57–576 PDF 

Calendar No. 482 

111TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 2d Session 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 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 
(2) 

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 Senate .......................................................................................................................... 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 
(3) 

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 
4 

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 
5 

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. 
(6) 

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. 
7 

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 recommendation 2010 enacted 2011 request 

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. 
8 

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 
9 

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 
10 

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 administra-
11 

tion’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. 
12 

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 in- creases 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 Depart-
13 

ment’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 mate-
14 

rials. 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. 
15 

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, 
16 

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. 
17 

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 man-
18 

agement 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 
19 

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. 
20 

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 

1Proposed without limitation. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

other Federal entities. The services are centrally performed in the 

interest of economy and efficiency and are funded through 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. 
21 

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

Appropriations Limitation on 

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 Departmentwide goals and not just OST purposes. 
22 

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 socalled ‘‘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 administra-
23 

tion’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] 

State EAS/communities 

Est. Miles to 

Nearest Hub 

(S, M, or L) 

Avg. Daily 

Enplnmnts at 

EAS Point (YE 

12/31/09) 

Subsidy Rates 

at June 1, 

2010 

Subsidy per 

Passenger 

YE 12/31/09 

Pax Total 

AL Muscle Shoals ......................................... 60 20.8 $1,782,928 $137.03 13,011 

AR El Dorado/Camden ................................... 107 .................... $2,096,517 N/A ....................

AR Harrison ................................................... 86 .................... $1,695,929 N/A ....................

AR Hot Springs .............................................. 51 .................... $1,419,102 N/A ....................

AR Jonesboro ................................................. 82 .................... $836,241 N/A ....................
24 

ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE SUBSIDY PER PASSENGER—Continued 

[Data is based on June 1, 2010 rates and CY 2009 passengers] 

State EAS/communities 

Est. Miles to 

Nearest Hub 

(S, M, or L) 

Avg. Daily 

Enplnmnts at 

EAS Point (YE 

12/31/09) 

Subsidy Rates 

at June 1, 

2010 

Subsidy per 

Passenger 

YE 12/31/09 

Pax Total 

AZ Kingman .................................................. 121 .................... $1,275,771 N/A ....................

AZ Page ......................................................... 282 15.5 $1,995,273 $205.78 9,696 

AZ Prescott .................................................... 102 11.3 $1,622,719 $228.52 7,101 

AZ Show Low ................................................. 154 11.3 $1,407,255 $198.60 7,086 

CA Crescent City ........................................... 314 36.7 $1,136,896 $49.48 22,979 

CA Merced ..................................................... 60 3.2 $1,541,365 $757.80 2,034 

CA Visalia ...................................................... 47 7.6 $1,494,319 $315.39 4,738 

CA El Centro .................................................. 101 18.4 $662,551 $57.56 11,511 

CO Alamosa ................................................... 164 19.9 $1,853,475 $148.91 12,447 

CO Cortez ....................................................... 255 24.3 $1,297,562 $85.46 15,184 

CO Pueblo ...................................................... 36 12.1 $1,299,821 $171.62 7,574 

GA Athens ...................................................... 72 12.4 $1,051,386 $135.21 7,776 

GA Macon ...................................................... 82 4.3 $1,386,306 $509.48 2,721 

IA Fort Dodge ............................................... 91 17.0 $1,112,607 $104.37 10,660 

IA Mason City ............................................... 131 33.5 $1,112,607 $53.10 20,953 

IA Burlington ................................................ 74 6.4 $2,171,241 $538.24 4,034 

IL Marion/Herrin ........................................... 123 7.6 $2,053,783 $430.74 4,768 

IL Quincy ...................................................... 111 5.5 $1,946,270 $565.28 3,443 

IL Decatur .................................................... 126 2.1 $3,082,403 $2,391.31 1,289 

KS Dodge City ............................................... 150 10.4 $1,842,749 $282.98 6,512 

KS Garden City .............................................. 202 28.4 $1,884,303 $106.10 17,759 

KS Great Bend .............................................. 114 1.8 $1,257,617 $1,117.88 1,125 

KS Hays ......................................................... 175 23.8 $1,954,327 $131.40 14,873 

KS Liberal/Guymon ........................................ 138 11.2 $1,958,570 $280.24 6,989 

KS Salina ...................................................... 97 7.8 $1,489,435 $303.10 4,914 

KY Owensboro ............................................... 105 .................... $1,068,773 N/A ....................

KY Paducah ................................................... 146 58.9 $569,923 $15.45 36,889 

MD Hagerstown .............................................. 78 .................... $1,203,167 N/A ....................

ME Augusta/Waterville ................................... 56 11.3 $2,086,251 $295.67 7,056 

ME Bar Harbor ............................................... 51 31.3 $2,086,251 $106.58 19,574 

ME Rockland .................................................. 64 19.1 $1,522,770 $127.68 11,926 

ME Presque Isle/Houlton ................................ 127 42.8 $2,812,853 $105.09 26,766 

MI Escanaba ................................................. 112 22.0 $1,435,118 $104.16 13,778 

MI Iron Mountain/Kingsford .......................... 105 17.5 $1,435,118 $131.12 10,945 

MI Ironwood/Ashland .................................... 213 3.6 $1,492,865 $653.90 2,283 

MI Manistee .................................................. 110 8.7 $1,799,395 $330.10 5,451 

MI Hancock/Houghton ................................... 219 46.1 $1,404,714 $48.67 28,861 

MI Muskegon ................................................. 42 48.8 $660,720 $21.62 30,563 

MI Alpena ...................................................... 174 23.8 $1,532,660 $102.67 14,928 

MI Sault Ste. Marie ...................................... 278 41.3 $237,825 $9.21 25,830 

MN Thief River Falls ...................................... 305 8.7 $1,230,322 $226.33 5,436 

MN Chisholm/Hibbing .................................... 70 28.3 $2,938,878 $165.66 17,740 

MN International Falls ................................... 298 49.4 $1,309,886 $42.40 30,895 

MO Kirksville .................................................. 137 3.0 $806,169 $429.50 1,877 

MO Columbia/Jefferson City ........................... 116 79.1 $2,186,590 $44.16 49,510 

MO Joplin ....................................................... 70 12.3 $997,680 $129.96 7,677 

MO Fort Leonard Wood ................................... 85 17.4 $1,292,906 $118.56 10,905 

MO Cape Girardeau ....................................... 127 2.8 $1,573,818 $883.67 1,781 

MS Greenville ................................................. 124 19.2 $1,355,693 $112.97 12,000 

MS Tupelo ...................................................... 94 39.5 $1,419,593 $57.35 24,752 

MS Meridian ................................................... 84 57.3 $678,936 $18.93 35,868 

MS Laurel/Hattiesburg ................................... 85 39.6 $1,398,798 $56.40 24,800 

MT Glasgow ................................................... 285 .................... $928,433 N/A ....................

MT Glendive ................................................... 197 .................... $1,056,152 N/A ....................

MT Havre ....................................................... 230 .................... $1,036,616 N/A ....................

MT Lewistown ................................................ 103 3.3 $1,036,616 $494.80 2,095 

MT Miles City ................................................. 145 2.9 $1,056,152 $586.43 1,801 

MT Sidney ...................................................... 272 8.7 $2,159,591 $397.28 5,436 

MT Wolf Point ................................................ 293 .................... $928,433 N/A ....................

MT West Yellowstone ..................................... 89 13.5 $427,757 $50.65 8,445 

ND Dickinson ................................................. 319 28.4 $2,274,177 $127.71 17,808 
25 

ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE SUBSIDY PER PASSENGER—Continued 

[Data is based on June 1, 2010 rates and CY 2009 passengers] 

State EAS/communities 

Est. Miles to 

Nearest Hub 

(S, M, or L) 

Avg. Daily 

Enplnmnts at 

EAS Point (YE 

12/31/09) 

Subsidy Rates 

at June 1, 

2010 

Subsidy per 

Passenger 

YE 12/31/09 

Pax Total 

ND Devils Lake .............................................. 402 11.2 $1,459,493 $208.17 7,011 

ND Jamestown ............................................... 97 11.3 $1,963,220 $277.06 7,086 

NE Kearney .................................................... 181 30.9 $1,978,386 $102.40 19,320 

NE North Platte ............................................. 255 23.7 $1,860,229 $125.51 14,821 

NE Scottsbluff ............................................... 192 26.8 $1,535,085 $91.44 16,788 

NE Grand Island ............................................ 138 .................... $2,271,640 N/A ....................

NE Alliance .................................................... 233 4.3 $977,609 $361.54 2,704 

NE Chadron ................................................... 105 6.1 $977,609 $254.12 3,847 

NE McCook .................................................... 256 5.5 $1,796,795 $521.41 3,446 

NH Lebanon/White River Jct. ......................... 75 19.4 $2,245,669 $185.26 12,122 

NM Clovis ....................................................... 102 6.6 $1,517,277 $369.08 4,111 

NM Silver City/Hurley/Deming ........................ 134 5.8 $1,442,174 $395.44 3,647 

NM Carlsbad .................................................. 149 9.8 $1,046,284 $170.71 6,129 

NM Alamogordo/Holloman AFB ...................... 89 1.3 $1,169,337 $1,398.73 836 

NV Ely ............................................................ 234 .6 $1,864,717 $5,223.30 357 

NY Plattsburgh .............................................. 82 18.1 $1,379,257 $121.75 11,329 

NY Jamestown ............................................... 76 12.0 $1,350,803 $179.68 7,518 

NY Massena .................................................. 138 10.2 $1,297,613 $202.69 6,402 

NY Ogdensburg ............................................. 105 6.3 $1,353,916 $341.04 3,970 

NY Watertown ................................................ 54 7.7 $1,228,334 $254.68 4,823 

OR Pendleton ................................................. 185 12.0 $1,608,394 $214.08 7,513 

PA Bradford ................................................... 77 8.0 $1,350,803 $269.41 5,014 

PA DuBois ..................................................... 112 15.7 $2,020,095 $205.09 9,850 

PA Franklin/Oil City ....................................... 85 5.7 $1,226,773 $342.39 3,583 

PA Lancaster ................................................. 28 .................... $1,372,474 N/A ....................

PA Altoona ..................................................... 112 20.5 $1,674,147 $130.67 12,812 

PA Johnstown ................................................ 84 24.9 $1,674,147 $107.23 15,612 

PR Mayaguez ................................................. 105 13.4 $980,980 $117.23 8,368 

PR Ponce ....................................................... 77 13.9 $740,416 $85.35 8,675 

SD Huron ....................................................... 121 6.9 $1,781,159 $411.26 4,331 

SD Watertown ................................................ 207 17.0 $1,338,321 $125.90 10,630 

TN Jackson .................................................... 86 .................... $1,225,628 N/A ....................

TX Victoria .................................................... 93 17.7 $1,593,922 $144.17 11,056 

UT Moab ........................................................ 256 6.0 $1,798,370 $478.80 3,756 

UT Vernal ...................................................... 150 12.1 $1,421,478 $187.73 7,572 

UT Cedar City ................................................ 179 14.9 $1,477,125 $158.75 9,305 

VA Staunton .................................................. 113 26.7 $1,911,466 $114.28 16,726 

VT Rutland .................................................... 69 13.9 $797,141 $91.73 8,690 

WI Eau Claire ................................................ 92 35.8 $1,732,372 $77.31 22,408 

WV Beckley ..................................................... 168 7.7 $2,092,844 $436.46 4,795 

WV Clarksburg ............................................... 96 20.8 $1,058,325 $81.09 13,052 

WV Morgantown ............................................. 75 32.7 $1,058,325 $51.78 20,439 

WV Parkersburg/Marietta ............................... 110 16.1 $2,190,281 $216.77 10,104 

WV Greenbrier/White Sulpher Springs ........... 166 11.5 $2,330,725 $323.94 7,195 

WY Laramie .................................................... 145 24.2 $1,215,603 $80.40 15,119 

WY Worland .................................................... 161 8.6 $1,735,814 $321.98 5,391 

NY Saranac 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. 
26 

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: 

Fiscal year— Committee 

recommendation 2010 enacted 2011 estimate 

Operations ................................................................................ $9,350,028,000 $9,793,000,000 $9,818,000,000 

Facilities and equipment ......................................................... 2,936,203,000 2,970,000,000 2,970,000,000 

Research, engineering, and development ............................... 190,500,000 190,000,000 198,750,000 
27 

Fiscal year— Committee recommendation 2010 enacted 2011 estimate 

Grants-in-aid for airports (obligation limitation) ................... 3,515,000,000 3,515,000,000 3,515,000,000 

Rescission of grants-in-aid for airports contract authority ... ¥394,000,000 .............................. ..............................

Total ............................................................................ 15,596,731,000 16,468,000,000 16,501,750,000 

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: 
28 

FAA OPERATIONS 

Fiscal year 

Committee 

2010 recommendation 

enacted 

2011 

estimate 

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 
29 

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 pro-
30 

gram, 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 rec-
31 

ommended 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 Trans-
32 

portation 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— 
33 

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 2010 enacted Fiscal year 2011 estimate Committee 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 Sustainment .... 5,500,000 7,500,000 7,500,000 

Next Generation Network Enabled Weather (NNEW) ......................... 20,000,000 28,250,000 23,250,000 

Data Communications in support of Next Generation Air Transportation System ............................................................................... 46,700,000 153,300,000 153,300,000 
34 

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT—Continued 

Fiscal year 2010 enacted Fiscal year 2011 estimate Committee recommendation 

Next Generation Transportation System Demonstration and Infrastructure Development ................................................................. 33,773,730 27,000,000 22,000,000 

Next Generation Transportation System—System Development ...... 66,100,000 95,000,000 76,000,000 

Next Generation Transportation System—Trajectory Based Operations ............................................................................................ 63,500,000 58,600,000 46,600,000 

Next Generation Transportation System—Reduce Weather Impact .............................................................................................. 35,600,000 43,202,000 34,202,000 

Next Generation Transportation System—Arrivals/Departures at 

High Density Airports ................................................................... 51,800,000 57,000,000 46,000,000 

Next Generation Transportation System—Collaborative ATM .......... 44,640,770 75,500,000 60,500,000 

Next Generation Transportation System—Flexible Terminals and 

Airports ......................................................................................... 64,300,000 80,700,000 64,700,000 

Next Generation Transportation System—Safety, Security and Environment ...................................................................................... 8,200,000 8,000,000 7,000,000 

Next Generation Transportation System—Systems Networked Facilities ........................................................................................... 24,000,000 35,000,000 28,000,000 

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 support ...................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 50,000,000 

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)—Relocation ...................................................................................... 10,300,000 2,100,000 2,100,000 

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 Improvements .. 5,300,000 5,300,000 5,300,000 

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 Communications System (NEXCOM) ................................................ 64,200,000 49,850,000 49,850,000 

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) 

(TAMR Phase 1) ................................................................... 28,000,000 22,000,000 22,000,000 

Terminal Automation Modernization/Replacement Program 

(TAMR Phase 3) ................................................................... 18,000,000 20,000,000 30,000,000 

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) Facilities—Improve ...................................................................... 38,900,000 45,600,000 45,600,000 

Terminal Voice Switch Replacement (TVSR) ........................... 10,500,000 11,500,000 11,500,000 

NAS Facilities OSHA and Environmental Standards Compliance ..................................................................................... 26,000,000 26,000,000 26,000,000 

Airport Surveillance Radar (ASR–9) Service Life Extension 

Program (SLEP) ................................................................... 3,500,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 

Terminal Digital Radar (ASR–11) Technology Refresh ........... 12,863,000 4,100,000 4,100,000 
35 

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT—Continued 

Fiscal year 2010 enacted Fiscal year 2011 estimate Committee recommendation 

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 Extension 

Program (SLEP) ................................................................... ........................ 2,600,000 2,600,000 

Integrated Terminal Weather System (ITWS) ........................... 1,900,000 5,500,000 5,500,000 

Terminal Automation Modernization /Replacement Program 

(TAMR Phase 2) ................................................................... ........................ 3,100,000 3,100,000 

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 

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

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 Program (SLEP) ........................................................................ 9,000,000 6,000,000 11,000,000 

VASI Replacement—Replace with Precision Approach Indicator .................................................................................... 4,500,000 4,000,000 6,250,000 

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 
36 

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT—Continued 

Fiscal year 2010 enacted Fiscal year 2011 estimate Committee recommendation 

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 
37 

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. 
38 

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 
39 

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 
40 

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. 
41 

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. 
42 

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 recommendation 2010 enacted 2011 estimate 

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 

and Metrics .................................................................................. 26,509,000 20,600,000 27,600,000 

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 
43 

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 nonemergency 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. 
44 

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 

authorization 

Limitation on 

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 
45 

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 

State Airport name Project purpose Committee 

recommendation 

AL ............. Tuscaloosa Regional Airport .......................... For taxiway extension and runway environmental assessment.$500,000 

AL ............. Huntsville-Madison County Airport ................ For apron expansion ...................................... 500,000 

AL ............. Lanett Municipal Airport, Lanett ................... For runway construction ................................ 1,500,000 

GA ............ Middle Georgia Regional Airport, Macon ...... For runway extension ..................................... 1,400,000 

IL .............. Quincy Airport ................................................ For airfield improvements ............................. 600,000 

KS ............ Metropolitan Topeka Airport Authority ........... For hangar restoration .................................. 400,000 

ME ............ Augusta Regional Airport .............................. For runway reconstruction and safety improvements.1,000,000 

MO ........... Lawrence Smith Memorial Airport ................. For runway expansion and hangar construction.2,000,000 

MO ........... Macon-Fowler Memorial Airport ..................... For the design, grading and construction of 

extending and widening of the runway.

