in
Kearney, NE] Nebraska
Department of Roads--Statewide
Vehicles, Facilities and
Related Equipment..............----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * * *
SEC. 3046. ALLOCATIONS FOR NATIONAL RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS.

(a) In General.-- * * *
(1) Public Transportation National Security
Study.-- * * *

* * * * * * *

(22) Greater new haven transit district [fuel cell-
powered bus] hydrogen-powered transit research.--
$500,000 in fiscal year 2006, $540,000 in fiscal year
2007, $550,000 in fiscal year 2008, and $625,000 in
fiscal year 2009 for the Greater New Haven Transit
District [Fuel Cell-Powered Bus] Hydrogen-Powered
Transit Research.
------

TRANSPORTATION, TREASURY, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, THE JUDICIARY,
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
2006, PUBLIC LAW 109-115

DIVISION A--TRANSPORTATION, TREASURY, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
THE JUDICIARY, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006

TITLE III

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Housing Programs

[FLEXIBLE SUBSIDY FUND]

[(TRANSFER OF FUNDS)]

[From the Rental Housing Assistance Fund, all uncommitted
balances of excess rental charges as of September 30, 2005, and
any collections made during fiscal year 2006 and all subsequent
fiscal years, shall be transferred to the Flexible Subsidy
Fund, as authorized by section 236(g) of the National Housing
Act, as amended.]
------

SAFETEA-LU TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS ACT OF 2008 (PUBLIC LAW 110-244)

TITLE I--HIGHWAY PROVISIONS

SEC. 105. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

(a) * * *
(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(13) in item number 576 by striking the project
description and inserting ``[Design, right-of-way
acquisition, and construction of Nebraska Highway 35
between Norfolk and South Sioux City, including an
interchange at Milepost 1 on I-129]Design, right-of-way
acquisition and construction of Nebraska Highway 35
between Norfolk and South Sioux City and for design,
right-of-way acquisition and construction of an
interchange east of Dakota Avenue on I-129'';

* * * * * * *

(289) in item number 4507 by striking the project
descriptionand inserting ``[Design, right-of-way
acquisition, andconstruction of Highway 35 between
Norfolk and South SiouxCity, including an interchange
at milepost 1 on U.S. I-129]Design, right-of-way
acquisition and construction of Nebraska Highway 35
between Norfolk and south Sioux City and for design,
right-of-way acquisition and construction of an
interchange east of Dakota Avenue on I-129'';
With respect to this bill, it is the opinion of the
Committee that it is necessary to dispense with these
requirements in order to expedite the business of the
Senate. deg.

BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL

PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93-344, AS
AMENDED
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget authority Outlays
-----------------------------------------------------
Committee Amount of Committee Amount of
guidance \1\ bill guidance \1\ bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee spending
guidance to its subcommittees for 2011: Subcommittee on
Transportation and Housing and Urban Development, and
related agencies:
Mandatory............................................. ............ ........... ............ ...........
Discretionary......................................... 67,950 67,900 NA \2\ 135,781
Projection of outlays associated with the recommendation:
2011.................................................. ............ ........... ............ \3\ 48,796
2012.................................................. ............ ........... ............ 36,053
2013.................................................. ............ ........... ............ 15,622
2014.................................................. ............ ........... ............ 7,021
2015 and future years................................. ............ ........... ............ 8,705
Financial assistance to State and local governments for NA 35,670 NA 31,133
2011.....................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There is no section 302(a) allocation to the Committee for fiscal year 2011.
\2\ Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
\3\ Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.NA: Not applicable.

DISCLOSURE OF CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS

The Constitution vests in the Congress the power of the
purse. The Committee believes strongly that Congress should
make the decisions on how to allocate the people's money.
As defined in Rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the
Senate, the term ``congressional directed spending item'' means
a provision or report language included primarily at the
request of a Senator, providing, authorizing, or recommending a
specific amount of discretionary budget authority, credit
authority, or other spending authority for a contract, loan,
loan guarantee, grant, loan authority, or other expenditure
with or to an entity, or targeted to a specific State, locality
or congressional district, other than through a statutory or
administrative, formula-driven, or competitive award process.
For each item, a Member is required to provide a
certification that neither the Member nor the Senator's
immediate family has a pecuniary interest in such
congressionally directed spending item. Such certifications are
available to the public on the website of the Senate Committee
on Appropriations (www.appropriations.Senate.gov/Senators.cfm).
Following is a list of congressionally directed spending
items included in the Senate recommendation discussed in this
report, along with the name of each Senator who submitted a
request to the Committee of jurisdiction for each item so
identified. Neither the Committee recommendation nor this
report contains any limited tax benefits or limited tariff
benefits as defined in rule XLIV.

PRESIDENTIALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency Account Project Amount
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..... Access to Region's Core [ARC] Tunnel, NJ............................ $200,000,000
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..... Austin, MetroRapid BRT, TX.......................................... $24,229,796
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..... Central Corridor Light Rail Transit Project , MN.................... $42,345,000
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..... Dallas, Northwest/Southeast LRT MOS, TX............................. $91,249,717
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..... Dulles Corridor Rail Project, VA.................................... $96,000,000
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..... Fort Collins, Mason Corridor BRT, CO................................ $5,128,989
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..... Honolulu High Capacity Transit Corridor Project, HI................. $55,000,000
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..... Houston, North Corridor LRT, TX..................................... $75,000,000
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..... Houston, Southeast Corridor LRT, TX................................. $75,000,000
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..... King County, West Seattle BRT, WA................................... $21,274,000
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..... New Britain-Hartford Busway, CT..................................... $42,345,000
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..... New York City, Nostrand Ave BRT, NY................................. $26,723,039
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..... New York, Long Island Rail Road East Side Access, NY................ $202,315,000
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..... New York, Second Avenue Subway Phase I, NY.......................... $185,548,262
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..... Oakland, East Bay BRT, CA........................................... $15,000,000
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..... Orlando, Central Florida Commuter Rail Transit--Initial Operating $34,000,000
[FTA]. Settlement, FL.
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..... Perris Valley Line, Riverside, CA................................... $23,490,000
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..... RTD FasTracks East Corridor, Denver, CO............................. $40,000,000
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..... RTD FasTracks Gold Corridor, Denver, CO............................. $40,000,000
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..... RTD FasTracks West Corridor, Denver, CO............................. $37,808,439
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..... Salt Lake City, Mid Jordan LRT, UT.................................. $100,000,000
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..... Salt Lake City, Weber County to Salt Lake City Commuter Rail, UT.... $80,000,000
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..... San Bernardino, E Street Corridor sbX BRT, CA....................... $40,114,830
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..... San Francisco Muni Third St. Light Rail, Central Subway Project, CA. $20,000,000
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..... San Francisco, Van Ness Avenue BRT, CA.............................. $14,115,000
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..... Seattle, University Link LRT Extension, WA.......................... $110,000,000
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..... VelociRFTA Bus Rapid Transit, CO.................................... $24,163,000
[FTA].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS--DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency Account Project Amount Member
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Transportation, Transportation, Planning, and Development I-81 Corridor Coalition, PA..................................... $700,000 Senators Specter, Casey
Office of the Secretary [OST]. [TPR&D].
Department of Transportation, Transportation, Planning, and Development PSRC Sustainable Transportation and Growth Modeling $750,000 Senator Murray
Office of the Secretary [OST]. [TPR&D]. Demonstration Project, King County, WA.
Department of Transportation, Transportation, Planning, and Development International Mobility and Trade Corridor Project, Whatcom $750,000 Senators Murray, Cantwell
Office of the Secretary [OST]. [TPR&D]. County, WA.
Department of Transportation, Transportation, Planning, and Development Aviation Futures Alliance Employment, Export and Industry Growth $500,000 Senator Murray
Office of the Secretary [OST]. [TPR&D]. Analysis, WA.
Department of Transportation, Transportation, Planning, and Development Missouri River Freight Corridor Development Study, MO........... $2,000,000 Senator Bond
Office of the Secretary [OST]. [TPR&D].
Federal Aviation Administration AIP--Airport Improvement Program.............. Air Cargo Apron Expansion, International Intermodal Center, $500,000 Senator Shelby
[FAA]. Huntsville-Madison County Airport, AL.
Federal Aviation Administration AIP--Airport Improvement Program.............. Airport Runway Extension at Middle Georgia Regional Airport, $1,400,000 Senators Isakson, Chambliss
[FAA]. Macon, GA.
Federal Aviation Administration AIP--Airport Improvement Program.............. Augusta Airport Runway Reconstruction and Safety Area $1,000,000 Senators Snowe, Collins
[FAA]. Improvements, Augusta, ME.
Federal Aviation Administration AIP--Airport Improvement Program.............. Devils Lake Regional Airport Authority, ND...................... $1,000,000 Senators Dorgan, Conrad
[FAA].
Federal Aviation Administration AIP--Airport Improvement Program.............. Expansion of Tunica Airport Commercial Terminal, MS............. $1,500,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker
[FAA].
Federal Aviation Administration AIP--Airport Improvement Program.............. Grand Forks International Airport, ND........................... $2,500,000 Senators Dorgan, Conrad
[FAA].
Federal Aviation Administration AIP--Airport Improvement Program.............. Gulfport-Biloxi Regional Airport, Taxiway ``J'' North, MS....... $2,000,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker
[FAA].
Federal Aviation Administration AIP--Airport Improvement Program.............. Jackson-Evers International Airport Essential Airfield $2,000,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker
[FAA]. Improvements, MS.
Federal Aviation Administration AIP--Airport Improvement Program.............. Lanett Municipal Airport Runway Construction, Lanett, AL........ $1,500,000 Senator Shelby
[FAA].
Federal Aviation Administration AIP--Airport Improvement Program.............. Lawrence Smith Memorial Airport, MO............................. $2,000,000 Senator Bond
[FAA].
Federal Aviation Administration AIP--Airport Improvement Program.............. Macon-Fowler Memorial Airport, MO............................... $1,600,000 Senator Bond
[FAA].
Federal Aviation Administration AIP--Airport Improvement Program.............. Memphis Airport Runway Seismic Retrofit, TN..................... $1,000,000 Senator Alexander
[FAA].
Federal Aviation Administration AIP--Airport Improvement Program.............. Metropolitan Topeka Airport Authority Hangar Restoration........ $400,000 Senator Brownback
[FAA].
Federal Aviation Administration AIP--Airport Improvement Program.............. New Richmond Regional Airport, WI............................... $1,000,000 Senator Kohl
[FAA].
Federal Aviation Administration AIP--Airport Improvement Program.............. Provo Municipal Airport Development, Provo City, UT............. $2,000,000 Senators Hatch, Bennett
[FAA].
Federal Aviation Administration AIP--Airport Improvement Program.............. Quincy Airport, IL.............................................. $600,000 Senator Durbin
[FAA].
Federal Aviation Administration AIP--Airport Improvement Program.............. Rapid City Regional Airport Terminal Expansion, SD.............. $500,000 Senator Thune
[FAA].
Federal Aviation Administration AIP--Airport Improvement Program.............. Reno Stead Emergency Operations Center, NV...................... $500,000 Senator Reid
[FAA].
Federal Aviation Administration AIP--Airport Improvement Program.............. Tuscaloosa Regional Airport, Extension of Taxiway B and the $500,000 Senator Sessions
[FAA]. Environmental Assessment for Runway 4-22, Tuscaloosa, AL.
Federal Aviation Administration AIP--Airport Improvement Program.............. Warsaw Municipal Airport, MO.................................... $1,500,000 Senator Bond
[FAA].
Federal Aviation Administration AIP--Airport Improvement Program.............. West Virginia Statewide Airport Activities, West Virginia....... $1,000,000 Senator Rockefeller
[FAA].
Federal Aviation Administration AIP--Airport Improvement Program.............. Wittman Regional Airport, WI.................................... $800,000 Senator Kohl
[FAA].
Federal Aviation Administration F&E--Facilities and Equipment................. Honolulu International Airport Runway Warning Status Lights, HI. $1,000,000 Senator Inouye
[FAA].
Federal Aviation Administration F&E--Facilities and Equipment................. Weather Camera Installation Program, HI......................... $1,000,000 Senator Inouye
[FAA].
Federal Aviation Administration RED--Research, Engineering, and Development... Advanced Materials in Transport Aircraft Structures, University $750,000 Senators Murray, Cantwell
[FAA]. of Washington, WA.
Federal Aviation Administration RED--Research, Engineering, and Development... Alaska Aviation Safety Project, AK.............................. $1,000,000 Senator Murkowski
[FAA].
Federal Aviation Administration RED--Research, Engineering, and Development... Composite Airframe Maintenance and Airworthiness Education and $500,000 Senators Roberts, Brownback
[FAA]. Training, NIAR (WSU), KS.
Federal Aviation Administration RED--Research, Engineering, and Development... NIAR Advanced Materials Research, KS............................ $500,000 Senators Brownback, Roberts
[FAA].
Federal Aviation Administration Terminal Air Traffic Facilities............... Greenwood-Leflore Airport Control Tower, MS..................... $250,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker
[FAA].
Federal Aviation Administration Terminal Air Traffic Facilities............... Lihue Airport Tower Replacement, HI............................. $1,500,000 Senator Inouye
[FAA].
Federal Highway Administration Delta Regional Transportation Development Highway 82 Improvements, MS..................................... $2,000,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker
[FHWA]. Program.
Federal Highway Administration Delta Regional Transportation Development Interchange of Business 67 and Oakgrove, MO..................... $2,000,000 Senator Bond
[FHWA]. Program.
Federal Highway Administration Delta Regional Transportation Development Interstate-55 Interchange, MO................................... $1,000,000 Senator Bond
[FHWA]. Program.
Federal Highway Administration Delta Regional Transportation Development Lake Harbour Drive Extension, MS................................ $1,000,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker
[FHWA]. Program.
Federal Highway Administration Delta Regional Transportation Development US-412 Bypass Center Turn Lane, MO.............................. $1,000,000 Senator Bond
[FHWA]. Program.
Federal Highway Administration Delta Regional Transportation Development Washington Street Bridge, MS.................................... $1,500,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker
[FHWA]. Program.
Federal Highway Administration FB--Ferry Boats and Terminal Facilities....... Keller Ferry Replacement Project, Lincoln and Ferry Counties, WA $2,000,000 Senator Murray
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration FB--Ferry Boats and Terminal Facilities....... Port Lions City Dock and Ferry Terminal Replacement, AK......... $2,000,000 Senator Murkowski
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration FB--Ferry Boats and Terminal Facilities....... Port Townsend Passenger Only Ferry, WA.......................... $1,000,000 Senator Murray
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration FB--Ferry Boats and Terminal Facilities....... Washington State Ferries System Investments, WA................. $2,000,000 Senator Murray
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration FL--Federal Lands (Public Lands Highways)..... BIA 25, Spirit Lake Nation, ND.................................. $1,000,000 Senators Dorgan, Conrad
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration FL--Federal Lands (Public Lands Highways)..... Boulder City Bypass Improvement, NV............................. $1,000,000 Senator Reid
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration FL--Federal Lands (Public Lands Highways)..... BRAC-related improvements in Anne Arundel County, MD............ $2,200,000 Senators Mikulski, Cardin
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration FL--Federal Lands (Public Lands Highways)..... BRAC-related improvements in Montgomery County, MD.............. $2,200,000 Senators Mikulski, Cardin
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration FL--Federal Lands (Public Lands Highways)..... BRAC-related improvements in Prince George's County, MD......... $2,200,000 Senators Mikulski, Cardin
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration FL--Federal Lands (Public Lands Highways)..... BRAC-related improvements, Harford County, MD................... $2,200,000 Senators Mikulski, Cardin
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration FL--Federal Lands (Public Lands Highways)..... Columbia Pike Realignment, Arlington, VA........................ $400,000 Senators Warner, Webb
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration FL--Federal Lands (Public Lands Highways)..... Elwha Valley Road Improvements, WA.............................. $1,300,000 Senator Murray
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration FL--Federal Lands (Public Lands Highways)..... Federal Lands Improvement Project, HI........................... $4,000,000 Senator Inouye
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration FL--Federal Lands (Public Lands Highways)..... FH-24, Banks to Lowman, ID...................................... $1,500,000 Senators Crapo, Risch
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration FL--Federal Lands (Public Lands Highways)..... Ghost Hawk Road Improvements (BIA Route 7 to SD Hwy 18), SD..... $150,000 Senators Thune, Johnson
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration FL--Federal Lands (Public Lands Highways)..... I-15 Corridors of the Future, NV................................ $800,000 Senators Reid, Ensign
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration FL--Federal Lands (Public Lands Highways)..... Improvements and 4 R Work to SD 73 in Jackson County, SD........ $1,000,000 Senator Thune
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration FL--Federal Lands (Public Lands Highways)..... NM 4 Jemez Pueblo Bypass, NM.................................... $1,000,000 Senators Bingaman, Tom Udall
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration FL--Federal Lands (Public Lands Highways)..... Onville Road Upgrades, VA....................................... $400,000 Senators Webb, Warner
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration FL--Federal Lands (Public Lands Highways)..... Pikes Peak-America's Mountain, Colorado Springs, CO............. $500,000 Senator Mark Udall
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration FL--Federal Lands (Public Lands Highways)..... Pyramid Highway Corridor, Sparks, NV............................ $2,000,000 Senators Reid, Ensign
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration FL--Federal Lands (Public Lands Highways)..... SR 160 from I-15 to Pahrump, NV................................. $1,000,000 Senators Ensign, Reid
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration FL--Federal Lands (Public Lands Highways)..... Standing Rock Sioux Tribe--Community Streets Project, Old Bear $750,000 Senator Johnson
[FHWA]. Soldier, SD.
Federal Highway Administration FL--Federal Lands (Public Lands Highways)..... US 50-CO 194 Road Construction, Bent County, CO................. $1,400,000 Senators Bennet, Mark Udall
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration FL--Federal Lands (Public Lands Highways)..... US 15 at Monocacy Boulevard in Frederick County, MD............. $500,000 Senator Mikulski
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration FL--Federal Lands (Public Lands Highways)..... US-20 Sisters Downtown Improvements, Salem, OR.................. $1,500,000 Senators Merkley, Wyden
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration IM--Interstate Maintenance Discretionary...... Augusta North Connections--Exit 113, ME......................... $4,000,000 Senators Collins, Snowe
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration IM--Interstate Maintenance Discretionary...... Columbia River Crossing, OR..................................... $750,000 Senators Wyden, Merkley
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration IM--Interstate Maintenance Discretionary...... Columbia River Crossing, WA..................................... $2,000,000 Senators Murray, Cantwell
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration IM--Interstate Maintenance Discretionary...... East Belgrade I-90 Interchange, MT.............................. $750,000 Senator Baucus, Tester
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration IM--Interstate Maintenance Discretionary...... Exit 120 Reconstruction, NV..................................... $1,500,000 Senator Reid
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration IM--Interstate Maintenance Discretionary...... I-10 Grand Prairie Highway (La Hwy 98) Interchange and Frontage $400,000 Senators Landrieu, Vitter
[FHWA]. Road, LA.
Federal Highway Administration IM--Interstate Maintenance Discretionary...... I-10 Pecue Lane Interchange, Baton Rouge, LA.................... $750,000 Senators Vitter, Landrieu
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration IM--Interstate Maintenance Discretionary...... I-15 Helena Custer Avenue Interchange and Montana Rail Link $1,000,000 Senators Tester, Baucus
[FHWA]. Overpass Structures, MT.
Federal Highway Administration IM--Interstate Maintenance Discretionary...... I-280 Mission Bay Off-Ramp and Improvements, CA................. $1,500,000 Senator Feinstein
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration IM--Interstate Maintenance Discretionary...... I-29/I-229 Bridges and Interstate Mainline Reconstruction from $750,000 Senators Thune, Johnson
[FHWA]. Near Tea Exit to North of 69th Street and East to Louise
Avenue, SD.
Federal Highway Administration IM--Interstate Maintenance Discretionary...... I-5 North Stockton Widening and HOV Lane Project, CA............ $1,000,000 Senator Boxer
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration IM--Interstate Maintenance Discretionary...... I-5 Ridgefield Interchange Replacement Project, City of $1,000,000 Senator Murray
[FHWA]. Ridgefield, WA.
Federal Highway Administration IM--Interstate Maintenance Discretionary...... I-5 West Coast Green Highway, WA................................ $1,000,000 Senators Murray, Cantwell
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration IM--Interstate Maintenance Discretionary...... I-75/ Everglades Project Development and Environment Study, FL.. $1,000,000 Senator Bill Nelson
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration IM--Interstate Maintenance Discretionary...... I-84, West of Wendell to Juniper Rest Area Pavement $1,000,000 Senators Crapo, Risch
[FHWA]. Rehabilitation, ID.
Federal Highway Administration IM--Interstate Maintenance Discretionary...... I-84/184, Caldwell to Glenns Ferry, Pavement Rehabilitation, ID. $750,000 Senators Crapo, Risch
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration IM--Interstate Maintenance Discretionary...... I-85 Widening in Davidson and Rowan Counties, NC................ $1,000,000 Senator Burr
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration IM--Interstate Maintenance Discretionary...... I-95 Pawtucket River Bridge Replacement, RI..................... $3,000,000 Senators Reed, Whitehouse
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration IM--Interstate Maintenance Discretionary...... I-95/SR1 Interchange Project, DE................................ $1,000,000 Senators Carper, Kaufman
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration IM--Interstate Maintenance Discretionary...... I-95/US Hwy. 301 Interchange Improvement Project, SC............ $500,000 Senator Graham
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration IM--Interstate Maintenance Discretionary...... Interchange at State Hwy. 89 and I-40 in Lonoke, AR............. $1,000,000 Senators Pryor, Lincoln
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration IM--Interstate Maintenance Discretionary...... Interstate 280 Interchange Improvements, Harrison, NJ........... $1,500,000 Senators Lautenberg,
[FHWA]. Menendez
Federal Highway Administration IM--Interstate Maintenance Discretionary...... Interstate 430/630--Interchange Modification, AR................ $3,000,000 Senators Pryor, Lincoln
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration IM--Interstate Maintenance Discretionary...... Interstate 69/Great River Bridge: Highway 65-MS Highway 1, AR... $1,000,000 Senators Pryor, Lincoln