1,600,000 

MO ........... Warsaw Municipal Airport ............................. For the design, grading and construction of 

extending and widening the runway.

1,500,000 

MS ............ Gulfport-Biloxi Regional Airport .................... For taxiway and runway construction ........... 2,000,000 

MS ............ Tunica Airport ................................................ For terminal expansion .................................. 1,500,000 

MS ............ Jackson Municipal Airport Authority .............. For runway improvements ............................. 2,000,000 

ND ............ Devils Lake Regional ..................................... For runway improvements ............................. 1,000,000 

ND ............ Grand Forks International ............................. For terminal replacement .............................. 2,500,000 

NV ............ Reno-Tahoe International Airport .................. For improvements to the Reno Stead Airport 

Emergency Operations Center.

500,000 

SD ............ Rapid City Regional Airport .......................... For terminal expansion .................................. 500,000 

TN ............ Memphis International Airport ...................... For seismic taxiway retrofits ......................... 1,000,000 

UT ............ Provo Municipal Airport ................................. For aircraft parking and staging ramp ........ 2,000,000 

WI ............. New Richmond Regional Airport ................... For land acquisition for runway approaches 

and hangar area development.

1,000,000 

WI ............. Wittman Regional Airport .............................. For the reconstruction of a terminal ramp 

and taxiway.

800,000 

WV ............ West Virginia Statewide Airport Activities .... For various improvements to airports in 

WV.

1,000,000 

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 
46 

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. 
47 

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 

recommendation 2010 enacted 2011 estimate 

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 authority ......................................................................................... 739,000,000 739,000,000 739,000,000

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. 
48 

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. 
49 

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 
50 

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 Federalaid 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 
51 

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-Federalaid 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 2010 Fiscal year budget 

request 2011 

Committee recommendation 

Formula Programs 

ALABAMA .................................................................................. $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 
52 

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY PROGRAM OBLIGATION LIMITATION—Continued 

[Fiscal year 2010, President’s request and Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2011] 

Fiscal year 2010 Fiscal year budget 

request 2011 

Committee 

recommendation 

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. 
53 

Within the funding available to the interstate maintenance discretionary program, funds are to be made available to the following 

projects and activities: 

INTERSTATE MAINTENANCE 

Project name Committee 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 Frontage Road, LA ............................................... 400,000 

I–10 Pecue Lane Interchange, Baton Rouge, LA ............................................................................................... 750,000 

I–15 Helena Custer Avenue Interchange and Montana Rail Link Overpass Structures, MT ............................ 1,000,000 

I–280 Mission Bay Off-Ramp and Improvements, CA ...................................................................................... 1,500,000 

I–29/I–229 Bridges and Interstate Mainline Reconstruction from Near Tea Exit to North of 69th Street and 

East to Louise Avenue, SD ............................................................................................................................ 750,000 

I–5 North Stockton Widening and HOV Lane Project, CA ................................................................................. 1,000,000 

I–5 Ridgefield Interchange Replacement Project, City of Ridgefield, WA ........................................................ 1,000,000 

I–5 West Coast Green Highway, WA .................................................................................................................. 1,000,000 

I–75/Everglades Project Development and Environment Study, FL .................................................................. 1,000,000 

I–84, West of Wendell to Juniper Rest Area Pavement Rehabilitation, ID ....................................................... 1,000,000 

I–84/184, Caldwell to Glenns Ferry, Pavement Rehabilitation, ID ................................................................... 750,000 

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, AR .................................................................. 1,000,000 

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 Newington Road, VA ..................................................... 1,000,000 

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 
54 

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 

Project name Committee 

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), SD ................................................................... 150,000 

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 Bear Soldier, SD ................................................... 750,000 

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 
55 

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 

Project name Committee 

recommendation 

Alice’s Road/105th Street Interchange and Connecting Roads, Waukee, IA ...................................................... $900,000 

Bellingham Waterfront Transportation Improvements, Bellingham, WA ............................................................. 700,000 

Brookstown Redevelopment Project, Winston-Salem, NC .................................................................................... 1,000,000 
56 

TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNITY AND SYSTEM PRESERVATION PROGRAM—Continued 

Project name Committee recommendation 

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, AR ............................................................................ 1,100,000 

East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana Downtown Greenway, LA ........................................................................... 250,000 

Environmental Improvement and Cost Savings Pavement Study, SC ................................................................ 350,000 

Essex County Riverfront Park, Newark, NJ ........................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Fountain Avenue Rehabilitation and Veteran’s Bridge Connectivity, Springfield, OH ........................................ 350,000 

Highway 212 Expansion—Carver County, MN .................................................................................................... 400,000 

I–49 North, LA ...................................................................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

I–55 Business Loop to Memorial Hospital, City of Lincoln, IL ........................................................................... 2,000,000 

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, Rochester, NY ................................................................ 2,000,000 

Piedmont Triad Research Park Transportation Improvements, NC ..................................................................... 500,000 

Qwuloolt Access Trail Project, Marysville, WA ..................................................................................................... 500,000 

Reconstruction of the Hudson River Waterfront Walkway, Hoboken, NJ ............................................................. 1,000,000 

Rivers Edge Roadway Infrastructure and Streetscape Initiative, MI .................................................................. 1,300,000 

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, Belton, TX ............................................................... 750,000 

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 
57 

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 

Project name Committee 

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. 
58 

PLANNING CAPACITY GRANTS

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2011 1 ......................................................................... $200,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 200,000,000 

1The administration requested this funding as part of the obligation limitation of the Federalaid 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 ex-
59 

perience 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 

Project name Committee 

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, WA .............................................................................. 700,000 

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 Western Entrance to Bryan Field, Starksville, MS ... 800,000 

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, Bloomfield, NJ .......................................................................... 500,000 

Brady/Harrison Sustainability Corridor, Davenport, IA ........................................................................................ 600,000 

Buffalo Niagara Medical Campus Streetscape and Infrastructure Improvements, NY ...................................... 1,000,000 

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, LA ............................................................................. 800,000 

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 Replacement, Scammon Bay Community 

Streets, Alakanuk Community Streets and King Salmon & Naknek School Bus Road, AK ........................... 1,000,000 

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 
60 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENTS—Continued 

Project name Committee recommendation 

Faulkner Lake Road Improvements, AR ............................................................................................................... 500,000 

Fort Campbell KY–911 Road Widening Project from US–41A to Oak Grove, Christian County, KY .................. 3,000,000 

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 and Transfer Facility at the Hunts Point Terminal 

Produce Market, South Bronx, NY ................................................................................................................... 500,000 

Grace Avenue Safety Improvements, City of Battle Ground, WA ........................................................................ 1,000,000 

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, MS ............................................................................. 500,000 

Hendersonville Area Infrastructure Improvements, Hendersonville, NC .............................................................. 250,000 

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 Bernardino, CA ............................................................. 1,500,000 

I–15 MP 8, Bicycle/Pedestrian Passageway, City of St. George, UT .................................................................. 500,000 

I–40 Realignment Ingress/Egress Project, Oklahoma City, OK ........................................................................... 750,000 

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 Improvements and Enhancements, IL .................................. 2,500,000 

Indian River Inlet Bridge, Dover, DE ................................................................................................................... 800,000 

Intallation of the Sterling Highway/Birch Street Traffic Signal Light, Soldatna, AK ......................................... 400,000 

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 Joplin, MO ........................................................................ 250,000 

Interstate 64 and 22nd St. Interchange Reconfiguration, MO ........................................................................... 1,500,000 

Iowa Highway 14–57 Complete Streets Corridor Improvements, Parkersburg, IA .............................................. 750,000

Jordan Valley Gateway Plaza Streetscape, City of Springfield, MO .................................................................... 600,000 

Khrushchev in Iowa Trail, Guthrie County, IA ..................................................................................................... 400,000 

LA 1 Project Phase II Design—Golden Meadow, Leeville, LA ............................................................................. 500,000 

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 Drive, AL .................................................................. 10,000,000 

MD 404 Improvements in Caroline, Talbot and Queen Anne’s Counties, MD .................................................... 600,000 

Memorial Boulevard Improvements, Picayune, MS .............................................................................................. 1,450,000 

MLK Blvd Grade Separation Safety Improvements, Yakima, WA ........................................................................ 1,300,000 

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 Separation Project, CA ........................................................ 700,000 

Rail and Infrastructure Improvements in Northern Maine, ME ........................................................................... 3,000,000 

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 
61 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENTS—Continued 

Project name Committee 

recommendation 

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 Project, NY ................................................................ 750,000 

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, WA ................................................................................ 2,000,000 

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 Gloucester, NJ ..................................................................... 1,000,000 

Red Mountain Transportation Improvements, Benton County, WA ...................................................................... 1,000,000 

Regional Planning Commission, St. Tammany Parish LA 21 Widening, New Orleans, LA ................................. 1,300,000 

Rehabilitation of the Ashford Avenue Bridge, Westchester County, NY ............................................................. 750,000 

Rickenbacker Pickaway East-West Connector, OH .............................................................................................. 500,000 

Riverside Freeway (State Route 91) Congestion Relief Project, Orange County, CA .......................................... 1,000,000 

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, Sioux Falls, SD .................................................... 1,200,000 

Southeast Connector, Des Moines, IA .................................................................................................................. 2,000,000 

Southpark Bridge Replacement Project, King County, WA .................................................................................. 3,000,000 

Southridge Transportation Improvements, City of Kennewick, WA ...................................................................... 500,000 

Sparks Rail Yard Relocation Study, City of Sparks, NV ...................................................................................... 200,000 

SR 6247 Section 000 Valley View Business Park Access Road, Lackawanna County, PA ................................ 750,000 

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, MN .......................................................................... 400,000 

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 Logistics Park, Newton, KS ................................................ 500,000 

Trunk Highway 13 & County State Aid Highway 5 Interchange, MN .................................................................. 250,000 

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, WA ....................................................................... 1,000,000 

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, Umatilla County, OR ........................................................ 400,000 

Urban Collector Road Project, Jackson County, MS ............................................................................................ 2,000,000 

US 52 Interchange & Overpass, Relocate Goodhue County 24 at Cannon Falls, MN ........................................ 400,000 

US 93 Corridor, MT .............................................................................................................................................. 1,000,000 

US Highway 30, Whiteside County, IL ................................................................................................................. 500,000 

US Highway 63/Future Interstate 555 Interchange Improvements, Little Rock, AR ........................................... 2,000,000 

Vancouver Waterfront Access Improvement Project, WA ..................................................................................... 2,000,000 

Vermont Downtown Streetscape and Sidewalk Improvements in Johnson, Ludlow, Northfield, Springfield, 

and Townshend, VT ......................................................................................................................................... 3,250,000 

Village West Access Improvements, KS ............................................................................................................... 300,000 

Warrensville/Van Aken Transit Oriented Development, Shaker Heights, OH ....................................................... 500,000 

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, DE ..................................................................... 1,300,000 
62 

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. 
63 

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-onboard 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 

1The 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 
64 

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 ex- penses. 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, 
65 

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. 
66 

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: 

Deliver refined concept of operation for broader implementation (Complete).

March: 

Identify and summarize requirements for 

broader implementation (Complete). 2

April: 

Initiate motor carrier data preview of violations by BASIC (Complete).

June: 

Update new Safety Measurement System 

(SMS) (Complete).

Complete operational model test (Complete) ...Improve core program elements from operational model test (Complete). 2

July: 

Modify Field Operations Training Manual (Incomplete). 2

August: 

Expand data preview to show SMS assessment 

(Incomplete).

January: 

Publish NPRM on safety fitness determination 

(Incomplete). 1

November: 

Complete CSA 2010 implementation nationwide; training State-by-State (Incomplete).

July: 

Complete quantitative analyses for program 

evaluation (Incomplete). 
67 

December: 

Annual public listening session webcasts/report-out 

(Complete). 

October: 

Coordinate with FMCSA Reauthorization Working Group (Ongoing).Develop training materials for broader implementation (Incomplete). 2

November/December: 

Begin implementing CSA 2010 nationwide (Incomplete). 2

Deliver final report of findings from analyses 

and evaluation.

Complete measurement system evaluation (Incomplete). 3Annual public listening session/report-out 

(TBD).