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration IM--Interstate Maintenance Discretionary...... Interstate 74 Corridor Project, Bettendorf, IA.................. $3,000,000 Senators Grassley, Harkin
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration IM--Interstate Maintenance Discretionary...... Interstate 81 Improvements in Washington County, MD............. $500,000 Senator Cardin
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration IM--Interstate Maintenance Discretionary...... Interstate-95/Fairfax County Parkway Interchange at Newington $1,000,000 Senators Warner, Webb
[FHWA]. Road, VA.
Federal Highway Administration IM--Interstate Maintenance Discretionary...... Kapolei Interchange Complex Phase 2, HI......................... $1,500,000 Senator Inouye
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration IM--Interstate Maintenance Discretionary...... Starr Road Interchange, NV...................................... $2,000,000 Senator Reid
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration IM--Interstate Maintenance Discretionary...... US 84, El Camino East/West Corridor, AL......................... $1,000,000 Senator Sessions
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Burlington Waterfront North Improvemets, VT..................... $500,000 Senator Leahy
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ 7th Street Gateway Enhancement Project, NJ...................... $500,000 Senators Menendez,
[FHWA]. Lautenberg
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ 9th Street Safety Improvements Project, Pierce County, WA....... $700,000 Senator Murray
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ A1A/State Road 200, FL.......................................... $750,000 Senator Bill Nelson
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Access Road for Hospital in St. Bernard Parish, LA.............. $2,500,000 Senator Landrieu
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Airport Road Repair and Resurface and Construction of Western $800,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker
[FHWA]. Entrance to Bryan Field, Starksville, MS.
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Ann Arbor-Detroit Regional Rail Project, MI..................... $2,000,000 Senators Stabenow, Levin
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Appalachian Development Highway System Corridor H, WV........... $2,000,000 Senator Rockefeller
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Ash Avenue Extension, Macon County, IL.......................... $400,000 Senator Durbin
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Assembly Square Station, MA..................................... $860,000 Senator Kerry
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Autumn Street Parkway, San Jose, CA............................. $800,000 Senator Feinstein
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Bench Boulevard Improvements, Billings, MT...................... $1,000,000 Senators Tester, Baucus
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Bloomfield Six Points Intersection Streetscape, Bloomfield, NJ.. $500,000 Senators Lautenberg,
[FHWA]. Menendez
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Brady/Harrison Sustainability Corridor, Davenport, IA........... $600,000 Senator Harkin
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Buffalo Niagara Medical Campus Streetscape and Infrastructure $1,000,000 Senator Schumer
[FHWA]. Improvements, NY.
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Carson City Freeway Phase II, NV................................ $500,000 Senators Reid, Ensign
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Center at Horseheads Access Project, Chemung County, NY......... $750,000 Senator Schumer
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Central Business District Streetscape, City of Milan, MO........ $800,000 Senator Bond
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ City of Detroit Dequindre Cut Greenway, Phase II, MI............ $1,000,000 Senators Levin, Stabenow
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ City of Harlingen North Rail Relocation, TX..................... $1,000,000 Senator Hutchison
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ City of Monroe Fourth Street Underpass Project, Monroe, LA...... $800,000 Senators Landrieu, Vitter
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Congress Street Bridge, Bridgeport, CT.......................... $1,200,000 Senators Dodd, Lieberman
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ ConnectVermont, VT.............................................. $1,000,000 Senator Leahy
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Crosby Street Reconstruction Project, Hornell, NY............... $500,000 Senators Schumer, Gillibrand
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Defense Facility Access Road, West Point, MS.................... $750,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Denali Commission Transportation Program, AK.................... $800,000 Senator Begich
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Denali Commission, AK only for the Anaktuvuk Pass Bridge $1,000,000 Senators Murkowski, Begich
[FHWA]. Replacement, Scammon Bay Community Streets, Alakanuk Community
Streets and King Salmon & Naknek School Bus Road, AK.
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Division Street Corridor Improvements, Spokane, WA.............. $1,000,000 Senator Murray
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Downtown Farmingdale Revitalization Master Plan, NY............. $100,000 Senator Schumer
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Downtown Infrastructure Project, Somersworth, NH................ $300,000 Senator Shaheen
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Downtown Streetscape, City of Custer, SD........................ $400,000 Senator Johnson
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Downtown Streetscape, Yankton, SD............................... $300,000 Senator Johnson
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ East Brandon By-Pass, Brandon, MS............................... $2,500,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ East Metropolitan Corridor, Brandon, MS......................... $2,500,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ East Mississippi Intermodal Rail Corridor, MS................... $1,000,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Embarcadero Goods Movement Project, Oakland, CA................. $2,000,000 Senator Boxer
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Fairbanks Rail Line Relocation, AK.............................. $1,000,000 Senator Murkowski
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Faulkner Lake Road Improvements, AR............................. $500,000 Senators Pryor, Lincoln
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Fort Campbell KY-911 Road Widening Project from US-41A to Oak $3,000,000 Senators McConnell, Bunning
[FHWA]. Grove, Christian County, KY.
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Fort Knox Access Road, Hardin County, KY........................ $1,600,000 Senators McConnell, Bunning
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Fortification Street Improvements, Jackson, MS.................. $2,500,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Freight Rail Modernization: Improving the Freight Rail and $500,000 Senator Gillibrand
[FHWA]. Transfer Facility at the Hunts Point Terminal Produce Market,
South Bronx, NY.
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Grace Avenue Safety Improvements, City of Battle Ground, WA..... $1,000,000 Senators Murray, Cantwell
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Grand Technology Gateway--Phase 1, West Des Moines, IA.......... $500,000 Senator Harkin
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Greensboro Downtown Greenway, Greensboro, NC.................... $300,000 Senator Hagan
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Hattiesburg Longleaf Trace Rails To Trails, Hattiesburg, MS..... $500,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Hendersonville Area Infrastructure Improvements, Hendersonville, $250,000 Senators Hagan
[FHWA]. NC.
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ High Street/Route 89 Reconstruction, Caribou, ME................ $1,000,000 Senator Collins
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Highway 112 Improvement, AR..................................... $500,000 Senators Pryor, Lincoln
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Highway 14 Project, Owatonna to Dodge Center, MN................ $250,000 Senators Klobuchar, Franken
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Highway 226: Highway 67 to Highway 49, Little Rock, AR.......... $1,000,000 Senators Pryor, Lincoln
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Highway 47 Bridge Replacement, MO............................... $2,000,000 Senator Bond
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Highway 6, Batesville, MS....................................... $500,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Highway 7 Sidewalk Infill, City of Blue Springs, MO............. $800,000 Senator Bond
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Highway 93 and Kalispell Bypass, MT............................. $600,000 Senator Baucus
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Highway 965 Project, Phase 2, North Liberty, IA................. $500,000 Senators Harkin, Grassley
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Highway 98 Access Improvements, Lamar County, MS................ $1,750,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Holly Springs Road, DeSoto County, MS........................... $2,000,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Horsehoe Bend Parkway Extension, MO............................. $2,000,000 Senator Bond
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ I-15 Corridor: Devore Interchange Improvements, San Bernardino, $1,500,000 Senators Boxer, Feinstein
[FHWA]. CA.
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ I-15 MP 8, Bicycle/Pedestrian Passageway, City of St. George, UT $500,000 Senators Bennett, Hatch
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ I-40 Realignment Ingress/Egress Project, Oklahoma City, OK...... $750,000 Senator Inhofe
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ I-49 between I-40 and US Hwy. 71 South, Little Rock, AR......... $2,500,000 Senators Pryor, Lincoln
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Icicle Station--Phase II, City of Leavenworth, WA............... $900,000 Senator Murray
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Illinois pedestrian and bicycling road and trail improvements $2,500,000 Senator Durbin
[FHWA]. and enhancements, IL.
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Indian River Inlet Bridge, Dover, DE............................ $800,000 Senators Carper, Kaufman
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Intallation of the Sterling Highway/Birch Street Traffic Signal $400,000 Senator Begich
[FHWA]. Light, Soldatna, AK.
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Interchange CSAH7/TH23, Lyon County, MN......................... $1,000,000 Senators Klobuchar, Franken
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Interstate 44 and Range Line Road Interchange, MO............... $1,000,000 Senator Bond
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Interstate 44 Crossroads Interchange Study, City of Joplin, MO.. $250,000 Senator Bond
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Interstate 64 and 22nd St. Interchange Reconfiguration, MO...... $1,500,000 Senator Bond
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Iowa Highway 14-57 Complete Streets Corridor Improvements, $750,000 Senators Grassley, Harkin
[FHWA]. Parkersburg, IA.
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Jordan Valley Gateway Plaza Streetscape, City of Springfield, MO $600,000 Senator Bond
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Khrushchev in Iowa Trail, Guthrie County, IA.................... $400,000 Senators Harkin, Grassley
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ LA 1 Project Phase II Design-Golden Meadow, Leeville, LA........ $500,000 Senators Vitter, Landrieu
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Lafayette Interchange, MO....................................... $1,500,000 Senator Bond
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Lake St. Clair Shoreline Trail, Harrison Township, MI........... $1,000,000 Senators Levin, Stabenow
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Lewis and Clark Legacy Trail, ND................................ $600,000 Senators Dorgan, Conrad
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Lone Elm Road Improvements, City of Olathe, KS.................. $750,000 Senators Brownback, Roberts
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Lower Hill Infrastructure Project, PA........................... $600,000 Senators Specter, Casey
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Lower Main Street Infrastructure Project, Claremont, NH......... $500,000 Senator Shaheen
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Maritime Fire and Safety Administration, WA..................... $500,000 Senator Murray
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Martin Road Expansion from Zierdt Road West to Laracy Drive, AL. $10,000,000 Senator Shelby
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ MD 404 improvements in Caroline, Talbot and Queen Anne's $600,000 Senator Mikulski
[FHWA]. Counties, MD.
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Memorial Boulevard Improvements, Picayune, MS................... $1,450,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ MLK Blvd Grade Separation Safety Improvements, Yakama, WA....... $1,300,000 Senator Murray
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ MO-740--East Columbia Transportation Extension, MO.............. $1,500,000 Senator Bond
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Monongalia Health Systems, Morgantown, WV....................... $1,000,000 Senator Rockefeller
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Monte Vista Avenue/Union Pacific Railroad Grade Separation $700,000 Senator Boxer
[FHWA]. Project, CA.
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Naugatuck River Greenway/Waterbury Segment, CT.................. $750,000 Senators Lieberman, Dodd
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ NC 12, Dare County, NC.......................................... $750,000 Senators Hagan, Burr
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Nevada Pacific Parkway Extension, Fernley, NV................... $500,000 Senators Reid, Ensign
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ New Bedford Fast Track Freight Bridges, MA...................... $1,000,000 Senator Kerry
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ New York Ave. from 32nd to 48th St, Union City, NJ.............. $500,000 Senators Menendez,
[FHWA]. Lautenberg
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ New York State Route 12, Chenango County, NY.................... $450,000 Senator Schumer
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Newport Cliff Walk Restoration, RI.............................. $1,000,000 Senators Reed, Whitehouse
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ North 5th Street Arterial, NV................................... $2,000,000 Senator Reid
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ North Manhattan Avenue Widening, Manhattan, KS.................. $750,000 Senator Brownback
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Northern Avenue Bridge Rehabilitation, Boston, MA............... $1,000,000 Senator Kerry
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Northern Nevada Traffic Management, NV.......................... $500,000 Senator Reid
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Northside Drive Corridor, Clinton, MS........................... $2,500,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Ogdensburg-Prescott International Bridge Rehabilitation Project, $750,000 Senators Schumer, Gillibrand
[FHWA]. NY.
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Paducah Waterfront Development Project, KY...................... $1,000,000 Senator McConnell
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Port of Anchorage Intermodal Expansion Project, AK.............. $1,000,000 Senator Murkowski
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Port of Pasco Rail Infrastructure Construction, WA.............. $1,400,000 Senator Murray
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Quincy Center Redevelopment, Quincy, MA......................... $400,000 Senator Kerry
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Rail and Infrastructure Improvements in Northern Maine.......... $3,000,000 Senator Collins
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Rail Infrastructure Investments, Port of Grays Harbor, WA....... $2,000,000 Senator Murray
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Rail Infrastructure Investments, Port of Moses Lake, WA......... $2,000,000 Senator Murray
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Raleigh Street Extension, Martinsburg, WV....................... $1,000,000 Senator Rockefeller
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Reconstruction of Hunter Street Bridge, County of Gloucester, NJ $1,000,000 Senators Menendez,
[FHWA]. Lautenberg
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Red Mountain Transportation Improvements, Benton County, WA..... $1,000,000 Senator Murray
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Regional Planning Commission, St. Tammany Parish LA 21 Widening, $1,300,000 Senator Landrieu
[FHWA]. New Orleans, LA.
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Rehabilitation of the Ashford Avenue Bridge, Westchester County, $750,000 Senator Schumer
[FHWA]. NY.
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Rickenbacker Pickaway East-West Connector, OH................... $500,000 Senators Voinovich, Sherrod
[FHWA]. Brown
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Riverside Freeway (State Route 91) Congestion Relief Project, $1,000,000 Senator Feinstein
[FHWA]. Orange County, CA.
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Route 1/Route 123 Interchange Improvements, VA.................. $400,000 Senators Warner, Webb
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Route 160 Bridge over I-44, MO.................................. $1,000,000 Senator Bond
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Route 54 Corridor, MO........................................... $1,000,000 Senator Bond
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Sellwood Bridge Replacement Project, OR......................... $500,000 Senators Wyden, Merkley
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Shelby Intermodal Hub, Shelby, MT............................... $2,000,000 Senators Tester, Baucus
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ South Dakota Highway 100 right-of-way and construction Sioux $1,200,000 Senator Johnson
[FHWA]. Falls, SD.
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Southeast Connector, Des Moines, IA............................. $2,000,000 Senator Harkin
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Southpark Bridge Replacement Project, King County, WA........... $3,000,000 Senator Murray
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Southridge Transportation Improvements, City of Kennewick, WA... $500,000 Senator Murray
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Sparks Rail Yard Relocation Study, City of Sparks, NV........... $200,000 Senator Reid
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ SR 6247 Section 000 Valley View Business Park Access Road, $750,000 Senators Casey, Specter
[FHWA]. Lackawanna County, PA.
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ SR24, Love Creek to SR1, Dover, DE.............................. $500,000 Senators Carper, Kaufman
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ SR-522 Corridor Improvements, City of Kenmore, WA............... $600,000 Senator Murray
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ St. John's Heritage Parkway Interchanges, FL.................... $1,500,000 Senator Bill Nelson
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Stamford Pedestrian Safety Improvements, CT..................... $500,000 Senators Dodd, Lieberman
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Stamford Street Underpass Reconstruction, Stamford, CT.......... $1,000,000 Senators Lieberman, Dodd
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ State Route 19 from State Route 492 to Philadelphia, MS......... $1,750,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ State Route 794 Realignment, Springfield, OH.................... $750,000 Senators Sherrod Brown,
[FHWA]. Voinovich
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Stonewall Jackson State Park, WV................................ $500,000 Senator Rockefeller
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Sunport Boulevard Extension, Bernalillo County, NM.............. $1,700,000 Senators Bingaman, Udall
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ TH 5/Oak Avenue Pedestrian Underpass, City of Waconia, MN....... $400,000 Senator Klobuchar
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ TH 610 from CSAH 81 to I-94, MN................................. $250,000 Senators Klobuchar, Franken
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Town of Bristol Road and Drainage Improvements, RI.............. $350,000 Senators Reed, Whitehouse
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Transportation Infrastructure to serve the Kansas Logistics $500,000 Senator Roberts
[FHWA]. Park, Newton, KS.
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Trunk Highway 13 & County State Aid Highway 5 Interchange, MN... $250,000 Senators Klobuchar, Franken
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ US 113 improvements in Worcester County, MD..................... $600,000 Senators Mikulski, Cardin
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ US 12 Safety Improvements, Walla Walla County, WA............... $1,000,000 Senator Murray
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ US 2 and Sultan Basin Road Safety Improvements, Sultan, WA...... $1,000,000 Senator Murray
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ US 287 Business Route, Fort Worth, TX........................... $3,500,000 Senator Hutchison
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ US Route 322 Corridor Safety Improvements, PA................... $500,000 Senators Specter, Casey
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ US Route 422/Sanatoga Interchange, PA........................... $700,000 Senators Specter, Casey
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Umatilla Depot Rail Switches Replacement Project, Umatilla $400,000 Senators Wyden, Merkley
[FHWA]. County, OR.
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Urban Collector Road Project, Jackson County, MS................ $2,000,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ US 52 Interchange & Overpass, relocate Goodhue County 24 at $400,000 Senators Franken, Klobuchar
[FHWA]. Cannon Falls, MN.
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ US 93 Corridor, MT.............................................. $1,000,000 Senators Tester, Baucus
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ US Highway 30, Whiteside County, IL............................. $500,000 Senator Durbin
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ US Highway 63/Future Interstate 555 Interchange Improvements, $2,000,000 Senators Pryor, Lincoln
[FHWA]. Little Rock, AR.
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Vancouver Waterfront Access Improvement Project, WA............. $2,000,000 Senators Murray, Cantwell
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Vermont Downtown Streetscape and Sidewalk Improvements in $3,250,000 Senator Leahy
[FHWA]. Johnson, Ludlow, Northfield, Springfield, and Townshend, VT.
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Village West Access Improvements, KS............................ $400,000 Senators Brownback, Roberts
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Warrensville/Van Aken Transit Oriented Development, Shaker $500,000 Senators Voinovich, Sherrod
[FHWA]. Heights, OH. Brown
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ West College Street Improvements, Bozeman, MT................... $750,000 Senators Tester, Baucus
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ West Virginia Route 10, Logan County, WV........................ $1,500,000 Senator Rockefeller
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Investments............ Wilmington to Newark Commuter Rail Improvement Program, DE...... $1,300,000 Senators Carper, Kaufman
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration TCSP--Transportation & Community & System Alice's Road/105th Street Interchange and Connecting Roads, $900,000 Senators Grassley, Harkin
[FHWA]. Preservation. Waukee, IA.
Federal Highway Administration TCSP--Transportation & Community & System Bellingham Waterfront Transportation Improvements, Bellingham, $700,000 Senator Murray
[FHWA]. Preservation. WA.
Federal Highway Administration TCSP--Transportation & Community & System Brookstown Redevelopment Project, Winston-Salem, NC............. $1,000,000 Senators Burr, Hagan
[FHWA]. Preservation.
Federal Highway Administration TCSP--Transportation & Community & System Centennial Trail Expansion, Snohomish County, WA................ $375,000 Senator Murray
[FHWA]. Preservation.
Federal Highway Administration TCSP--Transportation & Community & System Center Point Greenway and Pedestrian Walkway Project, AL........ $500,000 Senator Sessions
[FHWA]. Preservation.
Federal Highway Administration TCSP--Transportation & Community & System Cregg Lane/Wyoming Street Connector, MT......................... $1,825,000 Senators Baucus, Tester
[FHWA]. Preservation.
Federal Highway Administration TCSP--Transportation & Community & System Cushman Trail Project, Pierce County, WA........................ $525,000 Senator Murray
[FHWA]. Preservation.
Federal Highway Administration TCSP--Transportation & Community & System Denver Bike Sharing, Denver, CO................................. $500,000 Senator Mark Udall
[FHWA]. Preservation.
Federal Highway Administration TCSP--Transportation & Community & System Downtown Streetscape Improvements, City of Pine Bluff, AR....... $1,100,000 Senators Pryor, Lincoln
[FHWA]. Preservation.
Federal Highway Administration TCSP--Transportation & Community & System East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana Downtown Greenway, LA........ $250,000 Senator Landrieu
[FHWA]. Preservation.
Federal Highway Administration TCSP--Transportation & Community & System Environmental Improvement and Cost Savings Pavement Study, SC... $350,000 Senator Graham
[FHWA]. Preservation.
Federal Highway Administration TCSP--Transportation & Community & System Essex County Riverfront Park, Newark, NJ........................ $1,000,000 Senator Menendez
[FHWA]. Preservation.
Federal Highway Administration TCSP--Transportation & Community & System Fountain Avenue Rehabilitation and Veteran's Bridge $350,000 Senator Sherrod Brown
[FHWA]. Preservation. Connectivity, Springfield, OH.
Federal Highway Administration TCSP--Transportation & Community & System Highway 212 Expansion--Carver County, MN........................ $400,000 Senators Franken, Klobuchar
[FHWA]. Preservation.
Federal Highway Administration TCSP--Transportation & Community & System I-49 North, LA.................................................. $1,000,000 Senators Vitter, Landrieu
[FHWA]. Preservation.
Federal Highway Administration TCSP--Transportation & Community & System I-55 Business Loop to Memorial Hospital, City of Lincoln, IL.... $2,000,000 Senator Durbin
[FHWA]. Preservation.
Federal Highway Administration TCSP--Transportation & Community & System John N. Hardee Expressway, SC................................... $1,000,000 Senator Graham
[FHWA]. Preservation.
Federal Highway Administration TCSP--Transportation & Community & System Loop 82 Railroad Overpass, San Marcos, TX....................... $1,500,000 Senators Hutchison, Cornyn
[FHWA]. Preservation.
Federal Highway Administration TCSP--Transportation & Community & System Medford Safe Sidewalks, Medford, OR............................. $300,000 Senators Wyden, Merkley
[FHWA]. Preservation.
Federal Highway Administration TCSP--Transportation & Community & System Midtown Revitalization Transportation Infrastructure, Rochester, $2,000,000 Senators Schumer, Gillibrand
[FHWA]. Preservation. NY.
Federal Highway Administration TCSP--Transportation & Community & System Piedmont Triad Research Park Transportation Improvements, NC.... $500,000 Senator Burr
[FHWA]. Preservation.
Federal Highway Administration TCSP--Transportation & Community & System Qwuloolt Access Trail Project, Marysville, WA................... $500,000 Senator Murray
[FHWA]. Preservation.
Federal Highway Administration TCSP--Transportation & Community & System Reconstruction of the Hudson River Waterfront Walkway, Hoboken, $1,000,000 Senators Lautenberg,
[FHWA]. Preservation. NJ. Menendez
Federal Highway Administration TCSP--Transportation & Community & System Rivers Edge Roadway Infrastructure and Streetscape Initiative, $1,300,000 Senators Levin, Stabenow
[FHWA]. Preservation. MI.
Federal Highway Administration TCSP--Transportation & Community & System Saddle Road Improvement Project, HI............................. $2,000,000 Senator Inouye
[FHWA]. Preservation.
Federal Highway Administration TCSP--Transportation & Community & System Shoulder Widening and Paving of SC Highway 22, SC............... $1,000,000 Senator Graham
[FHWA]. Preservation.
Federal Highway Administration TCSP--Transportation & Community & System Southern Nevada Beltway Interchanges, NV........................ $1,000,000 Senators Ensign, Reid
[FHWA]. Preservation.
Federal Highway Administration TCSP--Transportation & Community & System State Road 133 from Albany to Valdosta, GA...................... $1,000,000 Senator Chambliss
[FHWA]. Preservation.
Federal Highway Administration TCSP--Transportation & Community & System SW 27th Street--Strander Connection Project, Renton, WA......... $1,000,000 Senator Murray
[FHWA]. Preservation.
Federal Highway Administration TCSP--Transportation & Community & System Tacoma Downtown Streetscape Improvements, Tacoma, WA............ $500,000 Senators Murray, Cantwell
[FHWA]. Preservation.
Federal Highway Administration TCSP--Transportation & Community & System US Highway 97 & J Street Project, Madres, OR.................... $750,000 Senators Wyden, Merkley
[FHWA]. Preservation.
Federal Highway Administration TCSP--Transportation & Community & System West Ninth Avenue Extension and Overpass Construction, Belton, $750,000 Senator Cornyn
[FHWA]. Preservation. TX.
Federal Railroad Administration Research and Development...................... San Diego--Positive Train Control, CA........................... $1,000,000 Senator Feinstein
[FRA].
Federal Railroad Administration Research and Development...................... High-Speed Rail from Orlando to Miami, FL....................... $500,000 Senator Bill Nelson
(FRA).
Federal Railroad Administration Research and Development...................... PEERS Rail-Grade Crossing Safety, Statewide, IL................. $500,000 Senator Durbin
[FRA].
Federal Railroad Administration Research and Development...................... RR Whistle Free Zone Project, Goodview and Minnesota City, MN... $400,000 Senators Klobuchar, Franken
[FRA].
Federal Railroad Administration Research and Development...................... Metrolink--Positive Train Control, CA........................... $1,000,000 Senators Feinstein, Boxer
[FRA].
Federal Transit Administration Alternatives Analysis......................... Innovation in Transportation Infrastructure Systems Planning, $450,000 Senator Schumer
[FTA]. College of Staten Island, NY.
Federal Transit Administration Alternatives Analysis......................... JTA Commuter Rail Alternative Analysis, Jacksonville, FL........ $1,200,000 Senator Bill Nelson
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Alternatives Analysis......................... Las Cruces to El Paso Transportation Corridor, NM............... $1,000,000 Senators Tom Udall, Bingaman
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Alternatives Analysis......................... Mountain View Corridor Transit, UT.............................. $1,000,000 Senators Bennet, Hatch
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Alternatives Analysis......................... North Main Line Rehabilitation Project, Chicago Transit $500,000 Senator Burris, Durbin
[FTA]. Authority, IL.
Federal Transit Administration Alternatives Analysis......................... Tier 2 Environmental Impact Statement/Preliminary Engineering, $1,000,000 Senators Chambliss, Isaakson
[FTA]. Atlanta, GA.
Federal Transit Administration Bus and Bus Facilities........................ 1st Congressional District Buses and Bus Facilities, MI......... $1,000,000 Senators Levin, Stabenow
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus and Bus Facilities........................ ACE Boulder Highway System, NV.................................. $1,000,000 Senator Reid
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus and Bus Facilities........................ Ben Franklin Transit Vehicle Replacements, Benton and Franklin $1,000,000 Senator Murray
[FTA]. Counties, WA.
Federal Transit Administration Bus and Bus Facilities........................ Brookings Area Transit Authority Bus Storage and Transit $1,000,000 Senator Johnson
[FTA]. Operations Facility, SD.
Federal Transit Administration Bus and Bus Facilities........................ Bus and Bus Facilities, Santa Fe, NM............................ $500,000 Senators Bingaman, Tom Udall
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus and Bus Facilities........................ Bus and Bus Facilities, UT...................................... $8,000,000 Senators Bennett, Hatch
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus and Bus Facilities........................ Bus Maintenance Facility, Sacramento, CA........................ $1,800,000 Senator Boxer
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus and Bus Facilities........................ Bus Purchases, DE............................................... $1,000,000 Senator Carper
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus and Bus Facilities........................ Bus Replacement, Kansas City, MO................................ $1,000,000 Senator Bond
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus and Bus Facilities........................ Bus Turnouts for Downtown Las Vegas Roads, NV................... $750,000 Senator Reid
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus and Bus Facilities........................ Cedar Avenue Bus Rapid Transitway, MN........................... $500,000 Senators Klobuchar, Franken
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus and Bus Facilities........................ City of Janesville Transit Services Center, WI.................. $3,065,000 Senator Kohl
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus and Bus Facilities........................ Clallam Transit Maintenance Facility Improvements, Clallam $200,000 Senator Murray
[FTA]. County, WA.
Federal Transit Administration Bus and Bus Facilities........................ Coach Bus for Commuter Campus, Campbell County, KY.............. $690,000 Senator Bunning
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus and Bus Facilities........................ Community Transit Vehicle Replacements, Snohomish County, WA.... $1,000,000 Senator Murray
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus and Bus Facilities........................ C-TRAN 4th Plain BRT, Clark County, WA.......................... $1,500,000 Senator Murray
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus and Bus Facilities........................ Deerfield Valley Transit Association Facilities, Buses, and $2,500,000 Senator Leahy
[FTA]. Equipment, VT.
Federal Transit Administration Bus and Bus Facilities........................ Dubuque Intermodal Facility, IA................................. $400,000 Senator Harkin
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus and Bus Facilities........................ Everett Transit Vehicle Replacements, Snohomish County, WA...... $1,000,000 Senator Murray
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus and Bus Facilities........................ Glassboro/Rowan Local Transit System, NJ........................ $500,000 Senators Menendez,
[FTA]. Lautenberg
Federal Transit Administration Bus and Bus Facilities........................ Grant County Transit Vehicle Replacement and Facilities $1,000,000 Senator Murray
[FTA]. Construction, Grant County, WA.
Federal Transit Administration Bus and Bus Facilities........................ Harrison County Multimodal Project, MS.......................... $2,250,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus and Bus Facilities........................ Idaho Transit Coalition Bus and Bus Facilities, ID.............. $1,500,000 Senators Crapo, Risch
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus and Bus Facilities........................ Illinois Bus and Bus Facilities, IL............................. $4,000,000 Senator Durbin
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus and Bus Facilities........................ Innovation Station, East Lansing, MI............................ $2,500,000 Senators Stabenow, Levin
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus and Bus Facilities........................ Intercity Transit Vehicle Replacements, Thurston County, WA..... $1,000,000 Senator Murray
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus and Bus Facilities........................ JATRAN Fleet Replacement and Bus Shelters, MS................... $600,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus and Bus Facilities........................ Jefferson Transit Vehicle Replacements, Jefferson County, WA.... $400,000 Senator Murray
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus and Bus Facilities........................ Kitsap County Vehicle Replacements, WA.......................... $500,000 Senator Murray
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus and Bus Facilities........................ Link Transit Vehicle Replacements, Chelan and Douglas Counties, $1,000,000 Senator Murray
[FTA]. WA.
Federal Transit Administration Bus and Bus Facilities........................ Longview Transit Vehicle Replacements, Clark County, WA......... $650,000 Senator Murray
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus and Bus Facilities........................ Maine Statewide Bus Replacement, ME............................. $1,000,000 Senators Snowe, Collins
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus and Bus Facilities........................ MARTA Bus, Bus Facilities and Security Improvements, GA......... $2,000,000 Senator Isakson
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus and Bus Facilities........................ Metro Area Transit--Bus and Bus Facilities, Omaha, NE........... $1,500,000 Senator Ben Nelson
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus and Bus Facilities........................ Moultrie Intermodal Facility, City of Moultrie, GA.............. $400,000 Senator Chambliss
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus and Bus Facilities........................ Naugatuck Transportation Facility, CT........................... $500,000 Senators Lieberman, Dodd
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus and Bus Facilities........................ North Central Regional Transit District Pueblo Buses, NM........ $800,000 Senators Tom Udall, Bingaman
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus and Bus Facilities........................ North Dakota Statewide Capital Transit, ND...................... $1,500,000 Senators Dorgan, Conrad
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus and Bus Facilities........................ Oxford-University Transit System Bus Purchase, MS............... $400,000 Senator Cochran, Wicker
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus and Bus Facilities........................ Pierce Transit Clean-Fuel Bus Replacements, Pierce County, WA... $1,000,000 Senator Murray
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus and Bus Facilities........................ Reconstruction of the Mayfield Road Rapid Transit Station and $2,000,000 Senators Voinovich, Sherrod
[FTA]. Bridge, OH. Brown
Federal Transit Administration Bus and Bus Facilities........................ Replacement Buses at Transit Authority of Northern Kentucky $1,000,000 Senator Bunning
[FTA]. [TANK], Kenton County, KY.
Federal Transit Administration Bus and Bus Facilities........................ Replacement of the Fixed Route Fleet, Springfield, MO........... $1,000,000 Senator Bond
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus and Bus Facilities........................ Rural Bus Program for Hawaii, Maui, and Kauai, HI............... $3,500,000 Senator Inouye
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus and Bus Facilities........................ Senior Transportation Program, AL............................... $500,000 Senator Shelby
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus and Bus Facilities........................ Skagit Transit Vehicle Replacements, Skagit County, WA.......... $500,000 Senator Murray
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus and Bus Facilities........................ South Burlington Transit Center, VT............................. $1,000,000 Senator Leahy
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus and Bus Facilities........................ Southest Missouri Transportation Service Facility, MO........... $800,000 Senator Bond
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus and Bus Facilities........................ Spokane Transit paratransit Vehicles, Spokane County, WA........ $1,000,000 Senator Murray
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus and Bus Facilities........................ Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities Fund, IA....................... $2,500,000 Senators Harkin, Grassley
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus and Bus Facilities........................ Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities, MO............................ $4,000,000 Senator Bond
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus and Bus Facilities........................ Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities, NM............................ $1,000,000 Senators Bingaman, Tom Udall
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus and Bus Facilities........................ Statewide Bus Purchases and Facility Improvements, CO........... $2,500,000 Senators Bennet, Mark Udall
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus and Bus Facilities........................ Statler Intermodal Facility, Buffalo, Erie County, NY........... $3,000,000 Senators Schumer, Gillibrand
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus and Bus Facilities........................ Tacoma Intermodal Transit Center, Tacoma, WA.................... $1,000,000 Senator Murray
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus and Bus Facilities........................ Tennessee Statewide Bus Program, TN............................. $12,000,000 Senator Alexander
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus and Bus Facilities........................ TRANSPO Paratransit Replacement Vehicles, IN.................... $352,000 Senator Lugar