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. 
68 

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 hoursof-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 operatorfatigue 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. 
69 

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 
70 

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: 

2010 

enacted 

2011 

estimate 

Committee 

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 authorization 

Limitation on 

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 
71 

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 program .................................................................... 25,000,000 

Border enforcement grants ............................................................................................................................ 32,000,000 

Performance and registration information system management [PRISM] grants ........................................ 5,000,000 

Commercial vehicle information systems and networks [CVISN] grants ...................................................... 25,000,000 

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 
72 

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 crossborder 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, 
73 

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. §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, 
74 

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: 

Program 

Fiscal year— Committee recommendation 2010 enacted 2011 estimate 

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 
75 

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 sum-
76 

mer, 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. 
77 

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 heavyduty 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 
78 

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 of 

contract 

authorization 

Limitation on 

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. 
79 

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 

authorization 

Limitation on 

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 au-
80 

thorized 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 Grants (section 408) ..................................................... 34,500,000 

Alcohol-Impaired Driving Countermeasures Incentive Grants (section 410) ...................................................... 139,000,000 

Motorcyclist Safety Grants (section 2010) .......................................................................................................... 7,000,000 

Child Safety and Child Booster Seat Safety Incentive Grants (section 2011) ................................................... 7,000,000 

High Visibility Enforcement Program (section 2009) .......................................................................................... 29,000,000 

Administrative Expenses ...................................................................................................................................... 19,697,000 
81 

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 admin-
82 

istering 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 

1The 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 Oper- ations 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 Genera-
83 

tion 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 pro- vided 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 
84 

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 require-
85 

ment 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. 
86 

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 Reinvest- ment 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 pas-
87 

senger 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 
88 

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 im-
89 

plementation 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 
90 

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: 

Program 

Fiscal year Committee recommendation 2010 enacted 2011 estimate 

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 per-
91 

form 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 
92 

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 
93 

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: 
94 

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION ESTIMATED FISCAL YEAR 2011 APPORTIONMENTS FOR FORMULA GRANTS PROGRAMS BY STATE 

State name Urbanized areas (5307 and 5340) 1 Fixed guideway modernization Nonurbanized areas (5311 and 5340) Formula JARC 1 Special need for elderly and disabled New freedom Section 5303 and 5304 metropolitan and State planning State total 

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 2,884,442 154,578,443Guam ....................................... ................................ ................................ 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 
95 

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 7,244,470,000 

Tribal 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. 
96 

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 

Project name Committee 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 Franklin Counties, WA .............................................. 1,000,000 

Brookings Area Transit Authority Bus Storage and Transit Operations Facility, SD .......................................... 1,000,000 

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, Clallam County, WA ........................................................ 200,000 

Coach Bus for Commuter Campus, Campbell County, KY .................................................................................. 690,000 

Community Transit Vehicle Replacements, Snohomish County, WA ................................................................... 1,000,000 

C–TRAN 4th Plain BRT, Clark County, WA .......................................................................................................... 1,500,000 

Deerfield Valley Transit Association Facilities, Buses, and Equipment, VT ....................................................... 2,500,000 

Dubuque Intermodal Facility, IA .......................................................................................................................... 400,000 

Everett Transit Vehicle Replacements, Snohomish County, WA .......................................................................... 1,000,000 

Glassboro/Rowan Local Transit System, NJ ......................................................................................................... 500,000 

Grant County Transit Vehicle Replacement and Facilities Construction, Grant County, WA ............................. 1,000,000 

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, WA ............................................................................ 1,000,000 

JATRAN Fleet Replacement and Bus Shelters, MS .............................................................................................. 600,000 

Jefferson Transit Vehicle Replacements, Jefferson County, WA .......................................................................... 400,000 

Kitsap County Vehicle Replacements, WA ........................................................................................................... 500,000 

Link Transit Vehicle Replacements, Chelan and Douglas Counties, WA ............................................................ 1,000,000 

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 County, WA ...................................................................... 1,000,000 

Reconstruction of the Mayfield Road Rapid Transit Station and Bridge, OH .................................................... 2,000,000 

Replacement Buses at Transit Authority of Northern Kentucky [TANK], Kenton County, KY .............................. 1,000,000 

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 
97 

BUS AND BUS FACILITIES—Continued 

Project name Committee 

recommendation 

Washoe County Bus Facilities, NV ....................................................................................................................... 500,000 

White Earth Tribal Transit Service Bus Garage Facility, MN .............................................................................. 500,000 

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 

Project name Committee recommendation 

Innovation in Transportation Infrastructure Systems Planning, College of Staten Island, Staten Island, NY .. $450,000 

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 Authority, IL ............................................................... 500,000 

Tier 2 Environmental Impact Statement/Preliminary Engineering, Atlanta, GA ................................................. 1,000,000 

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. 
98 

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 at-
99 

tention 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. 
100 

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 Project, IL .............................................................. 2,200,000 

City of Charlotte, Charlotte Area Transit System’s Blue Line Extension—Northeast Corridor Project, NC ..... 3,700,000 

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 Commuter Rail to the St. Cloud Area, MN ..................... 1,500,000 

Oakland, East Bay BRT, CA ............................................................................................................................... 15,000,000 

Orlando, Central Florida Commuter Rail Transit—Initial Operating Settlement, FL ....................................... 34,000,000 

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 Rail, UT ................................................................ 80,000,000 

San Bernardino, E Street Corridor sbX BRT, CA ............................................................................................... 40,114,830 

San Francisco Muni Third St. Light Rail, Central Subway Project, CA ............................................................ 20,000,000 

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 
101 

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. 
102 

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 op-
103 

eration 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. 
104 

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, 
105 

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 

request 

Committee 

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 Administration ............................................................ 8,545,000 8,445,000 

Maintenance, Repair and Operations ................................................................ 9,112,000 9,112,000 

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 Academies ............................................................ 15,007,000 15,407,000 

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 Travel ................................................................. 1,786,000 1,786,000 

Discretionary Program Expenses ........................................................................ 1,000,000 6,000,000 

Subtotal, MARAD Operations and Programs ................................................. 49,326,000 57,127,000 

Total, Operations and Training ..................................................................... 164,353,000 172,754,000 

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. 
106 

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 
107 

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]. 
108 

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 refi-
109 

nancing 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. 
110 

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 
111 

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. 
112 

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 
113 

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 multimodal 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 [NDGPS] .............................................................................. 7,400,000 

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 
114 

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 
115 

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 
116 

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 ex-
117 

pertise 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 Departmentwide 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 re- imbursing 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 
118 

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

Appropriation 

Crediting 

offsetting collec- tions 

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. 
119 

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 
120 

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. 
(121) 

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 appropria- tion 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 
122 

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 Intergovernmental Relations ..................................... 2,709,000 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs ............................................................................................ 4,861,000 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Affairs ......................................................................... 2,163,000 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community and Planning Development ................................................... 1,755,000 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing, Federal Housing Commissioner ................................................. 3,565,000 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research ........................................................... 1,117,000 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity ....................................................... 945,000 

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 pro-
123 

vided 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. 
124 

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 Compensation and Benefits ................................................. $65,120,000 

Office of Departmental Operations and Coordination Personnel Compensation and Benefits .......................... 9,122,000 

Office of Field Policy and Management Personnel Compensation and Benefits ................................................ 49,090,000 

Office of the Chief Procurement Officer Personnel Compensation and Benefits ............................................... 15,931,635 

Office of the Chief Financial Officer Personnel Compensation and Benefits .................................................... 33,831,000 

Office of the General Counsel Personnel Compensation and Benefits ............................................................... 86,482,000 

Office of the Departmental Equal Employment Opportunity Personnel Compensation and Benefits ................ 3,296,000 

Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives Personnel Compensation and Benefits .............................. 1,316,000 

Office of Sustainability Personnel Compensation and Benefits ......................................................................... 2,887,000 

Office of Strategic Planning and Management Personnel Compensation and Benefits .................................... 4,445,000 

Office of the Chief Disaster and Emergency Management Officer ..................................................................... 4,875,000 

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 budg-
125 

et, 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 nonper- sonnel-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- 
126 

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 Sec-
127 

retary 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 
128 

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 
129 

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 
130 

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 leadbased 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 leadbased 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 
131 

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 au-
132 

thorities 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. 
133 

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. 
134 

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 nonprofit 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. 
135 

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 atrisk. 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 
136 

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 
137 

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 
138 

$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 
139 

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. 
140 

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 appropria-
141 

tions 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. 
142 

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 
143 

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. 
144 

INDIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Program account 

Limitation on 

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)

Program account 

Limitation on 

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. 
145 

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. 
146 

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 setasides. 

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. 
147 

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. 
148 

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 
149 

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 
150 

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: 
151 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES 

Recipient and location Project purpose Committee 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, Columbus, OH ....... For renovations of the facilities at Camp Oty’Okwa ............................................................................................................................. 300,000 Big Sky Economic Development Authority, Billings, MT ............ For infrastructure and land acquisition in East Billings ...................................................................................................................... 500,000 Board of Directors of St. Louis Municipal Library, MO .............. To renovate the historic St. Louis Central Library including compliance with ADA requirements in MO ........................................... 1,000,000 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, MT ............... For renovations and expansion .............................................................................................................................................................. 350,000 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 

hybrid electric vehicle technologies and related technologies.

650,000 

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 Corridor. 400,000 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 community development.

700,000 
152 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES—Continued 

Recipient and location Project purpose Committee recommendation 

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 

streetscape investments.

250,000 

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 ....................................................................................................... 900,000City 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 infrastructure. 500,000 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 
153 

Commission on Economic Opportunity for the Greater Capital 

Region, Troy, NY.

For construction of community building to serve as a child care and family resource center for low- to moderate-income individuals. 250,000 

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 

Alaska.

500,000 

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 

energy technology.

250,000 

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 Authority, Charles 

County, MD.

For the installation and/or repair of indoor plumbing for the poor ..................................................................................................... 300,000 

Domestic Violence Services of Snohomish County, Everett, WA For expansion and rehabilitation of a domestic violence facility ......................................................................................................... 500,000 Easter Seals Hawaii, HI .............................................................. For the construction and renovation of building space to provide programs and services for children and adults with disabilities. 300,000 Enosburg Falls Economic Development Corporation, Enosburg 

Falls, VT.

For improvements to an industrial park ................................................................................................................................................ 200,000 

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, ND ............. For rehabilitation of low-income housing .............................................................................................................................................. 700,000 Federal Way Chamber of Commerce, Federal Way, WA ............. For acquisition and facility improvements of a regional small business incubator ............................................................................ 1,200,000 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 

moderate-income farmers in rural communities.

250,000 

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, MT .................. For infrastructure improvements for development of an industrial park ............................................................................................. 800,000 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 programs. 300,000 
154 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES—Continued 

Recipient and location Project purpose Committee recommendation 

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 shelters. 600,000 Heritage Services, Omaha, NE ................................................... For construction of facility that will accommodate an education and interactive learning center .................................................... 800,000 Hocking Co. Community Improvement Corporation, Logan, 

OH.

To construct an incubator/light manufacturing building ...................................................................................................................... 750,000 

Housing Vermont, Burlington, VT ............................................... For expansions and improvements to low-income housing .................................................................................................................. 500,000 Iowa Department of Economic Development, Des Moines, IA ... For the restoration and rehabilitation of buildings, re-introduce upper floor housing, and add economic value in Iowa’s historic 

Main Street districts.

1,000,000 

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, CO ............... For a facility for Jefferson County Department of Human Services in Colorado to provide housing for homeless veterans ............. 600,000 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 

agricultural workers.

300,000 

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, CT ............. For community facilities renovations and improvements ...................................................................................................................... 700,000 MARC Community Services Corporation, KS .............................. To acquire and renovate vacant and abandoned properties as part of the NeighborhoodsNOW Redevelopment Plan in Wyandotte 

County, Kansas.

400,000 

Maui Economic Development Board, HI ..................................... For equipment purchase and construction to support business incubation and economic development for Molokai cooperatives. 250,000 Milwaukee Department of City Development, Milwaukee, WI .... For the preservation and improvement of affordable housing ............................................................................................................. 400,000 Missouri Institute for Biotechnology and Innovation, MO .......... To renovate and equip the historic Missouri Institute for Biotechnology and Innovation in Cole County, Missouri ........................... 1,000,000 Molokai Habitat for Humanity, HI .............................................. For construction and rehabilitation of low- and very low-income housing using the Molokai Habitat for Humanity self-help housing model. 400,000 New Hampshire Community Loan Fund, Concord, NH ............... For support for Community Loan Fund programs for the New Hampshire Community Loan Fund ..................................................... 500,000 
155 

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, SD .................. For Childcare Center building modifications ......................................................................................................................................... 550,000 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, Bloomfield, CT ..... For the construction of a community wellness center .......................................................................................................................... 200,000 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 initiatives. 260,000 Regional Economic Development, Inc., Columbia, MO .............. For renovations and equipment for a small business incubator at the Enterprise Center ................................................................. 425,000 Regional Foodbank, Akron-Canton, OH ...................................... For energy conservation improvements for the food bank facility ........................................................................................................ 250,000 River Ridge Development Authority, Jeffersonville, IN ............... For the development of housing as part of the River Ridge Commerce Center Infrastructure Planning Project ............................... 350,000 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 Toksook Bay, AK .. To construct a early childhood development center .............................................................................................................................. 500,000 Salt Lake County, UT .................................................................. For construction related to the Salt Lake County Transitional Housing project ................................................................................... 750,000 Share of Vancouver, Clark and Cowlitz County, Vancouver, 

WA.

For rehabilitation of a facility to provide for transitional homeless housing and other services ....................................................... 900,000 

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, NV ................... For the creation of the Storey County Youth and Community Center ................................................................................................... 400,000 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 .............................................................................................................................. 300,000The Planning Office for Urban Affairs, Boston, MA ................... For the construction of affordable housing and mixed-use space ....................................................................................................... 400,000 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, NJ .................. For construction and renovation of new child advocacy center for sexually abused children in Union County ................................. 200,000 
156 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES—Continued 

Recipient and location Project purpose Committee recommendation 

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, Seattle, WA ............... For rehabilitation and revitalization of a facility serving disadvantaged youth .................................................................................. 600,000 Urban League of Metropolitan Seattle, Seattle, WA .................. For improvements to a facility to allow for the expansion of affordable housing ............................................................................... 300,000 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, Montpelier, VT ....... For historic preservation improvements throughout Vermont ............................................................................................................... 200,000 Vermont Housing & Conservation Board Montpelier, VT ........... For enhancement of affordable housing, community development initiatives, economic development, land conservation, and historic preservation. 3,000,000 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 Transportation Authority, Fort Smith, AR. For infrastructure improvements related to the development of an industrial park ........................................................................... 500,000 Western Nebraska Community College, Scottsbluff, NE ............ For the construction and equipment purchase in support of a renewable energy training center ..................................................... 400,000 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, WA ................ For the construction of a community center ......................................................................................................................................... 1,000,000YWCA of Greater Portland, OR ................................................... For design and construction of a facility that provides safety and services to victims of Human Trafficking ................................. 300,000 
157 

The Neighborhood Initiatives are as follows: 
158 

NEIGHBORHOOD INITIATIVES 

Recipient and location Project purpose Committee recommendation 

Abyssinian Development Corporation, New York, NY ................. For the development and rehabilitation of new and existing low- and moderate-income housing units in the central Harlem 

area.

$300,000 

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 

housing using smart growth design and green infrastructure.

400,000 

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, NV .............. For foreclosure related assistance services ........................................................................................................................................... 500,000 Florida’s Heartland Rural Economic Development Initiative, 

Sebring, FL.

To create a research park ...................................................................................................................................................................... 400,000 

Hire America’s Heroes, Redmond, WA ........................................ To expand employment services for veterans ........................................................................................................................................ 250,000 Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS .................. For the Development of the Civic Capacity Development Initiative Project at Mississippi State University ....................................... 750,000 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, VT ............... To continue to expand high-speed, high-technology broadband connectivity as part of the North Country Community Broadband 

Initiative.