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus and Bus Facilities........................ Twin Transit Vehicle Replacements, Lewis County, WA............. $500,000 Senator Murray
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus and Bus Facilities........................ Washoe County Bus Facilities, NV................................ $500,000 Senator Reid
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus and Bus Facilities........................ White Earth Tribal Transit Service Bus Garage Facility, MN...... $500,000 Senators Franken, Klobuchar
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..................... Access to Region's Core [ARC] Tunnel, NJ........................ $200,000,000 Senators Lautenberg,
[FTA]. Menendez
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..................... Austin, MetroRapid BRT, TX...................................... $24,229,796 Senators Hutchison, Cornyn
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..................... Baltimore Red Line, MD.......................................... $1,500,000 Senators Cardin, Mikulski
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..................... Central Corridor Light Rail Transit Project , MN................ $42,345,000 Senators Franken, Klobuchar
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..................... Chicago Tansit Authority--Green Line--South Branches Project, IL $2,200,000 Senator Durbin
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..................... City of Charlotte, Charlotte Area Transit System's Blue Line $3,700,000 Senators Burr, Hagan
[FTA]. Extension--Northeast Corridor Project, NC.
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..................... Columbia River Crossing, WA..................................... $40,000,000 Senator Murray
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..................... Crenshaw/LAX Transit Corridor, CA............................... $1,250,000 Senator Feinstein
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..................... Dallas, Northwest/Southeast LRT MOS, TX......................... $91,249,717 Senators Hutchison, Cornyn
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..................... Downtown Connector/Westside Subway Extension, CA................ $6,500,000 Senator Feinstein
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..................... Draper Light Rail, UT........................................... $2,100,000 Senators Bennett, Hatch
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..................... Dulles Corridor Rail Project, VA................................ $96,000,000 Senators Warner, Webb
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..................... Honolulu High Capacity Transit Corridor Project, HI............. $55,000,000 Senators Inouye, Akaka
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..................... Houston, North Corridor LRT, TX................................. $75,000,000 Senators Hutchison, Cornyn
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..................... Houston, Southeast Corridor LRT, TX............................. $75,000,000 Senators Hutchison, Cornyn
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..................... King County, West Seattle BRT, WA............................... $21,274,000 Senator Murray
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..................... New Britain-Hartford Busway, CT................................. $42,345,000 Senators Lieberman, Dodd
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..................... New York, Long Island Rail Road East Side Access, NY............ $202,315,000 Senator Gillibrand
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..................... New York, Second Avenue Subway Phase I, NY...................... $185,548,262 Senator Gillibrand
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..................... Northstar Phase II Project--Extension of Northstar Commuter Rail $1,500,000 Senators Franken, Klobuchar
[FTA]. to the St. Cloud Area, MN.
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..................... Oakland, East Bay BRT, CA....................................... $15,000,000 Senator Feinstein
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..................... Perris Valley Line, Riverside, CA............................... $23,490,000 Senator Feinstein
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..................... Purple Line, MD................................................. $1,500,000 Senators Cardin, Mikulski
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..................... RTD FasTracks East Corridor, Denver, CO......................... $40,000,000 Senators Bennet, Mark Udall
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..................... RTD FasTracks Gold Corridor, Denver, CO......................... $40,000,000 Senators Bennet, Mark Udall
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..................... RTD FasTracks West Corridor, Denver, CO......................... $37,808,439 Senators Bennet, Mark Udall
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..................... Salt Lake City, Mid Jordan LRT, UT.............................. $100,000,000 Senators Bennett, Hatch
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..................... Salt Lake City, Weber County to Salt Lake City Commuter Rail, UT $80,000,000 Senators Bennett, Hatch
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..................... San Francisco Muni Third St. Light Rail, Central Subway Project, $20,000,000 Senator Feinstein
[FTA]. CA.
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..................... Seattle, University Link LRT Extension, WA...................... $110,000,000 Senator Murray
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..................... Tampa Light Rail, Preliminary Engineering, FL................... $1,000,000 Senator Bill Nelson
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..................... VelociRFTA Bus Rapid Transit, CO................................ $24,163,000 Senators Bennet, Mark Udall
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..................... Virgina Railway Express Rolling Stock, VA....................... $1,000,000 Senators Warner, Webb
[FTA].
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS--ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency Account Recipient and location Project purpose Amount Member
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Allegheny County, PA.................... For infrastructure improvements around $600,000 Senator Casey
[HUD]. Initiatives. the Allegheny Ludlum site in order to
spur economic growth and create jobs.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Allen Place Center, Tacoma, WA.......... For facility improvements at a community $1,000,000 Senators Murray, Cantwell
[HUD]. Initiatives. center in a low income neighborhood.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Appalachia Service Project, TN.......... For free home repair to low-income $400,000 Senator Rockefeller
[HUD]. Initiatives. families in Southern West Virginia.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Arkansas State University-Mountain Home, For construction of the Vada Sheid $500,000 Senators Pryor, Lincoln
[HUD]. Initiatives. MH, AR. Community Development Center.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Associated Early Care and Education, MA For the construction of a child and $500,000 Senator Kerry
[HUD]. Initiatives. family development center.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Big Brothers Big Sisters of Northern For renovations of the facilities at $300,000 Senator Sherrod Brown
[HUD]. Initiatives. Ohio, Columbus, OH. Camp Oty'Okwa.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Big Sky Economic Development Authority, For infrastructure and land acquisition $500,000 Senator Tester, Baucus
[HUD]. Initiatives. Billings, MT. in East Billings.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Board of Directors of St. Louis To renovate the historic St. Louis $1,000,000 Senator Bond
[HUD]. Initiatives. Municipal Library, MO. Central Library including compliance
with ADA requirements in MO.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Bolivar County, MS...................... For the restoration of the historic $350,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker
[HUD]. Initiatives. Bolivar County First Judicial District
Courthouse.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Bonnie Brae, Liberty Corner, NJ......... For the renovation of cottages that $200,000 Senators Lautenberg,
[HUD]. Initiatives. service New Jersey's at risk children Menendez
and youth.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Booneville, MS.......................... For the Booneville Hardware Building $425,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker
[HUD]. Initiatives. Restoration Project.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Boys & Girls Club of Carbon County, Red For renovations and expansion........... $350,000 Senator Tester
[HUD]. Initiatives. Lodge, MT.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Boys and Girls Club of Wagner, SD....... For repairs and upgrades to the Boys and $200,000 Senator Johnson
[HUD]. Initiatives. Girls Club facility.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Boys and Girls Club, Bellevue, WA....... For facilities improvements and $500,000 Senator Murray
[HUD]. Initiatives. expansion at community centers for
youth.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Boys and Girls Club, Spokane, WA........ For facilities acquisition, improvements $775,000 Senator Murray
[HUD]. Initiatives. and expansion for a community center
for youth.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Builders Development Corporation, KS.... For the Central Baptist Redevelopment $800,000 Senator Brownback
[HUD]. Initiatives. Project in Kansas City, Kansas.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Center for Veterans Issues, Ltd., For the construction of supportive $400,000 Senator Kohl
[HUD]. Initiatives. Milwaukee, WI. housing for veterans.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Chippewa Cree Tribe, Box Elder, MT...... For renovations and safety upgrades of a $200,000 Senator Tester
[HUD]. Initiatives. tribal TANF building.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of Albany, NY...................... For the rehabilitation of a building in $500,000 Senator Schumer
[HUD]. Initiatives. a neighborhood targeted for
revitalization.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of Anderson, IN.................... For the Flagship Enterprise Center $650,000 Senator Lugar
[HUD]. Initiatives. Certified Technology Park Buildings
Project for infrastructure and
laboratory equipment for hybrid
electric vehicle technologies and
related technologies.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of Bangor, ME...................... For event and meeting space $1,000,000 Senators Collins, Snowe
[HUD]. Initiatives. infrastructure at the Bangor Regional
Arena and Meeting Complex.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of Bend, OR........................ For design and construction of new $200,000 Senators Merkley, Wyden
[HUD]. Initiatives. research and development facility.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of Brewer, ME...................... For the development of a riverfront $700,000 Senators Snowe, Collins
[HUD]. Initiatives. trail system as part of the West
Bayside Neighborhood Development
Project.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of Bristol, CT..................... To acquire blighted property and $500,000 Senators Dodd, Lieberman
[HUD]. Initiatives. renovate facilities to create an
industrial park.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of Chicopee, MA.................... For the construction of a community and $350,000 Senator Kerry
[HUD]. Initiatives. senior center.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of Coffman Cove, AK................ For the construction of an elevated $300,000 Senators Murkowski, Begich
[HUD]. Initiatives. concrete dock with related improvements.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of Columbus, MS.................... For the Columbus Riverwalk Lighting $300,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker
[HUD]. Initiatives. Extension project.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of Council Bluffs, IA.............. For demolition of facilities located $400,000 Senators Harkin, Grassley
[HUD]. Initiatives. near 1st Avenue in Council Bluffs for
the purpose of improving the West
Broadway Corridor.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of Covington, LA................... For the acquisition of facilities in $1,000,000 Senator Landrieu
[HUD]. Initiatives. Covington, LA to be used for community
services and economic development.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of East Hartford, CT............... For the repair and upgrade of crucial $500,000 Senators Dodd, Lieberman
[HUD]. Initiatives. public infrastructure in and around
North Meadows Industrial Park.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of Flint, MI....................... For the upgrade of energy efficiency and $700,000 Senators Stabenow, Levin
[HUD]. Initiatives. services at an economic and community
development center which provides
economic and community development.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of Grants Pass, OR................. For the acquisition and renovation of a $500,000 Senators Wyden, Merkley
[HUD]. Initiatives. community center.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of Grenada, MS..................... For the Taylor Hall Renovation Project.. $250,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker
[HUD]. Initiatives.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of Gretna, LA...................... For planning and construction of a new $500,000 Senator Landrieu
[HUD]. Initiatives. Senior Center to meet the demands of
the elderly population.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of Hattiesburg, MS................. For redevelopment of the Hattiesburg $600,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker
[HUD]. Initiatives. East Jerusalem Municipal Center Complex
including acquisition of equipment.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of Hyattsville, MD................. For the rehabilitation of an existing $250,000 Senator Cardin
[HUD]. Initiatives. structure to a mixed-use, community
meeting facility.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of Inkster, MI..................... For construction of a senior wellness $1,000,000 Senators Levin, Stabenow
[HUD]. Initiatives. center.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of Jackson, MS..................... For the renovation of youth-oriented $500,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker
[HUD]. Initiatives. public facilities.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of Kingstree, SC................... For the Kingtree Train Depot Renovation $200,000 Senator Graham
[HUD]. Initiatives. Project including meeting ADA
compliance.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of Lacey, WA....................... For expansion of a community facility $500,000 Senator Murray
[HUD]. Initiatives. providing services for seniors.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of Lancaster, PA................... For renovation of buildings and $800,000 Senator Casey
[HUD]. Initiatives. streetscaping as part of the
revitalization of the City's Market
District.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of Las Cruces, NM.................. For expansion of a central kitchen and $400,000 Senators Bingaman, Tom Udall
[HUD]. Initiatives. associated equipment to provide home
meal delivery services to seniors.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of Las Vegas, NV................... For construction of low-income elderly $1,000,000 Senator Reid
[HUD]. Initiatives. housing.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of Linton, ND...................... For housing and commercial redevelopment $700,000 Senators Dorgan, Conrad
[HUD]. Initiatives.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of Madison, WI..................... For construction of a public market for $200,000 Senator Kohl
[HUD]. Initiatives. regionally grown and produced products.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of Marshalltown, IA................ For the removal of blight and related $700,000 Senators Grassley, Harkin
[HUD]. Initiatives. housing development requirements for
the Grant Park Redevelopment Project.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of Memphis, TN..................... For improvements to the Pigeon Harbor $1,300,000 Senator Alexander
[HUD]. Initiatives. Industrial Park.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of Milan, MO....................... To renovate the historic Sullivan County $250,000 Senator Bond
[HUD]. Initiatives. Building including enhancing safety,
spurring economic development and for
streetscape investments.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of New Orleans, LA................. For the Federal City Urban Redevelopment $500,000 Senator Vitter, Landrieu
[HUD]. Initiatives. Project.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of Pascagoula, MS.................. For construction of a Beach Park $900,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker
[HUD]. Initiatives. Promenade in Pascagoula, MS.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of Peoria, IL...................... For revitalization efforts on Peoria's $200,000 Senator Durbin
[HUD]. Initiatives. Southside.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of Piedmont, OK.................... For the Elevated Water Storage Tower $700,000 Senator Inhofe
[HUD]. Initiatives. project for water storage and water
line installations.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of Rockford, IL.................... For land acquisition, demolition, and $500,000 Senator Durbin
[HUD]. Initiatives. infrastructure improvements.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of Ruleville, MS................... For the development of a walking trail.. $125,000 Senator Cochran
[HUD]. Initiatives.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of Springfield, IL................. For construction of a new building for a $200,000 Senator Durbin
[HUD]. Initiatives. Crisis Nursery in Springfield.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of Springfield, MA................. For improvements to public buildings in $350,000 Senator Kerry
[HUD]. Initiatives. downtown Springfield.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of Springfield, MO................. For improvements to the Commercial Club $750,000 Senator Bond
[HUD]. Initiatives. Building including making it ADA
compliant.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of Springfield, OH................. For the redevelopment of an industrial $750,000 Senators Voinovich, Sherrod
[HUD]. Initiatives. Brownfield site. Brown
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of West Warwick, RI................ For planning and community development, $500,000 Senator Reed
[HUD]. Initiatives. including the acquisition and
rehabilitation of property and the
improvement of public infrastructure.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of Wilkes-Barre, PA................ For the planning, design and renovations $200,000 Senator Specter
[HUD]. Initiatives. in a downtown business district.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of Winsted, CT..................... For renovations and streetscape $200,000 Senator Lieberman
[HUD]. Initiatives. enhancements in the downtown business
district.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of Woonsocket, RI.................. For site demolition and environmental $600,000 Senators Reed, Whitehouse
[HUD]. Initiatives. remediation to accommodate a public
drinking water facility.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Clearfield City, UT..................... For Clearfield City Downtown Development $100,000 Senators Hatch, Bennett
[HUD]. Initiatives. Project West Phase 1 & 2 for the city
to acquire blighted properties.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Clyde Malone Community Center, Lincoln, For the expansion and renovation of the $500,000 Senator Ben Nelson
[HUD]. Initiatives. NE. Malone Center facilities.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Commission on Economic Opportunity for For construction of community building $250,000 Senator Schumer
[HUD]. Initiatives. the Greater Capital Region, Troy, NY. to serve as a child care and family
resource center for low to moderate
income individuals.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Community Foundation of NJ, Newark, NJ. For facility renovations to the Essex $500,000 Senators Lautenberg,
[HUD]. Initiatives. County Family Justice Center. Menendez
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Copper River Native Association, For the construction of a health and $500,000 Senator Begich
[HUD]. Initiatives. Glenallen, AK. multi-use facility serving tribal
members medical and basic health
service needs.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development County of Santa Barbara, CA............. For repairs and renovations to the $450,000 Senator Boxer
[HUD]. Initiatives. Lompoc Veterans Building Renovation.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Covenant House Alaska, Anchorage, AK.... For construction of a new facility for $500,000 Senators Murkowski, Begich
[HUD]. Initiatives. Covenant House, a center providing
immediate and long-term needs of
homeless youth in Alaska.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Crow Creek Sioux Tribe, Fort Thompson, For construction of a new community $300,000 Senator Johnson
[HUD]. Initiatives. SD. facility in Fort Thompson, SD to serve
low-income tribal members.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development CRSA Wounded Warrior Care Project, For the Wounded Warrior Transitional $2,100,000 Senator Isakson
[HUD]. Initiatives. Augusta, GA. Housing Project.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Dayton, OH.............................. For Improved Solutions for Urban $250,000 Senator Voinovich
[HUD]. Initiatives. Systems, Inc to renovate workshops and
laboratories using LEED Standards and
renewable energy technology.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Delta City, UT.......................... For improvements and construction $500,000 Senator Bennett
[HUD]. Initiatives. related to the Delta City Learning and
Community Center.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Denton, TX.............................. For the Denton Downtown Improvement $500,000 Senator Cornyn
[HUD]. Initiatives. Project to upgrade the streets and
streetscape.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Department of Community Services Housing For the installation and/or repair of $300,000 Senator Mikulski, Cardin
[HUD]. Initiatives. Authority, Charles County, MD. indoor plumbing for the poor.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Domestic Violence Services of Snohomish For expansion and rehabilitation of a $500,000 Senator Murray
[HUD]. Initiatives. County, Everett, WA. domestic violence facility.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Easter Seals Hawaii, HI................. For the construction and renovation of $300,000 Senator Inouye
[HUD]. Initiatives. building space to provide programs and
services for children and adults with
disabilities.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Enosburg Falls Economic Development For improvements to an industrial park.. $200,000 Senator Sanders
[HUD]. Initiatives. Corporation, Enosburg Falls, VT.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Eritrean Association, Seattle, WA....... For facility improvements and expansion $600,000 Senator Murray
[HUD]. Initiatives. of a community center.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Family Crisis Center, Inc., Farmington, For expansion of the existing Family $643,500 Senators Bingaman, Tom Udall
[HUD]. Initiatives. NM. Crisis Center.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Family Service Association of San For facility repairs to the Family $1,000,000 Senator Hutchison
[HUD]. Initiatives. Antonio, TX. Service Center.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Fargo Housing & Redevelopment Authority, For rehabilitation of low-income hous- $700,000 Senators Dorgan, Conrad
[HUD]. Initiatives. Fargo, ND. ing.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Federal Way Chamber of Commerce, Federal For acquisition and facility $1,200,000 Senators Murray, Cantwell
[HUD]. Initiatives. Way, WA. improvements of a regional small
business incubator.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development First Best Place, Columbia Falls, MT.... For construction of a community center.. $1,000,000 Senator Baucus
[HUD]. Initiatives.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development First Steps Primeros Pasos, Georgetown, For construction and start up costs for $175,000 Senators Kaufman, Carper
[HUD]. Initiatives. DE. a bilingual early care and education
facility.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Food Self-Reliance, The Kohala Center, For equipment purchase to make $250,000 Senator Inouye
[HUD]. Initiatives. HI. infrastructure improvements to increase
economic development opportunities, for
low and moderate income farmers in
rural communities.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Forgotten Harvest, Oak Park, MI......... For facilities improvements, equipment, $542,000 Senators Levin, Stabenow
[HUD]. Initiatives. and service fleet.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Franklin County, MS..................... For restoration of the Historic Franklin $175,000 Senator Cochran
[HUD]. Initiatives. County Courthouse.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Friends of Buena Library, Buena, WA..... For construction of a community center $400,000 Senator Murray
[HUD]. Initiatives. in a high poverty area.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Gaston County, NC....................... To create a Gastonia Technology Park in $760,000 Senator Burr
[HUD]. Initiatives. Gaston County, NC.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Grace Hill Settlement House, St. Louis, To renovate housing for low-income $1,000,000 Senator Bond
[HUD]. Initiatives. MO. working families at the College Hill
Community Redevelopment Project.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Grand Rapids Downtown Development For the construction of a mixed-use $700,000 Senators Stabenow, Levin
[HUD]. Initiatives. Authority, MI. facility for use as a farmers market in
a distressed urban area.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Great Falls Development Authority, Great For infrastructure improvements for $800,000 Senators Baucus, Tester
[HUD]. Initiatives. Falls, MT. development of an industrial park.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Great Rivers Greenway, St. Louis, MO.... For the removal of blight and related $1,000,000 Senator Bond
[HUD]. Initiatives. redevelopment concerns at the St. Louis
Regional Greenways project.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Hancock County, KY...................... For expansion of the Owensboro Community $300,000 Senator Bunning
[HUD]. Initiatives. Technical College--Hancock County
Extension Campus for local training
programs.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Hanover Township, Washington County, PA. For construction and excavation in $200,000 Senator Casey
[HUD]. Initiatives. Hanover Township, Washington County, PA
to new business to distressed community.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Harriet Tubman Center, Maplewood, MN.... For the renovation of a building in $600,000 Senator Franken
[HUD]. Initiatives. order to consolidate youth and family
services, and relocate two domestic
violence shelters.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Hocking Co. Community Improvement To construct an incubator/light $750,000 Senator Voinovich
[HUD]. Initiatives. Corporation, Logan, OH. manufacturing building.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Heritage Services, Omaha, NE............ For construction of facility that will $800,000 Senator Ben Nelson
[HUD]. Initiatives. accommodate an education and
interactive learning center.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Housing Vermont, Burlington, VT......... For expansions and improvements to low $500,000 Senator Sanders
[HUD]. Initiatives. income housing.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development IA Dept. of Economic Development, Des For the restoration and rehabilitation $1,000,000 Senators Harkin, Grassley
[HUD]. Initiatives. Moines, IA. of buildings, re-introduce upper floor
housing, and add economic value in
Iowa's historic Main Street districts.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Ivins, UT............................... For the Old Town Ivins Street $100,000 Senators Hatch, Bennett
[HUD]. Initiatives. Improvements Project including safety
concerns.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Jackson Medical Mall, Jackson, MS....... For the expansion of the Jackson Medical $600,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker
[HUD]. Initiatives. Mall Development Project.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Jefferson County Dept of Human Services, For a facility for Jefferson County $600,000 Senator Mark Udall
[HUD]. Initiatives. CO. Department of Human Services in
Colorado to provide housing for
homeless veterans.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Jewish Family Service, Seattle, WA...... For improvements and expansion of a $800,000 Senator Murray
[HUD]. Initiatives. facility providing family and community
services.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Jewish Vocational Service, MO........... To renovate the facility for the Jewish $1,000,000 Senator Bond
[HUD]. Initiatives. Vocational Service and to provide
equipment and furnishings.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development John Hope Settlement House, Providence, For facility upgrades and energy retro- $200,000 Senator Reed
[HUD]. Initiatives. RI. fits.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Kauai Economic Development Board, Kauai, For the rehabilitation and improvement $300,000 Senator Inouye
[HUD]. Initiatives. HI. of an abandoned facility, to provide
employment training for low and
moderate income agricultural workers.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Keene Family YMCA, Keene, NH............ For the construction of a new Keene YMCA $300,000 Senator Shaheen
[HUD]. Initiatives. allowing for the expansion childcare
and other services.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Kentucky Blood Center, Somerset, KY..... For construction of a Kentucky Blood $1,000,000 Senator McConnell
[HUD]. Initiatives. Center Building.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Laiopua 2020, Kailua-Kona, HI........... For planning, design, and construction $300,000 Senator Akaka
[HUD]. Initiatives. of the Laiopua 2020 Community Center.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Logan, UT............................... For the Logan Northwest Park Project to $200,000 Senators Hatch, Bennett
[HUD]. Initiatives. continue an ongoing park project.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Longview Housing Authority, Longview, WA For acquisition and improvements of a $675,000 Senator Murray
[HUD]. Initiatives. facility to serve as a regional center
for Veterans.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule, For the Domestic Violence Building $400,000 Senators Thune, Johnson
[HUD]. Initiatives. SD. Project.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Luke-Dorf, Inc., Portland, OR........... For the construction of a Behavioral $300,000 Senators Merkley, Wyden
[HUD]. Initiatives. Healthcare Housing Facility, with
medically-monitored treatment, for
individuals.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Mandell Jewish Community Center, West For community facilities renovations and $700,000 Senator Dodd
[HUD]. Initiatives. Hartford, CT. improvements.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development MARC Community Services Corporation, To acquire and renovate vacant and $400,000 Senator Brownback
[HUD]. Initiatives. Wyandotte County, KS. abandoned properties as part of the
NeighborhoodsNOW Redevelopment Plan in
Wyandotte County, Kansas.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Maui Economic Development Board, HI..... For equipment purchase and construction $250,000 Senator Inouye
[HUD]. Initiatives. to support business incubation and
economic development for Molokai
cooperatives.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Milwaukee Department of City For the preservation and improvement of $400,000 Senator Kohl
[HUD]. Initiatives. Development, Milwaukee, WI. affordable housing.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Missouri Institute for Biotechnology and To renovate and equip the historic $1,000,000 Senator Bond
[HUD]. Initiatives. Innovation, Cole County, MO. Missouri Institute for Biotechnology
and Innovation in Cole County, Missouri.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Molokai Habitat for Humanity, HI........ For construction and rehabilitation of $400,000 Senators Inouye, Akaka
[HUD]. Initiatives. low and very low income housing using
the Molokai Habitat for Humanity self
help housing model.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development New Hampshire Community Loan Fund, For support for Community Loan Fund $500,000 Senators Gregg, Shaheen
[HUD]. Initiatives. Concord, NH. programs for the New Hampshire
Community Loan Fund.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development North Carolina Research Campus, For the High Speed Optical Networking at $500,000 Senator Burr
[HUD]. Initiatives. Kannapolis, NC. NCRC.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Northeast Iowa Food Bank, Waterloo, IA.. For construction of a new facility to $300,000 Senator Harkin
[HUD]. Initiatives. serve as a food warehouse and
distribution center for northeast Iowa.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Northern Hills Alliance for Children, For Childcare Center building $550,000 Senator Johnson
[HUD]. Initiatives. Deadwood, SD. modifications.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Nye County, Pahrump, NV................. For the construction and expansion of a $200,000 Senator Reid
[HUD]. Initiatives. senior center.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Ocean Community YMCA Westerly, RI....... For construction of a drop-off area for $250,000 Senators Reed, Whitehouse
[HUD]. Initiatives. children.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Opportunity Resources, Inc., Missoula, For facility improvements for an $200,000 Senators Baucus, Tester
[HUD]. Initiatives. MT. employment and service organization for
the disabled.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Our City Reading, Inc., PA.............. For the planning, design, renovation, $200,000 Senator Specter
[HUD]. Initiatives. and construction of housing.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Parents and Children Together, HI....... For renovation and equipment purchase to $300,000 Senator Inouye
[HUD]. Initiatives. expand the Community Technology Center
at Kuhio Park Terrace.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Pickaway County, OH..................... For construction of an economic $600,000 Senator Sherrod Brown
[HUD]. Initiatives. development center.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Pillar Community Development Corp., For the construction of a community $200,000 Senator Lieberman
[HUD]. Initiatives. Bloomfield, CT. wellness center.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Port of Lewiston, ID.................... For expansion of the container dock..... $850,000 Senators Crapo, Risch
[HUD]. Initiatives.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Puerto Rican Action Board, New For the repair of facilities that assist $260,000 Senators Lautenberg,
[HUD]. Initiatives. Brunswick, NJ. low-income families with foreclosure Menendez
mitigation and other economic
independence initiatives.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Regional Economic Development, Inc, For renovations and equipment for a $425,000 Senator Bond
[HUD]. Initiatives. Columbia, MO. small business incubator at the
Enterprise Center.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Regional Foodbank, Akron-Canton, OH..... For energy conservation improvements for $250,000 Senators Voinovich and
[HUD]. Initiatives. the food bank facility. Sherrod Brown
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development River Ridge Dev. Authority, For the development of housing as part $350,000 Senator Lugar
[HUD]. Initiatives. Jeffersonville, IN. of the River Ridge Commerce Center
Infrastructure Planning Project.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Roadrunner Food Bank, Albuquerque, NM.. For a permanent warehouse for the $250,000 Senators Bingaman, Tom Udall
[HUD]. Initiatives. Roadrunner food collection agency for
homeless and poverty stricken families
in New Mexico.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Tuscaloosa Housing Authority, For rehabilitation of distressed low- $5,000,000 Senator Shelby
[HUD]. Initiatives. Tuscaloosa, AL. income housing, including renovation
and reconstruction to promote safety
and security.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Rural Alaska Community Action Program in To construct a early childhood $500,000 Senator Murkowski
[HUD]. Initiatives. Toksook Bay, AK. development center.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Salt Lake County, UT.................... For construction related to the Salt $750,000 Senators Bennett, Hatch
[HUD]. Initiatives. Lake County Transitional Housing
project.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Share of Vancouver, Clark and Cowlitz For rehabilitation of a facility to $900,000 Senator Murray
[HUD]. Initiatives. County, Vancouver, WA. provide for transitional homeless
housing and other services.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate, Agency Village, For restoration efforts and safety $150,000 Senator Johnson
[HUD]. Initiatives. SD. upgrades at the Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate
pow wow grounds.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development South Coast Development Council, Coos For site preparation and construction of $500,000 Senators Merkley, Wyden
[HUD]. Initiatives. Bay, OR. a public plaza.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Springfield YMCA, Springfield, IL....... For construction of a new building...... $500,000 Senator Durbin
[HUD]. Initiatives.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development St. Joseph Community Center, Lorain, OH For demolition, remediation and $400,000 Senator Sherrrod Brown
[HUD]. Initiatives. renovation of the St. Joseph Community
Center facility.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, Ft. Yates, For housing renovation.................. $300,000 Senators Dorgan, Conrad
[HUD]. Initiatives. ND.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Storey County Community Chest, Virginia For the creation of the Storey County $400,000 Senator Reid
[HUD]. Initiatives. City, NV. Youth and Community Center.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Syracuse, UT............................ For the Legacy Park Handicap Renovations $100,000 Senators Hatch, Bennett
[HUD]. Initiatives. project, including meeting ADA
requirements.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development The Ministry of Caring, Inc., For the renovation of the Josephine $300,000 Senators Kaufman, Carper
[HUD]. Initiatives. Wilmington, DE. Bakhita House.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development The Planning Office for Urban Affairs, For the construction of affordable $400,000 Senator Kerry
[HUD]. Initiatives. Boston, MA. housing and mixed use space.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Tierra Madre, Sunland Park, NM.......... For construction of a capacity building $200,000 Senator Tom Udall
[HUD]. Initiatives. center to help facilitate homeownership
opportunities.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Tooele, UT.............................. For infrastructure development to the $750,000 Senators Bennett, Hatch
[HUD]. Initiatives. Tooele City Commercial Park.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Town of Carmel, NY...................... For acquisition and construction of a $400,000 Senator Schumer
[HUD]. Initiatives. new economic center.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Town of Cheraw, SC...................... To eliminate blighted housing structures $200,000 Senator Graham
[HUD]. Initiatives. under the Cheraw Stabilization Program.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Town of Dover-Foxcroft, ME.............. For infrastructure improvements to the $700,000 Senators Collins, Snowe
[HUD]. Initiatives. former Moosehead Manufacturing facility.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Town of Silas, AL....................... To renovate abandoned school property $300,000 Senator Sessions
[HUD]. Initiatives. into a community center.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development TRF Development Partners, City of For the planning, design, rehabilitation $500,000 Senator Mikulski
[HUD]. Initiatives. Baltimore, MD. and construction of affordable housing
in the Oliver neighborhood.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Turtle Mountain Chippewa Tribe, For construction of a youth center...... $300,000 Senators Dorgan, Conrad
[HUD]. Initiatives. Belcourt, ND.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Union County Child Advocacy Center, For construction and renovation of new $200,000 Senators Lautenberg,
[HUD]. Initiatives. Elizabeth, NJ. child advocacy center for sexually Menendez
abused children in Union County.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development United Community Center, Milwaukee, WI. For construction of a senior center $2,000,000 Senator Kohl
[HUD]. Initiatives. within a low-income elderly housing
complex.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development United Indians of All Tribes Foundation, For rehabilitation and revitalization of $600,000 Senator Murray
[HUD]. Initiatives. Seattle, WA. a facility serving disadvantaged youth.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Urban League of Metropolitan Seattle, For improvements to a facility to allow $300,000 Senator Murray
[HUD]. Initiatives. Seattle, WA. for the expansion of affordable housing.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Ute Mountain Housing Authority, Durango, For an affordable housing project for $800,000 Senator Bennet
[HUD]. Initiatives. CO. Ute Mountain Ute tribal members.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Valley Council of Governments, Derby, For property renovation and $400,000 Senators Dodd, Lieberman
[HUD]. Initiatives. CT. reconstruction.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Vermont Community Loan Fund, Montpelier, For the construction of community $300,000 Senator Sanders
[HUD]. Initiatives. VT. facilities, including child care