1,000,000 

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 neighborhoods. 250,000 TechRanch, Bozeman, MT ........................................................... For entrepreneurship programs and support for a business incubator ................................................................................................ 200,000 Vermont Housing and Conservation Board, Montpelier, VT ....... For expansion and improvement of low-income housing ...................................................................................................................... 300,000 Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund, Montpelier, VT ........................ For capitalizing a revolving loan fund .................................................................................................................................................. 500,000 Washington State Farmworker Housing Trust, Seattle, WA ....... For capacity building to support the expansion of affordable housing for farmworkers ..................................................................... 200,000 
159 

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 
160 

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 
161 

‘‘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 
162 

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 pointin-time estimate, there was a 10 percent decrease in chronic homelessness from 2008 to 2009, which builds on declines seen for the 
163 

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 
164 

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. 
165 

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. 
166 

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 

1The 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 
167 

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, 
168 

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. 
169 

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. 
170 

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 direct 

loans 

Limitation on 

guaranteed loans 

Administrative 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 direct 

loans 

Limitation on 

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 insur-
171 

ance [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 
172 

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. 
173 

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. 
174 

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 deterio-
175 

ration 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 
176 

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. 
177 

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. 
178 

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 ex-
179 

ploded 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 
180 

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 
181 

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 
182 

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. 
183 

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. 
184 

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. 
(185) 

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 
186 

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 
187 

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 

1The 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, how-
188 

ever, 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 
189 

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 
190 

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 
191 

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 
192 

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 As-
193 

sistance Act of 1987 to coordinate and direct the multiple efforts of 

Federal agencies and other designated groups. The Council was authorized to review Federal programs that assist homeless persons 

and to take necessary actions to reduce duplication. The Council 

can recommend improvements in programs and activities conducted by Federal, State, and local government as well as local volunteer organizations. The Council consists of the heads of 18 Federal agencies, such as the Departments of Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Labor, and Transportation; 

and other entities as deemed appropriate. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends 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, regard-
194 

ing 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. 
(195) 

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. 
196 

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. 
(197) 

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 
198 

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 
199 

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. 
200 

TITLE 12—BANKS AND BANKING 

CHAPTER 13—NATIONAL HOUSING

§ 1709. Insurance of mortgages 

(a) Authorization 

* * * * * * * 

(c) Premium charges 

(1) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(A) * * * 

ø(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

§ 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 øfiscal year 2010.¿ fiscal year 

2011. 

* * * * * * * 
201 

(o) Sunset 

No assistance may be provided under this section after øSeptember 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 øOctober 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

øFLEXIBLE SUBSIDY FUND¿ 

ø(TRANSFER OF FUNDS)¿ 

øFrom 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 streets for bicyclists 

and pedestrians including crosswalks, sidewalks and traffic calming measures, Covina $400,000 
202 

Highway Projects 

High Priority Projects—Continued 

No. State Project Description Amount 

* * * * * * * 

54 IA øStudy of a direct link to I–80, Pella¿ Study of 

a direct link to 1–80 and Iowa Highway 92, 

in proximity to Pella ........................................ $400,000 

* * * * * * * 

249 WA øComplete preliminary engineering and environmental analysis for SR 14 through 

Camas and Washougal¿ Complete preliminary engineering, environmental and construction for SR 14 through Camas and 

Washougal ........................................................ $1,500,000 

* * * * * * * 

ø374 NJ Reconstruct Route 168 from Route 41 to 6th 

Avenue in Runnemede .................................... $526,400¿ 

* * * * * * * 

382 MI Construct Road Improvements to North Henry 

St. from Vermont Ave. to Wilder Rd. Bay 

City ................................................................... ø$2,160,000¿ 

$20,446,640 

* * * * * * * 

400 AK øUnalaska, AK Construction of AMHW ferry 

terminal including approach, staging, and 

upland improvements¿ Road, sidewalk, and 

drainage constuction and improvements, 

City of Unalaska .............................................. $7,500,000 

* * * * * * * 

549 FL Construct Flagler Avenue Improvements, City 

of Key West, Florida ....................................... $808,000 

* * * * * * * 

744 WA øWiden I–5 through Lewis County¿ I–5 Frontage Road and I–5 Interchange Improvements 

in Lewis County ............................................... $3,750,000 

* * * * * * * 

1399 NM øI–40/Munoz Reconstruction in the City of 

Gallup¿ I–40 Frontage Road Reconstruction 

in the City of Gallup ....................................... $1,200,000 

* * * * * * * 

1934 WA I–90 Two-Way Transit-HOV Project (to include 

the Montgomery Outer Loop) .......................... $3,200,000 
203 

Highway Projects 

High Priority Projects—Continued 

No. State Project Description Amount 

* * * * * * * 

2406 TX Construct U.S. Business 287 through the Trinity Uptown Project from 7th St. NE to 11th 

St. NE øin 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 ................................................................ $6,400,000 

* * * * * * * 

2827 WA øConstruct SR 9 Pedestrian Overpass in Arlington¿ State Route 9/Crown Ridge Blvd. 

Improvements ................................................... $880,000 

* * * * * * * 

3557 WA øImprove Mill Plain Blvd. between SE 172nd 

and SE 192nd in Vancouver¿ Extend 18th 

Street between 87th Avenue and NE 192nd 

Avenue in Vancouver ....................................... $1,250,000 

* * * * * * * 

3730 AL Preliminary Engineering, Design, ROW Acquisition and Construction of the I–85 Extension (to include the Montgomery Outer Loop) $50,000,000 

* * * * * * * 

ø4892 SD Construction of 4-lane highway on U.S. 79 between Maverick Junction, and the Nebraska 

border ............................................................... $27,000,000¿ 

* * * * * * * 

4924 SD South Dakota Department of Transportation; 

for those projects it has identified as its 

highest priorities ............................................. ø$3,450,000¿ 

$6,149,733.82 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 1934. TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(c) TABLE.—The table referred to in subsections (a) and (b) is 

as follows: 

Transportation Improvements 

No. State Project Description Amount 

105. IA øStudy of Direct Link to I–80, Pella (HP: 54)¿ 

Study of a direct link to 1–80 and Iowa Highway 

92, in proximity to Pella ......................................... $110,000 

* * * * * * * 
204 

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 Buses for Glendale Beeline Transit 

System ............................ $88,833 $92,696 $100,420 $104,283 

* * * * * * * 

160. øKearney, Nebraska—RYDE Transit 

Bus Maintenance and 

Storage Facility¿ Nebraska Statewide Vehicles, Facilities and Related Equipment ............. $384,560 $401,280 $434,720 $451,440 

* * * * * * * 

422. øC Street Expanded 

bus facility and intermodal parking garage, 

Anchorage, AK¿ Anchorage People Mover transit 

needs, Anchorage, AK. ... $1,150,000 $1,200,000 $1,300,000 $1,350,000 

* * * * * * * 

586. øNebraska Department of Roads/Bus 

Maintenance and Storage Facility for RYDE in 

Kearney, NE¿ Nebraska 

Department of Roads— 

Statewide Vehicles, Facilities and Related 

Equipment ...................... $458,000 $476,000 $517,000 $549,000 

* * * * * * * 

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

(a) IN GENERAL.— * * * 
205 

(1) PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL SECURITY STUDY.— 

* * * 

* * * * * * * 

(22) GREATER NEW HAVEN TRANSIT DISTRICT øFUEL CELLPOWERED 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 øFuel 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

øFLEXIBLE SUBSIDY FUND¿ 

ø(TRANSFER OF FUNDS)¿ 

øFrom 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 ‘‘øDesign, 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- 
206 

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 ‘‘øDesign, right-of-way acquisition, 

andconstruction of Highway 35 between Norfolk and South 

SiouxCity, including an interchange at milepost 1 on U.S. I129¿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’’; 
207 

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 

guidance 1 Amount of bill Committee 

guidance 1 Amount of 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 

2011 ......................................................................................... NA 35,670 NA 31,133 

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. 
208 

PRESIDENTIALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS 

Agency Account Project Amount 

Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ............................................................................. Capital Investment Grants .... Access to Region’s Core [ARC] Tunnel, NJ ..................................................... $200,000,000 Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ............................................................................. Capital Investment Grants .... Austin, MetroRapid BRT, TX ............................................................................ $24,229,796 Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ............................................................................. Capital Investment Grants .... Central Corridor Light Rail Transit Project , MN ............................................ $42,345,000 Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ............................................................................. Capital Investment Grants .... Dallas, Northwest/Southeast LRT MOS, TX ..................................................... $91,249,717 Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ............................................................................. Capital Investment Grants .... Dulles Corridor Rail Project, VA ...................................................................... $96,000,000 Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ............................................................................. Capital Investment Grants .... Fort Collins, Mason Corridor BRT, CO ............................................................. $5,128,989 Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ............................................................................. Capital Investment Grants .... Honolulu High Capacity Transit Corridor Project, HI ...................................... $55,000,000 Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ............................................................................. Capital Investment Grants .... Houston, North Corridor LRT, TX ..................................................................... $75,000,000 Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ............................................................................. Capital Investment Grants .... Houston, Southeast Corridor LRT, TX .............................................................. $75,000,000 Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ............................................................................. Capital Investment Grants .... King County, West Seattle BRT, WA ................................................................ $21,274,000 Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ............................................................................. Capital Investment Grants .... New Britain-Hartford Busway, CT ................................................................... $42,345,000 Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ............................................................................. Capital Investment Grants .... New York City, Nostrand Ave BRT, NY ............................................................ $26,723,039 Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ............................................................................. Capital Investment Grants .... New York, Long Island Rail Road East Side Access, NY ................................ $202,315,000 Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ............................................................................. Capital Investment Grants .... New York, Second Avenue Subway Phase I, NY .............................................. $185,548,262 Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ............................................................................. Capital Investment Grants .... Oakland, East Bay BRT, CA ............................................................................ $15,000,000Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ............................................................................. Capital Investment Grants .... Orlando, Central Florida Commuter Rail Transit—Initial Operating Settlement, FL. $34,000,000 Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ............................................................................. Capital Investment Grants .... Perris Valley Line, Riverside, CA ..................................................................... $23,490,000 Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ............................................................................. Capital Investment Grants .... RTD FasTracks East Corridor, Denver, CO ...................................................... $40,000,000 Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ............................................................................. Capital Investment Grants .... RTD FasTracks Gold Corridor, Denver, CO ...................................................... $40,000,000 Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ............................................................................. Capital Investment Grants .... RTD FasTracks West Corridor, Denver, CO ...................................................... $37,808,439 Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ............................................................................. Capital Investment Grants .... Salt Lake City, Mid Jordan LRT, UT ................................................................ $100,000,000 Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ............................................................................. Capital Investment Grants .... Salt Lake City, Weber County to Salt Lake City Commuter Rail, UT ............. $80,000,000 Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ............................................................................. Capital Investment Grants .... San Bernardino, E Street Corridor sbX BRT, CA ............................................. $40,114,830 Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ............................................................................. Capital Investment Grants .... San Francisco Muni Third St. Light Rail, Central Subway Project, CA .......... $20,000,000 Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ............................................................................. Capital Investment Grants .... San Francisco, Van Ness Avenue BRT, CA ..................................................... $14,115,000 Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ............................................................................. Capital Investment Grants .... Seattle, University Link LRT Extension, WA ..................................................... $110,000,000 Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ............................................................................. Capital Investment Grants .... VelociRFTA Bus Rapid Transit, CO .................................................................. $24,163,000 
209 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS—DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Agency Account Project Amount Member 

Department of Transportation, Office of 

the Secretary [OST].

Transportation, Planning, and Development 

[TPR&D].

I–81 Corridor Coalition, PA .................................................................... $700,000 Senators Specter, Casey

Department of Transportation, Office of 

the Secretary [OST].

Transportation, Planning, and Development 

[TPR&D].

PSRC Sustainable Transportation and Growth Modeling Demonstration Project, King County, WA. $750,000 Senator Murray 

Department of Transportation, Office of 

the Secretary [OST].

Transportation, Planning, and Development 

[TPR&D].

International Mobility and Trade Corridor Project, Whatcom County, 

WA.

$750,000 Senators Murray, Cantwell 

Department of Transportation, Office of 

the Secretary [OST].

Transportation, Planning, and Development 

[TPR&D].

Aviation Futures Alliance Employment, Export and Industry Growth 

Analysis, WA.

$500,000 Senator Murray 

Department of Transportation, Office of 

the Secretary [OST].

Transportation, Planning, and Development 

[TPR&D].

Missouri River Freight Corridor Development Study, MO ...................... $2,000,000 Senator Bond 

Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] ....... AIP—Airport Improvement Program ................... Air Cargo Apron Expansion, International Intermodal Center, Huntsville-Madison County Airport, AL. $500,000 Senator Shelby Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] ....... AIP—Airport Improvement Program ................... Airport Runway Extension at Middle Georgia Regional Airport, Macon, 

GA.

$1,400,000 Senators Isakson, Chambliss 

Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] ....... AIP—Airport Improvement Program ................... Augusta Airport Runway Reconstruction and Safety Area Improvements, Augusta, ME. $1,000,000 Senators Snowe, Collins Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] ....... AIP—Airport Improvement Program ................... Devils Lake Regional Airport Authority, ND ........................................... $1,000,000 Senators Dorgan, Conrad Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] ....... AIP—Airport Improvement Program ................... Expansion of Tunica Airport Commercial Terminal, MS ........................ $1,500,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] ....... AIP—Airport Improvement Program ................... Grand Forks International Airport, ND ................................................... $2,500,000 Senators Dorgan, Conrad Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] ....... AIP—Airport Improvement Program ................... Gulfport-Biloxi Regional Airport, Taxiway ‘‘J’’ North, MS ...................... $2,000,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] ....... AIP—Airport Improvement Program ................... Jackson-Evers International Airport Essential Airfield Improvements, 

MS.

$2,000,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker 

Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] ....... AIP—Airport Improvement Program ................... Lanett Municipal Airport Runway Construction, Lanett, AL .................. $1,500,000 Senator Shelby Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] ....... AIP—Airport Improvement Program ................... Lawrence Smith Memorial Airport, MO .................................................. $2,000,000 Senator Bond Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] ....... AIP—Airport Improvement Program ................... Macon-Fowler Memorial Airport, MO ...................................................... $1,600,000 Senator Bond Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] ....... AIP—Airport Improvement Program ................... Memphis Airport Runway Seismic Retrofit, TN ..................................... $1,000,000 Senator Alexander Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] ....... AIP—Airport Improvement Program ................... Metropolitan Topeka Airport Authority Hangar Restoration ................... $400,000 Senator Brownback Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] ....... AIP—Airport Improvement Program ................... New Richmond Regional Airport, WI ...................................................... $1,000,000 Senator Kohl Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] ....... AIP—Airport Improvement Program ................... Provo Municipal Airport Development, Provo City, UT ........................... $2,000,000 Senators Hatch, Bennett Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] ....... AIP—Airport Improvement Program ................... Quincy Airport, IL ................................................................................... $600,000 Senator Durbin Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] ....... AIP—Airport Improvement Program ................... Rapid City Regional Airport Terminal Expansion, SD ........................... $500,000 Senator Thune Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] ....... AIP—Airport Improvement Program ................... Reno Stead Emergency Operations Center, NV ..................................... $500,000 Senator Reid Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] ....... AIP—Airport Improvement Program ................... Tuscaloosa Regional Airport, Extension of Taxiway B and the Environmental Assessment for Runway 4–22, Tuscaloosa, AL. $500,000 Senator Sessions Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] ....... AIP—Airport Improvement Program ................... Warsaw Municipal Airport, MO .............................................................. $1,500,000 Senator Bond Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] ....... AIP—Airport Improvement Program ................... West Virginia Statewide Airport Activities, West Virginia ..................... $1,000,000 Senator Rockefeller 
210 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS—DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION—Continued 

Agency Account Project Amount Member 

Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] ....... AIP—Airport Improvement Program ................... Wittman Regional Airport, WI ................................................................ $800,000 Senator Kohl Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] ....... F&E—Facilities and Equipment ........................ Honolulu International Airport Runway Warning Status Lights, HI ...... $1,000,000 Senator Inouye Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] ....... F&E—Facilities and Equipment ........................ Weather Camera Installation Program, HI ............................................ $1,000,000 Senator Inouye Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] ....... RED—Research, Engineering, and Development Advanced Materials in Transport Aircraft Structures, University of 

Washington, WA.