centers.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Vermont Division for Historic For historic preservation improvements $200,000 Senator Sanders
[HUD]. Initiatives. Preservation, Montpelier, VT. throughout Vermont.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Vermont Housing & Conservation Board For enhancement of affordable housing, $3,000,000 Senator Leahy
[HUD]. Initiatives. Montpelier, VT. community development initiatives,
economic development, land conservation
and historic preservation.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Waterboro, ME........................... For a technology and infrastructure $500,000 Senator Collins
[HUD]. Initiatives. project for the Waterboro Community
Center.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Waterloo, IA............................ For building renovation and improvements $300,000 Senators Grassley, Harkin
[HUD]. Initiatives. for Cedar Valley TechWorks for
laboratory and incubator space.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development West DuPage, IL......................... For construction of an Educare center in $200,000 Senator Durbin
[HUD]. Initiatives. West Dupage to serve at-risk children.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Western Arkansas Regional Intermodal For infrastructure improvements related $500,000 Senators Pryor, Lincoln
[HUD]. Initiatives. Transportation Authority, Fort Smith, to the development of an industrial
AR. park.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Western Nebraska Community College, For the construction and equipment $400,000 Senator Ben Nelson
[HUD]. Initiatives. Scottsbluff, NE. purchase in support of a renewable
energy training center.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Westminster College, Salt Lake City, UT. For improvement to the Garfield School $500,000 Senators Bennett, Hatch
[HUD]. Initiatives. Renovation and Revitalization project.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Women's Intercultural Center, Anthony, For renovation of a facility that $450,000 Senator Tom Udall
[HUD]. Initiatives. NM. provides educational and economic
opportunities to women.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Yakima Housing Authority, Granger, WA... For development activities and $675,000 Senator Murray
[HUD]. Initiatives. construction of affordable housing for
farmworkers.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development YMCA of Pierce and Kitsap Counties, For the construction of a community $1,000,000 Senator Murray
[HUD]. Initiatives. Silverdale, WA. center.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development YWCA of Greater Portland, OR............ For design and construction of a $300,000 Senators Wyden, Merkley
[HUD]. Initiatives. facility that provides safety and
services to victims of Human
Trafficking.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS--NEIGHBORHOOD INITIATIVES
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency Account Recipient and location Project purpose Amount Member
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Housing and Urban Development Neighborhood Initiatives...... Abyssinian Development Corporation, New For the development and rehabilitation $300,000 Senators Gillibrand, Schumer
[HUD]. York, NY. of new and existing low- and moderate-
income housing units in the central
Harlem area.
Housing and Urban Development Neighborhood Initiatives...... Center for Planning Excellence, LA...... To build capacity in land use planning $750,000 Senator Landrieu
[HUD]. and community preservation throughout
Louisiana.
Housing and Urban Development Neighborhood Initiatives...... City of Boise, ID....................... For a Petroleum Terminal Relocation $350,000 Senators Crapo, Risch
[HUD]. Feasibility Study.
Housing and Urban Development Neighborhood Initiatives...... City of Cranston, RI.................... For community planning and development.. $200,000 Senators Reed, Whitehouse
[HUD].
Housing and Urban Development Neighborhood Initiatives...... City of Longview, WA.................... For revitalization and renewal of the $1,000,000 Senator Murray
[HUD]. city's downtown region.
Housing and Urban Development Neighborhood Initiatives...... City of Philadelphia, PA................ For mixed-use transit oriented $350,000 Senator Casey
[HUD]. development in the area around the 9th
and Berks rail station.
Housing and Urban Development Neighborhood Initiatives...... City of Ranson, WV...................... For the redevelopment of a blighted $400,000 Senator Rockefeller
[HUD]. former industrial site into a mixed-
used center, including retail and
affordable workforce housing using
smart growth design and green
infrastructure.
Housing and Urban Development Neighborhood Initiatives...... City of Spokane, WA..................... For the restoration and redevelopment of $2,000,000 Senators Murray, Cantwell
[HUD]. a blighted area.
Housing and Urban Development Neighborhood Initiatives...... Community Voice Mail, Seattle, WA....... To improve and expand employment $350,000 Senator Murray
[HUD]. services for homeless veterans.
Housing and Urban Development Neighborhood Initiatives...... Consumer Credit Counseling Services, Las For foreclosure-related assistance $500,000 Senator Reid
[HUD]. Vegas, NV. services.
Housing and Urban Development Neighborhood Initiatives...... Florida's Heartland Rural Economic To create a research park............... $400,000 Senator Bill Nelson
[HUD]. Development Initiative, Sebring, FL.
Housing and Urban Development Neighborhood Initiatives...... Hire America's Heroes, Redmond, WA...... To expand employment services for $250,000 Senator Murray
[HUD]. veterans.
Housing and Urban Development Neighborhood Initiatives...... Mississippi State University, For the Development of the Civic $750,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker
[HUD]. Mississippi State, MS. Capacity Development Initiative Project
at Mississippi State University.
Housing and Urban Development Neighborhood Initiatives...... New Hampshire Food Bank, Manchester, NH. To expand the food assistance program $1,250,000 Senators Gregg, Shaheen
[HUD]. for the New Hampshire Food Bank.
Housing and Urban Development Neighborhood Initiatives...... Northern Comm. Investment Corp., St. To continue to expand high-speed, high- $1,000,000 Senator Gregg
[HUD]. Johnsbury, VT. technology broadband connectivity as
part of the North Country Community
Broadband Initiative.
Housing and Urban Development Neighborhood Initiatives...... Ocean Springs, MS....................... For the construction of the Walter $400,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker
[HUD]. Anderson Education Center.
Housing and Urban Development Neighborhood Initiatives...... Scott County Housing Council, IA........ For loans and grants to local nonprofit $300,000 Senator Harkin
[HUD]. housing service providers and
developers to create affordable housing.
Housing and Urban Development Neighborhood Initiatives...... Southwest Organizing Project, Chicago, To assist the Southwest Organizing $250,000 Senator Durbin
[HUD]. IL. Project ``Keep Our Homes'' campaign, a
foreclosure prevention initiative in
Chicago neighborhoods.
Housing and Urban Development EDI........................... TechRanch, Bozeman, MT.................. For entrepreneurship programs and $200,000 Senator Baucus
[HUD]. support for a business incubator.
Housing and Urban Development Neighborhood Initiatives...... Vermont Housing and Conservation Board, For expansion and improvement of low- $300,000 Senator Sanders
[HUD]. Montpelier, VT. income housing.
Housing and Urban Development Neighborhood Initiatives...... Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund, For capitalizing a revolving loan fund.. $500,000 Senator Leahy
[HUD]. Montpelier, VT.
Housing and Urban Development Neighborhood Initiatives...... Washington State Farmworker Housing For capacity building to support the $200,000 Senator Murray
[HUD]. Trust, Seattle, WA. expansion of affordable housing for
farmworkers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2011
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Committee recommendation compared with (+ or
-)
Item 2010 Budget House allowance Committee -----------------------------------------------------
appropriation estimate deg. recommendation 2010 Budget House
appropriation estimate allowance
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF Office of the SecretarySalaries and expenses......... 102,686 117,000 113,961 +11,275 -3,039
Immediate Office of the (2,631) (2,667) (2,667) (+36) ................
Secretary................
Immediate Office of the (986) (1,000) (1,000) (+14) ................
Deputy Secretary.........
Office of the General (20,359) (19,711) (20,211) (-148) (+500)
Counsel..................
Office of the Under (11,100) (13,568) (16,568) (+5,468) (+3,000)
Secretary of
Transportation for Policy
Office of the Assistant (10,559) (20,022) (11,216) (+657) (-8,806)
Secretary for Budget and
Programs.................
Office of the Assistant (2,504) (2,530) (2,200) (-304) (-330)
Secretary for
Governmental Affairs.....
Office of the Assistant (25,520) (25,695) (25,695) (+175) ................
Secretary for
Administration...........
Office of Public Affairs.. (2,055) (2,240) (1,800) (-255) (-440)
Office of the Executive (1,658) (1,683) (1,683) (+25) ................
Secretariat..............
Office of Small and (1,499) (1,513) (1,513) (+14) ................
Disadvantaged Business
Utilization..............
Office of Intelligence, (10,600) (10,999) (10,999) (+399) ................
Security, and Emergency
Response.................
Office of the Chief (13,215) (22,995) (18,409) (+5,194) (-4,586)
Information Officer......
Acquisition workforce ................ 7,623 ................ ................ -7,623
capacity and capabilities
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................ 102,686 124,623 113,961 +11,275 -10,662National infrastructure 600,000 ................. 800,000 +200,000 +800,000
development..................
Livable communities initiative ................ 20,000 ................ ................ -20,000
Financial management capital.. 5,000 21,000 21,000 +16,000 ................
Office of Civil Rights........ 9,667 9,767 9,767 +100 ................
Cyber security initiatives.... ................ 30,000 30,000 +30,000 ................
Transportation planning, 16,168 9,819 9,819 -6,349 ................
research, and development....
Maritime study............ 2,000 ................. 2,000 ................ +2,000
Working capital fund.......... (147,596) ................. (147,596) ................ (+147,596)
Minority business resource 923 913 913 -10 ................
center program...............
(Limitation on guaranteed (18,367) ................. ................ (-18,367) ................
loans)...................
Minority business outreach.... 3,074 3,395 3,395 +321 ................
Payments to air carriers 150,000 132,000 146,000 -4,000 +14,000
(Airport & Airway Trust Fund)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Office of the 889,518 351,517 1,136,855 +247,337 +785,338
Secretary.............. National Infrastructure
Innovation and Finance FundNational infrastructure ................ 4,000,000 ................ ................ -4,000,000
innovation and finance fund
program account.............. Federal Aviation
AdministrationOperations.................... 9,350,028 9,793,000 9,818,000 +467,972 +25,000
Air traffic organization.. (7,299,299) ................. (7,660,628) (+361,329) (+7,660,628)
Aviation safety........... (1,234,065) ................. (1,308,986) (+74,921) (+1,308,986)
Commercial space (15,237) ................. (15,747) (+510) (+15,747)
transportation...........
Financial services........ (113,681) ................. (114,784) (+1,103) (+114,784)
Human resource management. (100,428) ................. (103,297) (+2,869) (+103,297)
Region and center (341,977) ................. (366,354) (+24,377) (+366,354)
operations...............
Staff offices............. (196,063) ................. (212,255) (+16,192) (+212,255)
Information services...... (49,278) ................. (55,949) (+6,671) (+55,949)Facilities & equipment 2,936,203 2,970,000 2,970,000 +33,797 ................
(Airport & Airway Trust Fund)
Research, engineering, and 190,500 190,000 198,750 +8,250 +8,750
development (Airport & Airway
Trust Fund)..................Grants-in-aid for airports (3,000,000) (3,550,000) (3,550,000) (+550,000) ................
(Airport and Airway Trust
Fund) (Liquidation of
contract authorization)......
(Limitation on (3,515,000) (3,515,000) (3,515,000) ................ ................
obligations).............
Administration............ (93,422) (100,208) (99,708) (+6,286) (-500)
Airport Cooperative (15,000) (15,000) (15,000) ................ ................
Research Program.........
Airport technology (22,472) (27,217) (27,417) (+4,945) (+200)
research.................
Small community air (6,000) ................. (6,000) ................ (+6,000)
service development
program..................
Rescission of contract -394,000 ................. ................ +394,000 ................
authority (BY AIP).......
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................ (3,121,000) (3,515,000) (3,515,000) (+394,000) ................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Federal Aviation 12,082,731 12,953,000 12,986,750 +904,019 +33,750
Administration.........
Appropriations...... (12,476,731) (12,953,000) (12,986,750) (+510,019) (+33,750)
Rescissions of (-394,000) ................. ................ (+394,000) ................
contract authority.
(Limitations on (3,515,000) (3,515,000) (3,515,000) ................ ................
obligations)....... Total budgetary (15,597,731) (16,468,000) (16,501,750) (+904,019) (+33,750)
resources..............Federal Highway AdministrationLimitation on administrative (413,533) (420,843) (417,843) (+4,310) (-3,000)
expenses.....................Federal-aid highways (Highway
Trust Fund):
(Liquidation of contract (41,846,000) (42,102,000) (42,515,000) (+669,000) (+413,000)
authorization)...........
(Limitation on (41,107,000) (41,362,775) (41,776,000) (+669,000) (+413,225)
obligations).........
(Exempt contract (739,000) (739,000) (739,000) ................ ................
authority)...........Surface transportation 292,829 ................. 175,269 -117,560 +175,269
projects.....................
Rescission of contract ................ -263,131 -263,131 -263,131 ................
authority (Highway Trust
Fund)........................
Planning capacity grants...... ................ ................. 200,000 +200,000 +200,000
Administration (rescission of ................ ................. ................ ................ ................
contract authority)..........
Highway related safety grants ................ ................. ................ ................ ................
(rescission).................
Miscellaneous appropriations ................ ................. ................ ................ ................
and miscellaneous highway
trust funds (rescission).....
Additional highway investment 650,000 ................. ................ -650,000 ................
(Sec. 122)...................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Federal Highway 942,829 -263,131 112,138 -830,691 +375,269
Administration.........
Appropriations...... (942,829) ................. (375,269) (-567,560) (+375,269)
Rescissions of ................ (-263,131) (-263,131) (-263,131) ................
contract authority.
Rescissions......... ................ ................. ................ ................ ................
(Limitations on (41,107,000) (41,362,775) (41,776,000) (+669,000) (+413,225)
obligations)...........
(Exempt contract (739,000) (739,000) (739,000) ................ ................
authority)............. Total budgetary (42,049,829) (41,099,644) (41,888,138) (-161,691) (+788,494)
resources.............. Federal Motor Carrier Safety
AdministrationMotor carrier safety ................ ................. 20,050 +20,050 +20,050
operations and programs
(General Fund)...............
Motor carrier safety (239,828) (259,878) (239,828) ................ (-20,050)
operations and programs
(Highway Trust Fund)
(Liquidation of contract
authorization)...............
(Limitation on (239,828) (259,878) (239,828) ................ (-20,050)
obligations).............Motor carrier safety grants (310,070) (310,070) (310,070) ................ ................
(Highway Trust Fund)
(Liquidation of contract
authorization)...............
(Limitation on (310,070) (310,070) (310,070) ................ ................
obligations).............Motor carrier safety grants -1,611 ................. -18,900 -17,289 -18,900
(HTF) (rescission of contract
authority)...................
Motor carrier safety (HTF) -6,416 ................. -7,300 -884 -7,300
(rescission of contract
authority)...................
National motor carrier safety -3,233 ................. -15,000 -11,767 -15,000
program (HTF) (rescission of
contract authority)..........
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Federal Motor -11,260 ................. -21,150 -9,890 -21,150
Carrier Safety
Administration.........
(Limitations on (549,898) (569,948) (549,898) ................ (-20,050)
obligations)........... Total budgetary (538,638) (569,948) (528,748) (-9,890) (-41,200)
resources.............. National Highway Traffic
Safety AdministrationOperations and research 140,427 132,837 172,773 +32,346 +39,936
(general fund)...............
Operations and research
(Highway Trust Fund):
(Liquidation of contract (105,500) (117,376) (117,376) (+11,876) ................
authorization)...........
(Limitation on (105,500) (117,376) (117,376) (+11,876) ................
obligations).........
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............ (245,927) (250,213) (290,149) (+44,222) (+39,936)National driver register
(Highway Trust Fund):
(Liquidation of contract (4,000) (4,170) (4,170) (+170) ................
authorization)...........
(Limitation on (4,000) (4,170) (4,170) (+170) ................
obligations).........
National driver register 3,350 2,530 2,530 -820 ................
modernization................Highway traffic safety grants
(Highway Trust Fund):
(Liquidation of contract (619,500) (620,697) (606,197) (-13,303) (-14,500)
authorization)...........
(Limitation on (619,500) (620,697) (606,197) (-13,303) (-14,500)
obligations).........
Highway safety (235,000) (235,000) (235,000) ................ ................
programs (23 USC
402).............
Occupant (25,000) (25,000) (25,000) ................ ................
protection
incentive grants
(23 USC 405).....
Safety belt (124,500) (124,500) (60,000) (-64,500) (-64,500)
performance
grants (23 USC
406).............
(Distracted ................ (50,000) (50,000) (+50,000) ................
driving
prevention
grants)......
State traffic (34,500) (34,500) (34,500) ................ ................
safety
information
system
improvement
grants (23 USC
408).............
Alcohol-impaired (139,000) (139,000) (139,000) ................ ................
driving
countermeasures
grants (23 USC
410).............
Grant (18,500) (19,697) (19,697) (+1,197) ................
administration...
High visibility (29,000) (29,000) (29,000) ................ ................
enforcement......
Child safety and (7,000) (7,000) (7,000) ................ ................
booster seat
grants...........
Motorcyclist (7,000) (7,000) (7,000) ................ ................
safety...........
National Driver Register ................ ................. -78 -78 -78
(rescission of contract
authority)...................Operations and research -2,299 ................. -1,829 +470 -1,829
(rescission of contract
authority) (Sec. 142)........
Highway traffic safety grants -14,004 ................. -79,843 -65,839 -79,843
(rescission of contract
authority) (Sec. 143)........
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, National Highway 127,474 135,367 93,553 -33,921 -41,814
Traffic Safety Admin...
Appropriations...... (143,777) (135,367) (175,303) (+31,526) (+39,936)
Rescissions of (-16,303) ................. (-81,750) (-65,447) (-81,750)
contract authority.
(Limitations on (729,000) (742,243) (727,743) (-1,257) (-14,500)
obligations)........... Total budgetary (856,474) (877,610) (821,296) (-35,178) (-56,314)
resources.............. Federal Railroad
AdministrationFederal railroad operations... ................ 153,846 ................ ................ -153,846
Offsetting fee collections.... ................ -25,000 ................ ................ +25,000
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct appropriation...... ................ 128,846 ................ ................ -128,846Safety and operations......... 172,270 ................. 205,098 +32,828 +205,098
Railroad research and 37,613 40,000 40,000 +2,387 ................
development..................
Rail line relocation and 34,532 ................. ................ -34,532 ................
improvement program..........
Railroad safety technology.... 50,000 ................. 150,000 +100,000 +150,000
Railroad safety............... ................ 49,502 ................ ................ -49,502
Capital assistance for high 2,500,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 -1,500,000 ................
speed rail corridors and
intercity passenger rail
service......................National Railroad Passenger
Corporation:
Operating grants to the 563,000 563,000 563,000 ................ ................
National Railroad
Passenger Corporation....
Office of Inspector ................ 22,000 ................ ................ -22,000
General..................
Capital and debt service 1,001,625 1,052,000 1,400,000 +398,375 +348,000
grants to the National
Railroad Passenger
Corporation..............
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Federal Railroad 4,359,040 2,855,348 3,358,098 -1,000,942 +502,750