$750,000 Senators Murray, Cantwell 

Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] ....... RED—Research, Engineering, and Development Alaska Aviation Safety Project, AK ........................................................ $1,000,000 Senator Murkowski Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] ....... RED—Research, Engineering, and Development Composite Airframe Maintenance and Airworthiness Education and 

Training, NIAR (WSU), KS.

$500,000 Senators Roberts, Brownback 

Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] ....... RED—Research, Engineering, and Development NIAR Advanced Materials Research, KS ................................................ $500,000 Senators Brownback, Roberts Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] ....... Terminal Air Traffic Facilities ............................ Greenwood-Leflore Airport Control Tower, MS ....................................... $250,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] ....... Terminal Air Traffic Facilities ............................ Lihue Airport Tower Replacement, HI .................................................... $1,500,000 Senator Inouye Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Delta Regional Transportation Development 

Program.

Highway 82 Improvements, MS ............................................................. $2,000,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Delta Regional Transportation Development 

Program.

Interchange of Business 67 and Oakgrove, MO ................................... $2,000,000 Senator Bond 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Delta Regional Transportation Development 

Program.

Interstate-55 Interchange, MO .............................................................. $1,000,000 Senator Bond 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Delta Regional Transportation Development 

Program.

Lake Harbour Drive Extension, MS ........................................................ $1,000,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Delta Regional Transportation Development 

Program.

US–412 Bypass Center Turn Lane, MO ................................................. $1,000,000 Senator Bond 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Delta Regional Transportation Development 

Program.

Washington Street Bridge, MS ............................................................... $1,500,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... FB—Ferry Boats and Terminal Facilities .......... Keller Ferry Replacement Project, Lincoln and Ferry Counties, WA ...... $2,000,000 Senator Murray Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... FB—Ferry Boats and Terminal Facilities .......... Port Lions City Dock and Ferry Terminal Replacement, AK .................. $2,000,000 Senator Murkowski Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... FB—Ferry Boats and Terminal Facilities .......... Port Townsend Passenger Only Ferry, WA ............................................. $1,000,000 Senator Murray Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... FB—Ferry Boats and Terminal Facilities .......... Washington State Ferries System Investments, WA .............................. $2,000,000 Senator Murray Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... FL—Federal Lands (Public Lands Highways) .... BIA 25, Spirit Lake Nation, ND .............................................................. $1,000,000 Senators Dorgan, Conrad Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... FL—Federal Lands (Public Lands Highways) .... Boulder City Bypass Improvement, NV .................................................. $1,000,000 Senator Reid Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... FL—Federal Lands (Public Lands Highways) .... BRAC-related improvements in Anne Arundel County, MD ................... $2,200,000 Senators Mikulski, Cardin Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... FL—Federal Lands (Public Lands Highways) .... BRAC-related improvements in Montgomery County, MD ..................... $2,200,000 Senators Mikulski, Cardin Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... FL—Federal Lands (Public Lands Highways) .... BRAC-related improvements in Prince George’s County, MD ............... $2,200,000 Senators Mikulski, Cardin Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... FL—Federal Lands (Public Lands Highways) .... BRAC-related improvements, Harford County, MD ................................ $2,200,000 Senators Mikulski, Cardin Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... FL—Federal Lands (Public Lands Highways) .... Columbia Pike Realignment, Arlington, VA ........................................... $400,000 Senators Warner, Webb Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... FL—Federal Lands (Public Lands Highways) .... Elwha Valley Road Improvements, WA .................................................. $1,300,000 Senator Murray 
211 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... FL—Federal Lands (Public Lands Highways) .... Federal Lands Improvement Project, HI ................................................ $4,000,000 Senator Inouye Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... FL—Federal Lands (Public Lands Highways) .... FH–24, Banks to Lowman, ID ................................................................ $1,500,000 Senators Crapo, Risch Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... FL—Federal Lands (Public Lands Highways) .... Ghost Hawk Road Improvements (BIA Route 7 to SD Hwy 18), SD ..... $150,000 Senators Thune, Johnson Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... FL—Federal Lands (Public Lands Highways) .... I–15 Corridors of the Future, NV ........................................................... $800,000 Senators Reid, Ensign Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... FL—Federal Lands (Public Lands Highways) .... Improvements and 4 R Work to SD 73 in Jackson County, SD ............ $1,000,000 Senator Thune Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... FL—Federal Lands (Public Lands Highways) .... NM 4 Jemez Pueblo Bypass, NM ........................................................... $1,000,000 Senators Bingaman, Tom 

Udall 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... FL—Federal Lands (Public Lands Highways) .... Onville Road Upgrades, VA .................................................................... $400,000 Senators Webb, Warner Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... FL—Federal Lands (Public Lands Highways) .... Pikes Peak-America’s Mountain, Colorado Springs, CO ........................ $500,000 Senator Mark Udall Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... FL—Federal Lands (Public Lands Highways) .... Pyramid Highway Corridor, Sparks, NV ................................................. $2,000,000 Senators Reid, Ensign Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... FL—Federal Lands (Public Lands Highways) .... SR 160 from I–15 to Pahrump, NV ....................................................... $1,000,000 Senators Ensign, Reid Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... FL—Federal Lands (Public Lands Highways) .... Standing Rock Sioux Tribe—Community Streets Project, Old Bear 

Soldier, SD.

$750,000 Senator Johnson 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... FL—Federal Lands (Public Lands Highways) .... US 50–CO 194 Road Construction, Bent County, CO ........................... $1,400,000 Senators Bennet, Mark 

Udall 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... FL—Federal Lands (Public Lands Highways) .... US 15 at Monocacy Boulevard in Frederick County, MD ...................... $500,000 Senator Mikulski Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... FL—Federal Lands (Public Lands Highways) .... US–20 Sisters Downtown Improvements, Salem, OR ............................ $1,500,000 Senators Merkley, Wyden Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... IM—Interstate Maintenance Discretionary ........ Augusta North Connections—Exit 113, ME .......................................... $4,000,000 Senators Collins, Snowe Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... IM—Interstate Maintenance Discretionary ........ Columbia River Crossing, OR ................................................................ $750,000 Senators Wyden, Merkley Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... IM—Interstate Maintenance Discretionary ........ Columbia River Crossing, WA ................................................................ $2,000,000 Senators Murray, Cantwell Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... IM—Interstate Maintenance Discretionary ........ East Belgrade I–90 Interchange, MT .................................................... $750,000 Senator Baucus, Tester Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... IM—Interstate Maintenance Discretionary ........ Exit 120 Reconstruction, NV .................................................................. $1,500,000 Senator Reid Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... IM—Interstate Maintenance Discretionary ........ I–10 Grand Prairie Highway (La Hwy 98) Interchange and Frontage 

Road, LA.

$400,000 Senators Landrieu, Vitter 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... IM—Interstate Maintenance Discretionary ........ I–10 Pecue Lane Interchange, Baton Rouge, LA .................................. $750,000 Senators Vitter, Landrieu Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... IM—Interstate Maintenance Discretionary ........ I–15 Helena Custer Avenue Interchange and Montana Rail Link Overpass Structures, MT. $1,000,000 Senators Tester, Baucus Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... IM—Interstate Maintenance Discretionary ........ I–280 Mission Bay Off-Ramp and Improvements, CA .......................... $1,500,000 Senator Feinstein Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... IM—Interstate Maintenance Discretionary ........ I–29/I–229 Bridges and Interstate Mainline Reconstruction from 

Near Tea Exit to North of 69th Street and East to Louise Avenue, SD.

$750,000 Senators Thune, Johnson 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... IM—Interstate Maintenance Discretionary ........ I–5 North Stockton Widening and HOV Lane Project, CA ..................... $1,000,000 Senator Boxer Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... IM—Interstate Maintenance Discretionary ........ I–5 Ridgefield Interchange Replacement Project, City of Ridgefield, 

WA.

$1,000,000 Senator Murray 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... IM—Interstate Maintenance Discretionary ........ I–5 West Coast Green Highway, WA ...................................................... $1,000,000 Senators Murray, Cantwell Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... IM—Interstate Maintenance Discretionary ........ I–75/ Everglades Project Development and Environment Study, FL ..... $1,000,000 Senator Bill Nelson Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... IM—Interstate Maintenance Discretionary ........ I–84, West of Wendell to Juniper Rest Area Pavement Rehabilitation, 

ID.

$1,000,000 Senators Crapo, Risch 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... IM—Interstate Maintenance Discretionary ........ I–84/184, Caldwell to Glenns Ferry, Pavement Rehabilitation, ID ....... $750,000 Senators Crapo, Risch Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... IM—Interstate Maintenance Discretionary ........ I–85 Widening in Davidson and Rowan Counties, NC ......................... $1,000,000 Senator Burr 
212 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS—DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION—Continued 

Agency Account Project Amount Member 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... IM—Interstate Maintenance Discretionary ........ I–95 Pawtucket River Bridge Replacement, RI ..................................... $3,000,000 Senators Reed, Whitehouse Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... IM—Interstate Maintenance Discretionary ........ I–95/SR1 Interchange Project, DE ......................................................... $1,000,000 Senators Carper, Kaufman Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... IM—Interstate Maintenance Discretionary ........ I–95/US Hwy. 301 Interchange Improvement Project, SC ..................... $500,000 Senator Graham Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... IM—Interstate Maintenance Discretionary ........ Interchange at State Hwy. 89 and I–40 in Lonoke, AR ........................ $1,000,000 Senators Pryor, Lincoln Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... IM—Interstate Maintenance Discretionary ........ Interstate 280 Interchange Improvements, Harrison, NJ ...................... $1,500,000 Senators Lautenberg, 

Menendez 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... IM—Interstate Maintenance Discretionary ........ Interstate 430/630—Interchange Modification, AR .............................. $3,000,000 Senators Pryor, Lincoln Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... IM—Interstate Maintenance Discretionary ........ Interstate 69/Great River Bridge: Highway 65-MS Highway 1, AR ....... $1,000,000 Senators Pryor, Lincoln Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... IM—Interstate Maintenance Discretionary ........ Interstate 74 Corridor Project, Bettendorf, IA ....................................... $3,000,000 Senators Grassley, Harkin Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... IM—Interstate Maintenance Discretionary ........ Interstate 81 Improvements in Washington County, MD ...................... $500,000 Senator Cardin Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... IM—Interstate Maintenance Discretionary ........ Interstate-95/Fairfax County Parkway Interchange at Newington 

Road, VA.

$1,000,000 Senators Warner, Webb 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... IM—Interstate Maintenance Discretionary ........ Kapolei Interchange Complex Phase 2, HI ............................................ $1,500,000 Senator Inouye Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... IM—Interstate Maintenance Discretionary ........ Starr Road Interchange, NV ................................................................... $2,000,000 Senator Reid Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... IM—Interstate Maintenance Discretionary ........ US 84, El Camino East/West Corridor, AL ............................................. $1,000,000 Senator Sessions Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Burlington Waterfront North Improvemets, VT ...................................... $500,000 Senator Leahy Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. 7th Street Gateway Enhancement Project, NJ ....................................... $500,000 Senators Menendez, Lautenberg Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. 9th Street Safety Improvements Project, Pierce County, WA ................ $700,000 Senator Murray Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. A1A/State Road 200, FL ........................................................................ $750,000 Senator Bill Nelson Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Access Road for Hospital in St. Bernard Parish, LA ............................ $2,500,000 Senator Landrieu Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Airport Road Repair and Resurface and Construction of Western Entrance to Bryan Field, Starksville, MS. $800,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Ann Arbor-Detroit Regional Rail Project, MI .......................................... $2,000,000 Senators Stabenow, Levin Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Appalachian Development Highway System Corridor H, WV ................. $2,000,000 Senator Rockefeller Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Ash Avenue Extension, Macon County, IL .............................................. $400,000 Senator Durbin Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Assembly Square Station, MA ................................................................ $860,000 Senator Kerry Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Autumn Street Parkway, San Jose, CA .................................................. $800,000 Senator Feinstein Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Bench Boulevard Improvements, Billings, MT ....................................... $1,000,000 Senators Tester, Baucus Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Bloomfield Six Points Intersection Streetscape, Bloomfield, NJ ............ $500,000 Senators Lautenberg, 

Menendez 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Brady/Harrison Sustainability Corridor, Davenport, IA .......................... $600,000 Senator Harkin Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Buffalo Niagara Medical Campus Streetscape and Infrastructure Improvements, NY. $1,000,000 Senator Schumer Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Carson City Freeway Phase II, NV ......................................................... $500,000 Senators Reid, Ensign Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Center at Horseheads Access Project, Chemung County, NY ............... $750,000 Senator Schumer 
213 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Central Business District Streetscape, City of Milan, MO .................... $800,000 Senator Bond Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. City of Detroit Dequindre Cut Greenway, Phase II, MI .......................... $1,000,000 Senators Levin, Stabenow Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. City of Harlingen North Rail Relocation, TX .......................................... $1,000,000 Senator Hutchison Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. City of Monroe Fourth Street Underpass Project, Monroe, LA ............... $800,000 Senators Landrieu, Vitter Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Congress Street Bridge, Bridgeport, CT ................................................ $1,200,000 Senators Dodd, Lieberman Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. ConnectVermont, VT ............................................................................... $1,000,000 Senator Leahy Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Crosby Street Reconstruction Project, Hornell, NY ................................ $500,000 Senators Schumer, Gillibrand Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Defense Facility Access Road, West Point, MS ..................................... $750,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Denali Commission Transportation Program, AK .................................. $800,000 Senator Begich Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Denali Commission, AK only for the Anaktuvuk Pass Bridge Replacement, Scammon Bay Community Streets, Alakanuk Community 

Streets and King Salmon & Naknek School Bus Road, AK.

$1,000,000 Senators Murkowski, Begich 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Division Street Corridor Improvements, Spokane, WA ........................... $1,000,000 Senator Murray Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Downtown Farmingdale Revitalization Master Plan, NY ....................... $100,000 Senator Schumer Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Downtown Infrastructure Project, Somersworth, NH .............................. $300,000 Senator Shaheen Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Downtown Streetscape, City of Custer, SD ........................................... $400,000 Senator Johnson Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Downtown Streetscape, Yankton, SD ..................................................... $300,000 Senator Johnson Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. East Brandon By-Pass, Brandon, MS .................................................... $2,500,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. East Metropolitan Corridor, Brandon, MS .............................................. $2,500,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. East Mississippi Intermodal Rail Corridor, MS ..................................... $1,000,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Embarcadero Goods Movement Project, Oakland, CA ........................... $2,000,000 Senator Boxer Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Fairbanks Rail Line Relocation, AK ....................................................... $1,000,000 Senator Murkowski Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Faulkner Lake Road Improvements, AR ................................................. $500,000 Senators Pryor, Lincoln Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Fort Campbell KY–911 Road Widening Project from US–41A to Oak 

Grove, Christian County, KY.

$3,000,000 Senators McConnell, Bunning 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Fort Knox Access Road, Hardin County, KY ........................................... $1,600,000 Senators McConnell, Bunning Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Fortification Street Improvements, Jackson, MS ................................... $2,500,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Freight Rail Modernization: Improving the Freight Rail and Transfer 

Facility at the Hunts Point Terminal Produce Market, South Bronx, NY.