Administration.........Federal Transit AdministrationAdministrative expenses....... 98,911 113,559 111,981 +13,070 -1,578
(Rail transit safety ................ ................. ................ ................ ................
oversight program).......
Technical assistance and ................ 28,647 ................ ................ -28,647
workforce development........Formula and Bus Grants (Hwy (9,400,000) ................. (9,200,000) (-200,000) (+9,200,000)
Trust Fund, Mass Transit
Account (Liquidation of
contract authorization)......
(Limitation on (8,343,171) ................. (8,360,565) (+17,394) (+8,360,565)
obligations).............
Transit Formula Grants (Hwy ................ (9,200,000) ................ ................ (-9,200,000)
Trust Fund, Mass Transit
Account (Liquidation of
contract authorization)......
(Limitation on ................ (8,271,700) ................ ................ (-8,271,700)
obligations).............
Greenhouse gas and energy ................ (52,743) ................ ................ (-52,743)
reduction (Limitation on
obligations).................
Livable communities ................ (306,905) ................ ................ (-306,905)
(Limitation on obligations)..Rail transit safety oversight ................ 24,139 ................ ................ -24,139
program......................
Research and University 65,670 29,729 69,750 +4,080 +40,021
Research Centers.............
Capital investment grants..... 2,000,000 1,822,112 2,000,000 ................ +177,888
Energy efficiency and 75,000 ................. 100,000 +25,000 +100,000
greenhouse gas reduction
grants.......................
Washington Metropolitan Area 150,000 150,000 150,000 ................ ................
Transit Authority capital and
preventive maintenance.......
East Baseline Park and Ride ................ ................. ................ ................ ................
reallocation (Sec. 166)......
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Federal Transit 2,389,581 2,168,186 2,431,731 +42,150 +263,545
Administration.........
(Limitations on (8,343,171) (8,631,348) (8,360,565) (+17,394) (-270,783)
obligations)........... Total budgetary (10,732,752) (10,799,534) (10,792,296) (+59,544) (-7,238)
resources.............. Saint Lawrence Seaway
Development CorporationOperations and maintenance 32,324 32,150 32,324 ................ +174
(Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund)........................ Maritime AdministrationMaritime security program..... 174,000 174,000 174,000 ................ ................
Operations and training....... 149,750 164,353 172,754 +23,004 +8,401
Ship disposal................. 15,000 10,000 10,000 -5,000 ................
Assistance to small shipyards. 15,000 ................. 25,000 +10,000 +25,000
War risk insurance revolving ................ ................. ................ ................ ................
fund.........................Maritime Guaranteed Loan
(Title XI) Program Account:
Administrative expenses... 4,000 3,688 4,000 ................ +312
Guaranteed loans subsidy.. 5,000 ................. 5,000 ................ +5,000
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................ 9,000 3,688 9,000 ................ +5,312
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Maritime 362,750 352,041 390,754 +28,004 +38,713
Administration......... Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety
AdministrationAdministrative expenses:
General Fund.............. 20,493 21,744 21,744 +1,251 ................
Pipeline Safety Fund...... 639 639 639 ................ ................
Pipeline Safety (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) ................ ................
information grants to
communities..............
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................ 21,132 22,383 22,383 +1,251 ................Hazardous materials safety.... 37,994 40,434 50,434 +12,440 +10,000Pipeline safety:
Pipeline Safety Fund...... 86,334 92,206 92,206 +5,872 ................
Oil Spill Liability Trust 18,905 18,905 18,905 ................ ................
Fund.....................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................ 105,239 111,111 111,111 +5,872 ................Emergency preparedness grants:
Limitation on emergency (28,318) (28,318) (28,318) ................ ................
preparedness fund........
(Emergency (188) (188) (188) ................ ................
preparedness fund)...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Pipeline and 192,683 202,246 212,246 +19,563 +10,000
Hazardous Materials
Safety
Administration..... Research and Innovative
Technology AdministrationResearch and development...... 13,007 17,200 16,900 +3,893 -300 Office of Inspector GeneralSalaries and expenses......... 75,114 79,772 86,406 +11,292 +6,634 Surface Transportation BoardSalaries and expenses......... 29,066 25,988 29,934 +868 +3,946
Offsetting collections.... -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 ................ ................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Surface 27,816 24,738 28,684 +868 +3,946
Transportation Board...
=========================================================================================================================
Total, title I, 21,455,289 22,880,116 20,836,971 -618,318 -2,043,145
Department of
Transportation.........
Appropriations...... (21,876,852) (23,143,247) (21,223,052) (-653,800) (-1,920,195)
Rescissions......... ................ ................. ................ ................ ................
Rescission of (-421,563) (-263,131) (-386,081) (+35,482) (-122,950)
contract authority.
(Limitations on (54,244,069) (54,821,314) (54,929,206) (+685,137) (+107,892)
obligations)...........
(Exempt contract (739,000) (739,000) (739,000) ................ ................
authority).............
(Limitations)........... (28,318) (28,318) (28,318) ................ ................ Total budgetary (75,699,358) (77,701,430) (75,766,177) (+66,819) (-1,935,253)
resources..............
========================================================================================================================= TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Management and AdministrationExecutive direction........... 26,855 30,265 30,265 +3,410 ................Administration, operations and 537,011 538,552 528,846 -8,165 -9,706
management...................
Acquisition workforce ................ 2,071 ................ ................ -2,071
capacity and capabilities
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................ 537,011 540,623 528,846 -8,165 -11,777Personnel compensation and
benefits:
Public and Indian Housing. 197,074 197,282 195,508 -1,566 -1,774
Community Planning and 98,989 105,768 105,281 +6,292 -487
Development..............
Housing................... 374,887 395,917 395,917 +21,030 ................
Office of the Government 11,095 10,902 16,000 +4,905 +5,098
National Mortgage
Association..............
Policy Development and 21,138 23,588 22,556 +1,418 -1,032
Research.................
Fair Housing and Equal 71,800 67,964 70,363 -1,437 +2,399
Opportunity..............
Office of Healthy Homes 7,151 6,762 7,151 ................ +389
and Lead Hazard Control..
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................ 782,134 808,183 812,776 +30,642 +4,593
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Management and 1,346,000 1,379,071 1,371,887 +25,887 -7,184
Administration......... Public and Indian HousingTenant-based rental
assistance:
Renewals.................. 16,339,200 17,310,000 17,165,000 +825,800 -145,000
Tenant protection vouchers 120,000 125,000 125,000 +5,000 ................
Administrative fees....... 1,575,000 1,791,000 1,851,000 +276,000 +60,000
Family self-sufficiency 60,000 60,000 ................ -60,000 -60,000
coordinators.............
Incremental family 15,000 ................. 15,000 ................ +15,000
unification vouchers.....
Veterans affairs 75,000 ................. 75,000 ................ +75,000
supportive housing.......
Sec. 811 Mainstream ................ 113,663 113,663 +113,663 ................
voucher renewals.........
Disaster housing ................ 66,000 66,000 +66,000 ................
assistance program.......
Homeless vouchers ................ 85,000 85,000 +85,000 ................
demonstration program....
Transformation initiative ................ (-195,507) (-100,000) (-100,000) (+95,507)
(transfer out)...........
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal (available this 18,184,200 19,550,663 19,495,663 +1,311,463 -55,000
fiscal year)........... Advance appropriations.... 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 ................ ................
Less appropriations from -4,000,000 -4,000,000 -4,000,000 ................ ................
prior year advances......
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Tenant-based 18,184,200 19,550,663 19,495,663 +1,311,463 -55,000
rental assistance
appropriated in this
bill...................Transforming rental assistance ................ 350,000 ................ ................ -350,000
demonstration program........
Public Housing Capital Fund... 2,500,000 2,044,200 2,510,000 +10,000 +465,800
Transformation initiative ................ (-20,442) (-25,000) (-25,000) (-4,558)
(transfer out)...........
Public Housing Operating Fund. 4,775,000 4,829,000 4,829,000 +54,000 ................
Transformation initiative ................ (-48,290) ................ ................ (+48,290)
(transfer out)...........
Revitalization of severely 200,000 ................. ................ -200,000 ................
distressed public housing....
(Choice neighborhoods).... (65,000) ................. ................ (-65,000) ................
Choice neighborhoods.......... ................ 250,000 250,000 +250,000 ................
Transformation initiative ................ (-2,500) (-2,500) (-2,500) ................
(transfer out)...........
Native American housing block 700,000 580,000 700,000 ................ +120,000
grants.......................
Transformation initiative ................ (-5,800) ................ ................ (+5,800)
(transfer out)...........
Native Hawaiian housing block 13,000 10,000 13,000 ................ +3,000
grant........................
Transformation initiative ................ (-100) ................ ................ (+100)
(transfer out)...........
Indian housing loan guarantee 7,000 9,000 9,000 +2,000 ................
fund program account.........
(Limitation on guaranteed (919,000) (994,000) (994,000) (+75,000) ................
loans)...................
Transformation initiative ................ (-8) ................ ................ (+8)
(transfer out)...........
Native Hawaiian loan guarantee 1,044 ................. 1,044 ................ +1,044
fund program account.........
(Limitation on guaranteed (41,504) ................. (41,504) ................ (+41,504)
loans)...................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Public and Indian 26,380,244 27,622,863 27,807,707 +1,427,463 +184,844
Housing................ Community Planning and
DevelopmentHousing opportunities for 335,000 340,000 340,000 +5,000 ................
persons with AIDS............
Transformation initiative ................ (-3,400) (-3,400) (-3,400) ................
(transfer out)...........
Community development fund.... 4,450,000 4,380,100 4,450,000 ................ +69,900
Transformation initiative ................ (-43,801) (-44,500) (-44,500) (-699)
(transfer out)...........
Community development loan
guarantees (Section 108):
(Limitation on guaranteed (275,000) (500,000) (275,000) ................ (-225,000)
loans)...................
Credit subsidy............ 6,000 ................. 6,435 +435 +6,435Brownfields redevelopment..... 17,500 ................. ................ -17,500 ................
HOME investment partnerships 1,825,000 1,650,000 1,825,000 ................ +175,000
program......................
Transformation initiative ................ (-16,500) (-18,250) (-18,250) (-1,750)
(transfer out)...........
Self-help and assisted 82,000 ................. 82,000 ................ +82,000
homeownership opportunity
program......................
Capacity building............. ................ 60,000 ................ ................ -60,000
Transformation initiative ................ (-600) ................ ................ (+600)
(transfer out)...........
Homeless assistance grants.... 1,865,000 2,055,000 2,055,000 +190,000 ................
Transformation initiative ................ (-20,550) ................ ................ (+20,550)
(transfer out)...........
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Community 8,580,500 8,485,100 8,758,435 +177,935 +273,335
Planning and
Development............ Housing ProgramsProject-based rental
assistance:
Renewals.................. 8,325,853 9,054,000 9,054,000 +728,147 ................
Contract administrators... 232,000 322,000 322,000 +90,000 ................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal (available this 8,557,853 9,376,000 9,376,000 +818,147 ................
fiscal year)...........
Transformation initiative ................ (-89,760) ................ ................ (+89,760)
(transfer out)........... Advance appropriations.... 393,672 400,000 400,000 +6,328 ................
Less appropriations from -400,000 -393,672 -393,672 +6,328 ................
prior year advances......
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Project-based 8,551,525 9,382,328 9,382,328 +830,803 ................
rental assistance
appropriated in this
bill...................Housing for the elderly....... 825,000 273,700 825,000 ................ +551,300
Transformation initiative ................ (-2,737) (-8,250) (-8,250) (-5,513)
(transfer out)...........
Housing for persons with 300,000 90,037 200,000 -100,000 +109,963
disabilities.................
Transformation initiative ................ (-900) (-2,000) (-2,000) (-1,100)
(transfer out)...........
Housing counseling assistance. 87,500 88,000 100,000 +12,500 +12,000
Transformation initiative ................ (-880) (-1,000) (-1,000) (-120)
(transfer out)...........
Energy Innovation Fund........ 50,000 ................. ................ -50,000 ................
Rental housing assistance..... 40,000 40,600 40,600 +600 ................
Transformation initiative ................ (-406) (-406) (-406) ................
(transfer out)...........
Rent supplement (rescission).. -72,036 -40,600 -40,600 +31,436 ................
Manufactured housing fees 16,000 14,000 14,000 -2,000 ................
trust fund...................
Offsetting collections.... -7,000 -7,000 -7,000 ................ ................
Transformation initiative ................ (-70) (-70) (-70) ................
(transfer out)...........
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................ 9,000 7,000 7,000 -2,000 ................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Housing Programs. 9,790,989 9,841,065 10,514,328 +723,339 +673,263
Appropriations...... (9,870,025) (9,888,665) (10,561,928) (+691,903) (+673,263)
Rescissions......... (-72,036) (-40,600) (-40,600) (+31,436) ................
Offsetting (-7,000) (-7,000) (-7,000) ................ ................
collections........Federal Housing AdministrationFHA--Mutual mortgage insurance
program account:
(Limitation on guaranteed (400,000,000) (400,000,000) (400,000,000) ................ ................
loans)...................
(Limitation on direct (50,000) (50,000) (50,000) ................ ................
loans)...................
Offsetting receipts....... ................ -960,000 -960,000 -960,000 ................
Proposed additional ................ -902,000 -902,000 -902,000 ................
offsetting receipts (Sec.
211).....................
Positive credit subsidy ................ 250,000 150,000 +150,000 -100,000
(HECM)...................
Administrative contract 181,400 207,000 220,000 +38,600 +13,000
expenses.................
Additional contract 14,000 4,000 4,000 -10,000 ................
expenses.................
Transformation initiative ................ (-1,355) (-1,355) (-1,355) ................
(transfer out)...........
Working capital fund (-70,794) (-71,500) (-71,500) (-706) ................
(transfer out)...........
Consumer education and 7,500 ................. ................ -7,500 ................
outreach.................FHA--General and special risk
program account:
(Limitation on guaranteed (15,000,000) (20,000,000) (20,000,000) (+5,000,000) ................
loans)...................
(Limitation on direct (20,000) (20,000) (20,000) ................ ................
loans)...................
Offsetting receipts....... -140,000 -315,000 -315,000 -175,000 ................
Credit subsidy............ 8,600 ................. ................ -8,600 ................
Right of first refusal.... 5,000 5,000 ................ -5,000 -5,000
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Federal Housing 76,500 -1,711,000 -1,803,000 -1,879,500 -92,000
Administration......... Government National Mortgage
Association (GNMA)Guarantees of mortgage-backed
securities loan guarantee
program account:
(Limitation on guaranteed (500,000,000) (500,000,000) (500,000,000) ................ ................
loans)...................
Offsetting receipts....... -720,000 -720,000 -720,000 ................ ................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Gov't National -720,000 -720,000 -720,000 ................ ................
Mortgage Association... Policy Development and
ResearchResearch and technology....... 48,000 87,000 62,000 +14,000 -25,000 Fair Housing and Equal
OpportunityFair housing activities....... 72,000 61,100 72,000 ................ +10,900
Transformation initiative ................ (-611) (-720) (-720) (-109)
(transfer out)........... Office of Lead Hazard Control
and Healthy HomesLead hazard reduction......... 140,000 140,000 140,000 ................ ................
Transformation initiative ................ (-1,400) (-1,400) (-1,400) ................
(transfer out)........... Management and AdministrationWorking capital fund.......... 200,000 243,500 243,500 +43,500 ................
(By transfer)............. (70,794) (71,500) (71,500) (+706) ................
Office of Inspector General... 125,000 122,000 125,000 ................ +3,000
Transformation initiative..... 20,000 20,000 20,000 ................ ................
(By transfer)............. ................ (455,617) (208,731) (+208,731) (-246,886)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Management and 345,000 385,500 388,500 +43,500 +3,000
Administration......... (Grand total, Management (1,691,000) (1,764,571) (1,760,387) (+69,387) (-4,184)
and Administration)....
=========================================================================================================================
Total, title II, 46,059,233 45,570,699 46,591,857 +532,624 +1,021,158
Department of Housing
and Urban Development..
Appropriations...... (42,604,597) (44,115,299) (45,136,457) (+2,531,860) (+1,021,158)
Rescissions......... (-72,036) (-40,600) (-40,600) (+31,436) ................
Advance (4,393,672) (4,400,000) (4,400,000) (+6,328) ................
appropriations.....
Offsetting receipts. (-860,000) (-2,897,000) (-2,897,000) (-2,037,000) ................
1Offsetting (-7,000) (-7,000) (-7,000) ................ ................
collections........
(By transfer)........... (70,794) (527,117) (280,231) (+209,437) (-246,886)
(Transfer out).......... (-70,794) (-527,117) (-280,351) (-209,557) (+246,766)
(Limitation on direct (70,000) (70,000) (70,000) ................ ................
loans).................
(Limitation on (916,235,504) (921,494,000) (921,310,504) (+5,075,000) (-183,496)
guaranteed loans)......
========================================================================================================================= TITLE III--OTHER INDEPENDENT
AGENCIESAccess Board.................. 7,300 7,300 7,367 +67 +67
Federal Maritime Commission... 24,135 25,498 25,498 +1,363 ................National Transportation Safety
Board:
Salaries and expenses..... 98,050 100,400 104,300 +6,250 +3,900Amtrak Office of Inspector 19,000 ................. 19,500 +500 +19,500
General......................
Neighborhood Reinvestment 233,000 250,000 300,000 +67,000 +50,000
Corporation..................
United States Interagency 2,450 2,680 2,680 +230 ................
Council on Homelessness......
=========================================================================================================================
Total, title III, Other 383,935 385,878 459,345 +75,410 +73,467
Independent Agencies...
=========================================================================================================================
Grand total (net)....... 67,898,457 68,836,693 67,888,173 -10,284 -948,520
Appropriations...... (64,865,384) (67,644,424) (66,818,854) (+1,953,470) (-825,570)
Rescissions......... (-72,036) (-40,600) (-40,600) (+31,436) ................
Rescissions of (-421,563) (-263,131) (-386,081) (+35,482) (-122,950)
contract authority.
Advance (4,393,672) (4,400,000) (4,400,000) (+6,328) ................
appropriations.....
Negative subsidy (-860,000) (-2,897,000) (-2,897,000) (-2,037,000) ................
receipts...........
Offsetting (-7,000) (-7,000) (-7,000) ................ ................
collections........
(Limitation on (54,244,069) (54,821,314) (54,929,206) (+685,137) (+107,892)
obligations)...........
(By transfer)........... (70,794) (527,117) (280,231) (+209,437) (-246,886)
(Transfer out).......... (-70,794) (-527,117) (-280,351) (-209,557) (+246,766) Total budgetary (122,142,526) (123,658,007) (122,817,379) (+674,853) (-840,628)
resources..............
=========================================================================================================================
Discretionary total........... (67,900,000) (68,737,520) (67,900,000) ................ (-837,520)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------