$500,000 Senator Gillibrand 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Grace Avenue Safety Improvements, City of Battle Ground, WA .......... $1,000,000 Senators Murray, Cantwell Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Grand Technology Gateway—Phase 1, West Des Moines, IA ............... $500,000 Senator Harkin Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Greensboro Downtown Greenway, Greensboro, NC ................................ $300,000 Senator Hagan Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Hattiesburg Longleaf Trace Rails To Trails, Hattiesburg, MS .............. $500,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Hendersonville Area Infrastructure Improvements, Hendersonville, 

NC.

$250,000 Senators Hagan 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. High Street/Route 89 Reconstruction, Caribou, ME .............................. $1,000,000 Senator Collins Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Highway 112 Improvement, AR ............................................................. $500,000 Senators Pryor, Lincoln 
214 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS—DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION—Continued 

Agency Account Project Amount Member 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Highway 14 Project, Owatonna to Dodge Center, MN ........................... $250,000 Senators Klobuchar, 

Franken 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Highway 226: Highway 67 to Highway 49, Little Rock, AR .................. $1,000,000 Senators Pryor, Lincoln Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Highway 47 Bridge Replacement, MO ................................................... $2,000,000 Senator Bond Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Highway 6, Batesville, MS ..................................................................... $500,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Highway 7 Sidewalk Infill, City of Blue Springs, MO ........................... $800,000 Senator Bond Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Highway 93 and Kalispell Bypass, MT .................................................. $600,000 Senator Baucus Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Highway 965 Project, Phase 2, North Liberty, IA .................................. $500,000 Senators Harkin, Grassley Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Highway 98 Access Improvements, Lamar County, MS ........................ $1,750,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Holly Springs Road, DeSoto County, MS ................................................ $2,000,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Horsehoe Bend Parkway Extension, MO ................................................. $2,000,000 Senator Bond Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. I–15 Corridor: Devore Interchange Improvements, San Bernardino, 

CA.

$1,500,000 Senators Boxer, Feinstein 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. I–15 MP 8, Bicycle/Pedestrian Passageway, City of St. George, UT .... $500,000 Senators Bennett, Hatch Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. I–40 Realignment Ingress/Egress Project, Oklahoma City, OK ............. $750,000 Senator Inhofe Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. I–49 between I–40 and US Hwy. 71 South, Little Rock, AR ................ $2,500,000 Senators Pryor, Lincoln Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Icicle Station—Phase II, City of Leavenworth, WA ............................... $900,000 Senator Murray Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Illinois pedestrian and bicycling road and trail improvements and 

enhancements, IL.

$2,500,000 Senator Durbin 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Indian River Inlet Bridge, Dover, DE ..................................................... $800,000 Senators Carper, Kaufman Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Intallation of the Sterling Highway/Birch Street Traffic Signal Light, 

Soldatna, AK.

$400,000 Senator Begich 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Interchange CSAH7/TH23, Lyon County, MN .......................................... $1,000,000 Senators Klobuchar, 

Franken 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Interstate 44 and Range Line Road Interchange, MO .......................... $1,000,000 Senator Bond Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Interstate 44 Crossroads Interchange Study, City of Joplin, MO .......... $250,000 Senator Bond Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Interstate 64 and 22nd St. Interchange Reconfiguration, MO ............. $1,500,000 Senator Bond Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Iowa Highway 14–57 Complete Streets Corridor Improvements, Parkersburg, IA. $750,000 Senators Grassley, Harkin Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Jordan Valley Gateway Plaza Streetscape, City of Springfield, MO ...... $600,000 Senator Bond Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Khrushchev in Iowa Trail, Guthrie County, IA ....................................... $400,000 Senators Harkin, Grassley Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. LA 1 Project Phase II Design-Golden Meadow, Leeville, LA .................. $500,000 Senators Vitter, Landrieu Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Lafayette Interchange, MO ..................................................................... $1,500,000 Senator Bond Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Lake St. Clair Shoreline Trail, Harrison Township, MI .......................... $1,000,000 Senators Levin, Stabenow Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Lewis and Clark Legacy Trail, ND ......................................................... $600,000 Senators Dorgan, Conrad 
215 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Lone Elm Road Improvements, City of Olathe, KS ................................ $750,000 Senators Brownback, Roberts Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Lower Hill Infrastructure Project, PA ..................................................... $600,000 Senators Specter, Casey Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Lower Main Street Infrastructure Project, Claremont, NH ..................... $500,000 Senator Shaheen Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Maritime Fire and Safety Administration, WA ....................................... $500,000 Senator Murray Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Martin Road Expansion from Zierdt Road West to Laracy Drive, AL .... $10,000,000 Senator Shelby Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. MD 404 improvements in Caroline, Talbot and Queen Anne’s Counties, MD. $600,000 Senator Mikulski Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Memorial Boulevard Improvements, Picayune, MS ................................ $1,450,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. MLK Blvd Grade Separation Safety Improvements, Yakama, WA ......... $1,300,000 Senator Murray Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. MO–740—East Columbia Transportation Extension, MO ..................... $1,500,000 Senator Bond Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Monongalia Health Systems, Morgantown, WV ..................................... $1,000,000 Senator Rockefeller Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Monte Vista Avenue/Union Pacific Railroad Grade Separation Project, 

CA.

$700,000 Senator Boxer 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Naugatuck River Greenway/Waterbury Segment, CT ............................. $750,000 Senators Lieberman, Dodd Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. NC 12, Dare County, NC ........................................................................ $750,000 Senators Hagan, Burr Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Nevada Pacific Parkway Extension, Fernley, NV .................................... $500,000 Senators Reid, Ensign Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. New Bedford Fast Track Freight Bridges, MA ....................................... $1,000,000 Senator Kerry Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. New York Ave. from 32nd to 48th St, Union City, NJ ........................... $500,000 Senators Menendez, Lautenberg Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. New York State Route 12, Chenango County, NY ................................. $450,000 Senator Schumer Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Newport Cliff Walk Restoration, RI ........................................................ $1,000,000 Senators Reed, Whitehouse Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. North 5th Street Arterial, NV ................................................................. $2,000,000 Senator Reid Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. North Manhattan Avenue Widening, Manhattan, KS ............................. $750,000 Senator Brownback Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Northern Avenue Bridge Rehabilitation, Boston, MA ............................. $1,000,000 Senator Kerry Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Northern Nevada Traffic Management, NV ............................................ $500,000 Senator Reid Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Northside Drive Corridor, Clinton, MS ................................................... $2,500,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Ogdensburg-Prescott International Bridge Rehabilitation Project, 

NY.

$750,000 Senators Schumer, Gillibrand 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Paducah Waterfront Development Project, KY ....................................... $1,000,000 Senator McConnell Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Port of Anchorage Intermodal Expansion Project, AK ........................... $1,000,000 Senator Murkowski Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Port of Pasco Rail Infrastructure Construction, WA .............................. $1,400,000 Senator Murray Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Quincy Center Redevelopment, Quincy, MA ........................................... $400,000 Senator Kerry Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Rail and Infrastructure Improvements in Northern Maine .................... $3,000,000 Senator Collins Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Rail Infrastructure Investments, Port of Grays Harbor, WA .................. $2,000,000 Senator Murray Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Rail Infrastructure Investments, Port of Moses Lake, WA .................... $2,000,000 Senator Murray Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Raleigh Street Extension, Martinsburg, WV ........................................... $1,000,000 Senator Rockefeller Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Reconstruction of Hunter Street Bridge, County of Gloucester, NJ ....... $1,000,000 Senators Menendez, Lautenberg Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Red Mountain Transportation Improvements, Benton County, WA ....... $1,000,000 Senator Murray 
216 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS—DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION—Continued 

Agency Account Project Amount Member 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Regional Planning Commission, St. Tammany Parish LA 21 Widening, 

New Orleans, LA.

$1,300,000 Senator Landrieu 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Rehabilitation of the Ashford Avenue Bridge, Westchester County, 

NY.

$750,000 Senator Schumer 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Rickenbacker Pickaway East-West Connector, OH ................................ $500,000 Senators Voinovich, Sherrod 

Brown 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Riverside Freeway (State Route 91) Congestion Relief Project, Orange 

County, CA.

$1,000,000 Senator Feinstein 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Route 1/Route 123 Interchange Improvements, VA .............................. $400,000 Senators Warner, Webb Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Route 160 Bridge over I–44, MO .......................................................... $1,000,000 Senator Bond Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Route 54 Corridor, MO ........................................................................... $1,000,000 Senator Bond Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Sellwood Bridge Replacement Project, OR ............................................ $500,000 Senators Wyden, Merkley Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Shelby Intermodal Hub, Shelby, MT ....................................................... $2,000,000 Senators Tester, Baucus Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. South Dakota Highway 100 right-of-way and construction Sioux 

Falls, SD.

$1,200,000 Senator Johnson 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Southeast Connector, Des Moines, IA .................................................... $2,000,000 Senator Harkin Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Southpark Bridge Replacement Project, King County, WA .................... $3,000,000 Senator Murray Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Southridge Transportation Improvements, City of Kennewick, WA ....... $500,000 Senator Murray Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Sparks Rail Yard Relocation Study, City of Sparks, NV ....................... $200,000 Senator Reid Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. SR 6247 Section 000 Valley View Business Park Access Road, Lackawanna County, PA. $750,000 Senators Casey, Specter Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. SR24, Love Creek to SR1, Dover, DE ..................................................... $500,000 Senators Carper, Kaufman Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. SR–522 Corridor Improvements, City of Kenmore, WA ......................... $600,000 Senator Murray Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. St. John’s Heritage Parkway Interchanges, FL ...................................... $1,500,000 Senator Bill Nelson Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Stamford Pedestrian Safety Improvements, CT ..................................... $500,000 Senators Dodd, Lieberman Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Stamford Street Underpass Reconstruction, Stamford, CT ................... $1,000,000 Senators Lieberman, Dodd Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. State Route 19 from State Route 492 to Philadelphia, MS ................. $1,750,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. State Route 794 Realignment, Springfield, OH .................................... $750,000 Senators Sherrod Brown, 

Voinovich 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Stonewall Jackson State Park, WV ........................................................ $500,000 Senator Rockefeller Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Sunport Boulevard Extension, Bernalillo County, NM ............................ $1,700,000 Senators Bingaman, Udall Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. TH 5/Oak Avenue Pedestrian Underpass, City of Waconia, MN ............ $400,000 Senator Klobuchar Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. TH 610 from CSAH 81 to I–94, MN ...................................................... $250,000 Senators Klobuchar, 

Franken 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Town of Bristol Road and Drainage Improvements, RI ........................ $350,000 Senators Reed, Whitehouse 
217 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Transportation Infrastructure to serve the Kansas Logistics Park, 

Newton, KS.

$500,000 Senator Roberts 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Trunk Highway 13 & County State Aid Highway 5 Interchange, MN ... $250,000 Senators Klobuchar, 

Franken 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. US 113 improvements in Worcester County, MD .................................. $600,000 Senators Mikulski, Cardin Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. US 12 Safety Improvements, Walla Walla County, WA ......................... $1,000,000 Senator Murray Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. US 2 and Sultan Basin Road Safety Improvements, Sultan, WA ......... $1,000,000 Senator Murray Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. US 287 Business Route, Fort Worth, TX ................................................ $3,500,000 Senator Hutchison Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. US Route 322 Corridor Safety Improvements, PA ................................. $500,000 Senators Specter, Casey Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. US Route 422/Sanatoga Interchange, PA .............................................. $700,000 Senators Specter, Casey Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Umatilla Depot Rail Switches Replacement Project, Umatilla County, 

OR.

$400,000 Senators Wyden, Merkley 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Urban Collector Road Project, Jackson County, MS .............................. $2,000,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. US 52 Interchange & Overpass, relocate Goodhue County 24 at Cannon Falls, MN. $400,000 Senators Franken, Klo- buchar Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. US 93 Corridor, MT ................................................................................ $1,000,000 Senators Tester, Baucus Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. US Highway 30, Whiteside County, IL ................................................... $500,000 Senator Durbin Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. US Highway 63/Future Interstate 555 Interchange Improvements, Little Rock, AR. $2,000,000 Senators Pryor, Lincoln Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Vancouver Waterfront Access Improvement Project, WA ....................... $2,000,000 Senators Murray, Cantwell Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Vermont Downtown Streetscape and Sidewalk Improvements in Johnson, Ludlow, Northfield, Springfield, and Townshend, VT. $3,250,000 Senator Leahy Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Village West Access Improvements, KS ................................................. $400,000 Senators Brownback, Roberts Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Warrensville/Van Aken Transit Oriented Development, Shaker Heights, 

OH.

$500,000 Senators Voinovich, Sherrod 

Brown 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. West College Street Improvements, Bozeman, MT ................................ $750,000 Senators Tester, Baucus Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. West Virginia Route 10, Logan County, WV .......................................... $1,500,000 Senator Rockefeller Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... Surface Transportation Investments .................. Wilmington to Newark Commuter Rail Improvement Program, DE ....... $1,300,000 Senators Carper, Kaufman Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... TCSP—Transportation & Community & System 

Preservation.

Alice’s Road/105th Street Interchange and Connecting Roads, 

Waukee, IA.

$900,000 Senators Grassley, Harkin 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... TCSP—Transportation & Community & System 

Preservation.

Bellingham Waterfront Transportation Improvements, Bellingham, 

WA.

$700,000 Senator Murray 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... TCSP—Transportation & Community & System 

Preservation.

Brookstown Redevelopment Project, Winston-Salem, NC ...................... $1,000,000 Senators Burr, Hagan 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... TCSP—Transportation & Community & System 

Preservation.

Centennial Trail Expansion, Snohomish County, WA ............................. $375,000 Senator Murray 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... TCSP—Transportation & Community & System 

Preservation.

Center Point Greenway and Pedestrian Walkway Project, AL ............... $500,000 Senator Sessions 
218 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS—DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION—Continued 

Agency Account Project Amount Member 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... TCSP—Transportation & Community & System 

Preservation.

Cregg Lane/Wyoming Street Connector, MT .......................................... $1,825,000 Senators Baucus, Tester 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... TCSP—Transportation & Community & System 

Preservation.

Cushman Trail Project, Pierce County, WA ............................................ $525,000 Senator Murray 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... TCSP—Transportation & Community & System 

Preservation.

Denver Bike Sharing, Denver, CO .......................................................... $500,000 Senator Mark Udall 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... TCSP—Transportation & Community & System 

Preservation.

Downtown Streetscape Improvements, City of Pine Bluff, AR .............. $1,100,000 Senators Pryor, Lincoln 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... TCSP—Transportation & Community & System 

Preservation.

East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana Downtown Greenway, LA ............ $250,000 Senator Landrieu 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... TCSP—Transportation & Community & System 

Preservation.

Environmental Improvement and Cost Savings Pavement Study, SC .. $350,000 Senator Graham 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... TCSP—Transportation & Community & System 

Preservation.

Essex County Riverfront Park, Newark, NJ ............................................ $1,000,000 Senator Menendez 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... TCSP—Transportation & Community & System 

Preservation.

Fountain Avenue Rehabilitation and Veteran’s Bridge Connectivity, 

Springfield, OH.

$350,000 Senator Sherrod Brown 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... TCSP—Transportation & Community & System 

Preservation.

Highway 212 Expansion—Carver County, MN ...................................... $400,000 Senators Franken, Klobuchar 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... TCSP—Transportation & Community & System 

Preservation.

I–49 North, LA ....................................................................................... $1,000,000 Senators Vitter, Landrieu 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... TCSP—Transportation & Community & System 

Preservation.

I–55 Business Loop to Memorial Hospital, City of Lincoln, IL ............. $2,000,000 Senator Durbin 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... TCSP—Transportation & Community & System 

Preservation.

John N. Hardee Expressway, SC ............................................................ $1,000,000 Senator Graham 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... TCSP—Transportation & Community & System 

Preservation.

Loop 82 Railroad Overpass, San Marcos, TX ........................................ $1,500,000 Senators Hutchison, Cornyn 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... TCSP—Transportation & Community & System 

Preservation.

Medford Safe Sidewalks, Medford, OR .................................................. $300,000 Senators Wyden, Merkley 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... TCSP—Transportation & Community & System 

Preservation.

Midtown Revitalization Transportation Infrastructure, Rochester, NY .. $2,000,000 Senators Schumer, Gillibrand 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... TCSP—Transportation & Community & System 

Preservation.

Piedmont Triad Research Park Transportation Improvements, NC ....... $500,000 Senator Burr 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... TCSP—Transportation & Community & System 

Preservation.

Qwuloolt Access Trail Project, Marysville, WA ....................................... $500,000 Senator Murray 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... TCSP—Transportation & Community & System 

Preservation.

Reconstruction of the Hudson River Waterfront Walkway, Hoboken, 

NJ.

$1,000,000 Senators Lautenberg, 

Menendez 
219 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... TCSP—Transportation & Community & System 

Preservation.

Rivers Edge Roadway Infrastructure and Streetscape Initiative, MI .... $1,300,000 Senators Levin, Stabenow 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... TCSP—Transportation & Community & System 

Preservation.

Saddle Road Improvement Project, HI ................................................... $2,000,000 Senator Inouye 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... TCSP—Transportation & Community & System 

Preservation.

Shoulder Widening and Paving of SC Highway 22, SC ........................ $1,000,000 Senator Graham 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... TCSP—Transportation & Community & System 

Preservation.

Southern Nevada Beltway Interchanges, NV ......................................... $1,000,000 Senators Ensign, Reid 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... TCSP—Transportation & Community & System 

Preservation.

State Road 133 from Albany to Valdosta, GA ...................................... $1,000,000 Senator Chambliss 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... TCSP—Transportation & Community & System 

Preservation.

SW 27th Street—Strander Connection Project, Renton, WA ................. $1,000,000 Senator Murray 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... TCSP—Transportation & Community & System 

Preservation.

Tacoma Downtown Streetscape Improvements, Tacoma, WA ............... $500,000 Senators Murray, Cantwell 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... TCSP—Transportation & Community & System 

Preservation.

US Highway 97 & J Street Project, Madres, OR .................................... $750,000 Senators Wyden, Merkley 

Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] .... TCSP—Transportation & Community & System 

Preservation.

West Ninth Avenue Extension and Overpass Construction, Belton, 

TX.

$750,000 Senator Cornyn 

Federal Railroad Administration [FRA] ....... Research and Development ................................ San Diego—Positive Train Control, CA ................................................. $1,000,000 Senator Feinstein Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) ....... Research and Development ................................ High-Speed Rail from Orlando to Miami, FL ......................................... $500,000 Senator Bill Nelson Federal Railroad Administration [FRA] ....... Research and Development ................................ PEERS Rail-Grade Crossing Safety, Statewide, IL ................................ $500,000 Senator Durbin Federal Railroad Administration [FRA] ....... Research and Development ................................ RR Whistle Free Zone Project, Goodview and Minnesota City, MN ....... $400,000 Senators Klobuchar, 

Franken 

Federal Railroad Administration [FRA] ....... Research and Development ................................ Metrolink—Positive Train Control, CA ................................................... $1,000,000 Senators Feinstein, Boxer Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Alternatives Analysis .......................................... Innovation in Transportation Infrastructure Systems Planning, College 

of Staten Island, NY.

$450,000 Senator Schumer 

Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Alternatives Analysis .......................................... JTA Commuter Rail Alternative Analysis, Jacksonville, FL .................... $1,200,000 Senator Bill Nelson Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Alternatives Analysis .......................................... Las Cruces to El Paso Transportation Corridor, NM ............................. $1,000,000 Senators Tom Udall, Bingaman Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Alternatives Analysis .......................................... Mountain View Corridor Transit, UT ...................................................... $1,000,000 Senators Bennet, Hatch Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Alternatives Analysis .......................................... North Main Line Rehabilitation Project, Chicago Transit Authority, 

IL.

$500,000 Senator Burris, Durbin 

Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Alternatives Analysis .......................................... Tier 2 Environmental Impact Statement/Preliminary Engineering, Atlanta, GA. $1,000,000 Senators Chambliss, Isaakson Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Bus and Bus Facilities ....................................... 1st Congressional District Buses and Bus Facilities, MI ..................... $1,000,000 Senators Levin, Stabenow Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Bus and Bus Facilities ....................................... ACE Boulder Highway System, NV ......................................................... $1,000,000 Senator Reid Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Bus and Bus Facilities ....................................... Ben Franklin Transit Vehicle Replacements, Benton and Franklin 

Counties, WA.

$1,000,000 Senator Murray 

Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Bus and Bus Facilities ....................................... Brookings Area Transit Authority Bus Storage and Transit Operations 

Facility, SD.

$1,000,000 Senator Johnson 
220 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS—DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION—Continued 

Agency Account Project Amount Member 

Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Bus and Bus Facilities ....................................... Bus and Bus Facilities, Santa Fe, NM .................................................. $500,000 Senators Bingaman, Tom 

Udall 

Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Bus and Bus Facilities ....................................... Bus and Bus Facilities, UT .................................................................... $8,000,000 Senators Bennett, Hatch Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Bus and Bus Facilities ....................................... Bus Maintenance Facility, Sacramento, CA .......................................... $1,800,000 Senator Boxer Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Bus and Bus Facilities ....................................... Bus Purchases, DE ................................................................................ $1,000,000 Senator Carper Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Bus and Bus Facilities ....................................... Bus Replacement, Kansas City, MO ...................................................... $1,000,000 Senator Bond Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Bus and Bus Facilities ....................................... Bus Turnouts for Downtown Las Vegas Roads, NV .............................. $750,000 Senator Reid Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Bus and Bus Facilities ....................................... Cedar Avenue Bus Rapid Transitway, MN ............................................. $500,000 Senators Klobuchar, 

Franken 

Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Bus and Bus Facilities ....................................... City of Janesville Transit Services Center, WI ....................................... $3,065,000 Senator Kohl Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Bus and Bus Facilities ....................................... Clallam Transit Maintenance Facility Improvements, Clallam County, 

WA.

$200,000 Senator Murray 

Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Bus and Bus Facilities ....................................... Coach Bus for Commuter Campus, Campbell County, KY ................... $690,000 Senator Bunning Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Bus and Bus Facilities ....................................... Community Transit Vehicle Replacements, Snohomish County, WA ..... $1,000,000 Senator Murray Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Bus and Bus Facilities ....................................... C–TRAN 4th Plain BRT, Clark County, WA ............................................ $1,500,000 Senator Murray Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Bus and Bus Facilities ....................................... Deerfield Valley Transit Association Facilities, Buses, and Equipment, 

VT.

$2,500,000 Senator Leahy 

Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Bus and Bus Facilities ....................................... Dubuque Intermodal Facility, IA ............................................................ $400,000 Senator Harkin Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Bus and Bus Facilities ....................................... Everett Transit Vehicle Replacements, Snohomish County, WA ............ $1,000,000 Senator Murray Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Bus and Bus Facilities ....................................... Glassboro/Rowan Local Transit System, NJ ........................................... $500,000 Senators Menendez, Lautenberg Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Bus and Bus Facilities ....................................... Grant County Transit Vehicle Replacement and Facilities Construction, Grant County, WA. $1,000,000 Senator Murray Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Bus and Bus Facilities ....................................... Harrison County Multimodal Project, MS ............................................... $2,250,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Bus and Bus Facilities ....................................... Idaho Transit Coalition Bus and Bus Facilities, ID .............................. $1,500,000 Senators Crapo, Risch Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Bus and Bus Facilities ....................................... Illinois Bus and Bus Facilities, IL ......................................................... $4,000,000 Senator Durbin Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Bus and Bus Facilities ....................................... Innovation Station, East Lansing, MI .................................................... $2,500,000 Senators Stabenow, Levin Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Bus and Bus Facilities ....................................... Intercity Transit Vehicle Replacements, Thurston County, WA ............. $1,000,000 Senator Murray Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Bus and Bus Facilities ....................................... JATRAN Fleet Replacement and Bus Shelters, MS ................................ $600,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Bus and Bus Facilities ....................................... Jefferson Transit Vehicle Replacements, Jefferson County, WA ............ $400,000 Senator Murray Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Bus and Bus Facilities ....................................... Kitsap County Vehicle Replacements, WA ............................................. $500,000 Senator Murray Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Bus and Bus Facilities ....................................... Link Transit Vehicle Replacements, Chelan and Douglas Counties, 

WA.

$1,000,000 Senator Murray 

Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Bus and Bus Facilities ....................................... Longview Transit Vehicle Replacements, Clark County, WA ................. $650,000 Senator Murray Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Bus and Bus Facilities ....................................... Maine Statewide Bus Replacement, ME ................................................ $1,000,000 Senators Snowe, Collins Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Bus and Bus Facilities ....................................... MARTA Bus, Bus Facilities and Security Improvements, GA ................ $2,000,000 Senator Isakson 
221 

Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Bus and Bus Facilities ....................................... Metro Area Transit—Bus and Bus Facilities, Omaha, NE ................... $1,500,000 Senator Ben Nelson Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Bus and Bus Facilities ....................................... Moultrie Intermodal Facility, City of Moultrie, GA ................................. $400,000 Senator Chambliss Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Bus and Bus Facilities ....................................... Naugatuck Transportation Facility, CT .................................................. $500,000 Senators Lieberman, Dodd Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Bus and Bus Facilities ....................................... North Central Regional Transit District Pueblo Buses, NM .................. $800,000 Senators Tom Udall, Bingaman Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Bus and Bus Facilities ....................................... North Dakota Statewide Capital Transit, ND ........................................ $1,500,000 Senators Dorgan, Conrad Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Bus and Bus Facilities ....................................... Oxford-University Transit System Bus Purchase, MS ............................ $400,000 Senator Cochran, Wicker Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Bus and Bus Facilities ....................................... Pierce Transit Clean-Fuel Bus Replacements, Pierce County, WA ........ $1,000,000 Senator Murray Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Bus and Bus Facilities ....................................... Reconstruction of the Mayfield Road Rapid Transit Station and 

Bridge, OH.

$2,000,000 Senators Voinovich, Sherrod 

Brown 

Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Bus and Bus Facilities ....................................... Replacement Buses at Transit Authority of Northern Kentucky [TANK], 

Kenton County, KY.

$1,000,000 Senator Bunning 

Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Bus and Bus Facilities ....................................... Replacement of the Fixed Route Fleet, Springfield, MO ....................... $1,000,000 Senator Bond Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Bus and Bus Facilities ....................................... Rural Bus Program for Hawaii, Maui, and Kauai, HI ........................... $3,500,000 Senator Inouye Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Bus and Bus Facilities ....................................... Senior Transportation Program, AL ........................................................ $500,000 Senator Shelby Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Bus and Bus Facilities ....................................... Skagit Transit Vehicle Replacements, Skagit County, WA .................... $500,000 Senator Murray Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Bus and Bus Facilities ....................................... South Burlington Transit Center, VT ..................................................... $1,000,000 Senator Leahy Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Bus and Bus Facilities ....................................... Southest Missouri Transportation Service Facility, MO ......................... $800,000 Senator Bond Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Bus and Bus Facilities ....................................... Spokane Transit paratransit Vehicles, Spokane County, WA ................ $1,000,000 Senator Murray Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Bus and Bus Facilities ....................................... Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities Fund, IA .......................................... $2,500,000 Senators Harkin, Grassley Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Bus and Bus Facilities ....................................... Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities, MO .................................................. $4,000,000 Senator Bond Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Bus and Bus Facilities ....................................... Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities, NM .................................................. $1,000,000 Senators Bingaman, Tom 

Udall 

Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Bus and Bus Facilities ....................................... Statewide Bus Purchases and Facility Improvements, CO ................... $2,500,000 Senators Bennet, Mark 

Udall 

Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Bus and Bus Facilities ....................................... Statler Intermodal Facility, Buffalo, Erie County, NY ............................ $3,000,000 Senators Schumer, Gillibrand Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Bus and Bus Facilities ....................................... Tacoma Intermodal Transit Center, Tacoma, WA .................................. $1,000,000 Senator Murray Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Bus and Bus Facilities ....................................... Tennessee Statewide Bus Program, TN ................................................. $12,000,000 Senator Alexander Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Bus and Bus Facilities ....................................... TRANSPO Paratransit Replacement Vehicles, IN ................................... $352,000 Senator Lugar Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Bus and Bus Facilities ....................................... Twin Transit Vehicle Replacements, Lewis County, WA ........................ $500,000 Senator Murray Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Bus and Bus Facilities ....................................... Washoe County Bus Facilities, NV ......................................................... $500,000 Senator Reid Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Bus and Bus Facilities ....................................... White Earth Tribal Transit Service Bus Garage Facility, MN ................ $500,000 Senators Franken, Klobuchar Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Capital Investment Grants ................................. Access to Region’s Core [ARC] Tunnel, NJ ............................................ $200,000,000 Senators Lautenberg, 

Menendez 

Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Capital Investment Grants ................................. Austin, MetroRapid BRT, TX .................................................................. $24,229,796 Senators Hutchison, Cornyn Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Capital Investment Grants ................................. Baltimore Red Line, MD ......................................................................... $1,500,000 Senators Cardin, Mikulski Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Capital Investment Grants ................................. Central Corridor Light Rail Transit Project , MN .................................. $42,345,000 Senators Franken, Klobuchar 
222 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS—DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION—Continued 

Agency Account Project Amount Member 

Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Capital Investment Grants ................................. Chicago Tansit Authority—Green Line—South Branches Project, IL ... $2,200,000 Senator Durbin Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Capital Investment Grants ................................. City of Charlotte, Charlotte Area Transit System’s Blue Line Extension—Northeast Corridor Project, NC. $3,700,000 Senators Burr, Hagan Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Capital Investment Grants ................................. Columbia River Crossing, WA ................................................................ $40,000,000 Senator Murray Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Capital Investment Grants ................................. Crenshaw/LAX Transit Corridor, CA ....................................................... $1,250,000 Senator Feinstein Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Capital Investment Grants ................................. Dallas, Northwest/Southeast LRT MOS, TX ............................................ $91,249,717 Senators Hutchison, Cornyn Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Capital Investment Grants ................................. Downtown Connector/Westside Subway Extension, CA .......................... $6,500,000 Senator Feinstein Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Capital Investment Grants ................................. Draper Light Rail, UT ............................................................................. $2,100,000 Senators Bennett, Hatch Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Capital Investment Grants ................................. Dulles Corridor Rail Project, VA ............................................................. $96,000,000 Senators Warner, Webb Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Capital Investment Grants ................................. Honolulu High Capacity Transit Corridor Project, HI ............................. $55,000,000 Senators Inouye, Akaka Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Capital Investment Grants ................................. Houston, North Corridor LRT, TX ............................................................ $75,000,000 Senators Hutchison, Cornyn Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Capital Investment Grants ................................. Houston, Southeast Corridor LRT, TX .................................................... $75,000,000 Senators Hutchison, Cornyn Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Capital Investment Grants ................................. King County, West Seattle BRT, WA ...................................................... $21,274,000 Senator Murray Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Capital Investment Grants ................................. New Britain-Hartford Busway, CT .......................................................... $42,345,000 Senators Lieberman, Dodd Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Capital Investment Grants ................................. New York, Long Island Rail Road East Side Access, NY ...................... $202,315,000 Senator Gillibrand Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Capital Investment Grants ................................. New York, Second Avenue Subway Phase I, NY .................................... $185,548,262 Senator Gillibrand Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Capital Investment Grants ................................. Northstar Phase II Project—Extension of Northstar Commuter Rail to 

the St. Cloud Area, MN.

$1,500,000 Senators Franken, Klobuchar 

Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Capital Investment Grants ................................. Oakland, East Bay BRT, CA ................................................................... $15,000,000 Senator Feinstein Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Capital Investment Grants ................................. Perris Valley Line, Riverside, CA ........................................................... $23,490,000 Senator Feinstein Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Capital Investment Grants ................................. Purple Line, MD ..................................................................................... $1,500,000 Senators Cardin, Mikulski Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Capital Investment Grants ................................. RTD FasTracks East Corridor, Denver, CO ............................................. $40,000,000 Senators Bennet, Mark 

Udall 

Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Capital Investment Grants ................................. RTD FasTracks Gold Corridor, Denver, CO ............................................. $40,000,000 Senators Bennet, Mark 

Udall 

Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Capital Investment Grants ................................. RTD FasTracks West Corridor, Denver, CO ............................................ $37,808,439 Senators Bennet, Mark 

Udall 

Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Capital Investment Grants ................................. Salt Lake City, Mid Jordan LRT, UT ....................................................... $100,000,000 Senators Bennett, Hatch Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Capital Investment Grants ................................. Salt Lake City, Weber County to Salt Lake City Commuter Rail, UT .... $80,000,000 Senators Bennett, Hatch Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Capital Investment Grants ................................. San Francisco Muni Third St. Light Rail, Central Subway Project, 

CA.

$20,000,000 Senator Feinstein 

Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Capital Investment Grants ................................. Seattle, University Link LRT Extension, WA ........................................... $110,000,000 Senator Murray Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Capital Investment Grants ................................. Tampa Light Rail, Preliminary Engineering, FL .................................... $1,000,000 Senator Bill Nelson Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Capital Investment Grants ................................. VelociRFTA Bus Rapid Transit, CO ........................................................ $24,163,000 Senators Bennet, Mark 

Udall 
223 

Federal Transit Administration [FTA] ......... Capital Investment Grants ................................. Virgina Railway Express Rolling Stock, VA ........................................... $1,000,000 Senators Warner, Webb 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS—ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES 

Agency Account Recipient and location Project purpose Amount Member 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Allegheny County, PA ................................ For infrastructure improvements around the Allegheny Ludlum site in order to 

spur economic growth and create jobs.

$600,000 Senator Casey 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Allen Place Center, Tacoma, WA .............. For facility improvements at a community center in a low income neighborhood. $1,000,000 Senators Murray, Cantwell Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Appalachia Service Project, TN ................. For free home repair to low-income fami- lies in Southern West Virginia. $400,000 Senator Rockefeller Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Arkansas State University-Mountain Home, MH, AR. For construction of the Vada Sheid Com- munity Development Center. $500,000 Senators Pryor, Lincoln Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Associated Early Care and Education, MA. For the construction of a child and fam- ily development center. $500,000 Senator Kerry Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Big Brothers Big Sisters of Northern Ohio, Columbus, OH. For renovations of the facilities at Camp Oty’Okwa. $300,000 Senator Sherrod Brown Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Big Sky Economic Development Authority, Billings, MT. For infrastructure and land acquisition in East Billings. $500,000 Senator Tester, Baucus Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Board of Directors of St. Louis Municipal Library, MO. To renovate the historic St. Louis Central Library including compliance with ADA 

requirements in MO.

$1,000,000 Senator Bond 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Bolivar County, MS ................................... For the restoration of the historic Bolivar County First Judicial District Courthouse. $350,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Bonnie Brae, Liberty Corner, NJ ................ For the renovation of cottages that serv- ice New Jersey’s at risk children and 

youth.

$200,000 Senators Lautenberg, 

Menendez 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Booneville, MS ........................................... For the Booneville Hardware Building Restoration Project. $425,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Boys & Girls Club of Carbon County, Red Lodge, MT. For renovations and expansion ................. $350,000 Senator Tester Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Boys and Girls Club of Wagner, SD ......... For repairs and upgrades to the Boys and Girls Club facility. $200,000 Senator Johnson Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Boys and Girls Club, Bellevue, WA ........... For facilities improvements and expan- sion at community centers for youth. $500,000 Senator Murray 
224 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS—ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES—Continued 

Agency Account Recipient and location Project purpose Amount Member 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Boys and Girls Club, Spokane, WA ........... For facilities acquisition, improvements and expansion for a community center 

for youth.

$775,000 Senator Murray 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Builders Development Corporation, KS ..... For the Central Baptist Redevelopment Project in Kansas City, Kansas. $800,000 Senator Brownback Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Center for Veterans Issues, Ltd., Mil- waukee, WI. For the construction of supportive hous- ing for veterans. $400,000 Senator Kohl Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Chippewa Cree Tribe, Box Elder, MT ........ For renovations and safety upgrades of a tribal TANF building. $200,000 Senator Tester Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. City of Albany, NY ..................................... For the rehabilitation of a building in a neighborhood targeted for revitalization. $500,000 Senator Schumer Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. City of Anderson, IN .................................. For the Flagship Enterprise Center Cer- tified Technology Park Buildings 

Project for infrastructure and laboratory equipment for hybrid electric vehicle technologies and related technologies.

$650,000 Senator Lugar 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. City of Bangor, ME ................................... For event and meeting space infrastruc- ture at the Bangor Regional Arena 

and Meeting Complex.

$1,000,000 Senators Collins, Snowe 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. City of Bend, OR ....................................... For design and construction of new re- search and development facility. $200,000 Senators Merkley, Wyden Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. City of Brewer, ME .................................... For the development of a riverfront trail system as part of the West Bayside 

Neighborhood Development Project.

$700,000 Senators Snowe, Collins 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. City of Bristol, CT ..................................... To acquire blighted property and ren- ovate facilities to create an industrial 

park.

$500,000 Senators Dodd, Lieberman 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. City of Chicopee, MA ................................ For the construction of a community and senior center. $350,000 Senator Kerry Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. City of Coffman Cove, AK ......................... For the construction of an elevated con- crete dock with related improvements. $300,000 Senators Murkowski, Begich Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. City of Columbus, MS ............................... For the Columbus Riverwalk Lighting Ex- tension project. $300,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker 
225 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. City of Council Bluffs, IA .......................... For demolition of facilities located near 1st Avenue in Council Bluffs for the 

purpose of improving the West Broadway Corridor.

$400,000 Senators Harkin, Grassley 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. City of Covington, LA ................................ For the acquisition of facilities in Cov- ington, LA to be used for community 

services and economic development.

$1,000,000 Senator Landrieu 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. City of East Hartford, CT .......................... For the repair and upgrade of crucial public infrastructure in and around 

North Meadows Industrial Park.

$500,000 Senators Dodd, Lieberman 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. City of Flint, MI ......................................... For the upgrade of energy efficiency and services at an economic and community development center which provides economic and community development. $700,000 Senators Stabenow, Levin Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. City of Grants Pass, OR ........................... For the acquisition and renovation of a community center. $500,000 Senators Wyden, Merkley Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. City of Grenada, MS ................................. For the Taylor Hall Renovation Project ..... $250,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. City of Gretna, LA ..................................... For planning and construction of a new Senior Center to meet the demands of 

the elderly population.

$500,000 Senator Landrieu 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. City of Hattiesburg, MS ............................ For redevelopment of the Hattiesburg East Jerusalem Municipal Center Complex including acquisition of equipment. $600,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. City of Hyattsville, MD .............................. For the rehabilitation of an existing structure to a mixed-use, community 

meeting facility.

$250,000 Senator Cardin 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. City of Inkster, MI ..................................... For construction of a senior wellness center. $1,000,000 Senators Levin, Stabenow Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. City of Jackson, MS .................................. For the renovation of youth-oriented pub- lic facilities. $500,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. City of Kingstree, SC ................................ For the Kingtree Train Depot Renovation Project including meeting ADA compliance. $200,000 Senator Graham Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. City of Lacey, WA ...................................... For expansion of a community facility providing services for seniors. $500,000 Senator Murray 
226 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS—ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES—Continued 

Agency Account Recipient and location Project purpose Amount Member 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. City of Lancaster, PA ................................ For renovation of buildings and streetscaping as part of the revitalization of the City’s Market District. $800,000 Senator Casey Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. City of Las Cruces, NM ............................. For expansion of a central kitchen and associated equipment to provide home 

meal delivery services to seniors.

$400,000 Senators Bingaman, Tom 

Udall 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. City of Las Vegas, NV ............................... For construction of low-income elderly housing. $1,000,000 Senator Reid Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. City of Linton, ND ..................................... For housing and commercial redevelop- ment. $700,000 Senators Dorgan, Conrad Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. City of Madison, WI .................................. For construction of a public market for regionally grown and produced products. $200,000 Senator Kohl Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. City of Marshalltown, IA ........................... For the removal of blight and related housing development requirements for 

the Grant Park Redevelopment Project.

$700,000 Senators Grassley, Harkin 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. City of Memphis, TN ................................. For improvements to the Pigeon Harbor Industrial Park. $1,300,000 Senator Alexander Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. City of Milan, MO ...................................... To renovate the historic Sullivan County Building including enhancing safety, 

spurring economic development and for streetscape investments.

$250,000 Senator Bond 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. City of New Orleans, LA ............................ For the Federal City Urban Redevelop- ment Project. $500,000 Senator Vitter, Landrieu Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. City of Pascagoula, MS ............................ For construction of a Beach Park Prome- nade in Pascagoula, MS. $900,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. City of Peoria, IL ....................................... For revitalization efforts on Peoria’s Southside. $200,000 Senator Durbin Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. City of Piedmont, OK ................................ For the Elevated Water Storage Tower project for water storage and water 

line installations.

$700,000 Senator Inhofe 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. City of Rockford, IL ................................... For land acquisition, demolition, and in- frastructure improvements. $500,000 Senator Durbin Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. City of Ruleville, MS ................................. For the development of a walking trail ... $125,000 Senator Cochran 
227 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. City of Springfield, IL ............................... For construction of a new building for a Crisis Nursery in Springfield. $200,000 Senator Durbin Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. City of Springfield, MA ............................. For improvements to public buildings in downtown Springfield. $350,000 Senator Kerry Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. City of Springfield, MO ............................. For improvements to the Commercial Club Building including making it ADA 

compliant.

$750,000 Senator Bond 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. City of Springfield, OH .............................. For the redevelopment of an industrial Brownfield site. $750,000 Senators Voinovich, Sherrod Brown Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. City of West Warwick, RI .......................... For planning and community develop- ment, including the acquisition and 

rehabilitation of property and the improvement of public infrastructure.

$500,000 Senator Reed 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. City of Wilkes-Barre, PA ........................... For the planning, design and renovations in a downtown business district. $200,000 Senator Specter Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. City of Winsted, CT ................................... For renovations and streetscape en- hancements in the downtown business 

district.

$200,000 Senator Lieberman 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. City of Woonsocket, RI .............................. For site demolition and environmental re- mediation to accommodate a public 

drinking water facility.

$600,000 Senators Reed, Whitehouse 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Clearfield City, UT ..................................... For Clearfield City Downtown Develop- ment Project West Phase 1 & 2 for 

the city to acquire blighted properties.

$100,000 Senators Hatch, Bennett 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Clyde Malone Community Center, Lincoln, NE. For the expansion and renovation of the Malone Center facilities. $500,000 Senator Ben Nelson Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Commission on Economic Opportunity for the Greater Capital Region, Troy, NY. For construction of community building to serve as a child care and family 

resource center for low to moderate income individuals.

$250,000 Senator Schumer 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Community Foundation of NJ, Newark, NJ. For facility renovations to the Essex County Family Justice Center. $500,000 Senators Lautenberg, Menendez Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. 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 Senator Begich 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. County of Santa Barbara, CA ................... For repairs and renovations to the Lompoc Veterans Building Renovation. $450,000 Senator Boxer 
228 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS—ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES—Continued 

Agency Account Recipient and location Project purpose Amount Member 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. 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 Alaska.

$500,000 Senators Murkowski, Begich 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Crow Creek Sioux Tribe, Fort Thompson, SD. For construction of a new community fa- cility in Fort Thompson, SD to serve 

low-income tribal members.

$300,000 Senator Johnson 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. CRSA Wounded Warrior Care Project, Au- gusta, GA. For the Wounded Warrior Transitional Housing Project. $2,100,000 Senator Isakson Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Dayton, OH ................................................ For Improved Solutions for Urban Sys- tems, Inc to renovate workshops and 

laboratories using LEED Standards and renewable energy technology.

$250,000 Senator Voinovich 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Delta City, UT ............................................ For improvements and construction re- lated to the Delta City Learning and 

Community Center.

$500,000 Senator Bennett 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Denton, TX ................................................. For the Denton Downtown Improvement Project to upgrade the streets and 

streetscape.

$500,000 Senator Cornyn 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Department of Community Services Hous- ing Authority, Charles County, MD. For the installation and/or repair of in- door plumbing for the poor. $300,000 Senator Mikulski, Cardin Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Domestic Violence Services of Snohomish County, Everett, WA. For expansion and rehabilitation of a do- mestic violence facility. $500,000 Senator Murray Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Easter Seals Hawaii, HI ............................ For the construction and renovation of building space to provide programs 

and services for children and adults with disabilities.

$300,000 Senator Inouye 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Enosburg Falls Economic Development Corporation, Enosburg Falls, VT. For improvements to an industrial park .. $200,000 Senator Sanders Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Eritrean Association, Seattle, WA ............. For facility improvements and expansion of a community center. $600,000 Senator Murray Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Family Crisis Center, Inc., Farmington, NM. For expansion of the existing Family Cri- sis Center. $643,500 Senators Bingaman, Tom Udall Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Family Service Association of San Anto- nio, TX. For facility repairs to the Family Service Center. $1,000,000 Senator Hutchison 
229 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Fargo Housing & Redevelopment Author- ity, Fargo, ND. For rehabilitation of low-income hous- ing. $700,000 Senators Dorgan, Conrad Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Federal Way Chamber of Commerce, Fed- eral Way, WA. For acquisition and facility improvements of a regional small business incubator. $1,200,000 Senators Murray, Cantwell Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. First Best Place, Columbia Falls, MT ....... For construction of a community center .. $1,000,000 Senator Baucus Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. First Steps Primeros Pasos, Georgetown, DE. For construction and start up costs for a bilingual early care and education facility. $175,000 Senators Kaufman, Carper Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Food Self-Reliance, The Kohala Center, HI. For equipment purchase to make infra- structure improvements to increase 

economic development opportunities, for low and moderate income farmers in rural communities.

$250,000 Senator Inouye 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Forgotten Harvest, Oak Park, MI .............. For facilities improvements, equipment, and service fleet. $542,000 Senators Levin, Stabenow Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Franklin County, MS .................................. For restoration of the Historic Franklin County Courthouse. $175,000 Senator Cochran Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Friends of Buena Library, Buena, WA ...... For construction of a community center in a high poverty area. $400,000 Senator Murray Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Gaston County, NC .................................... To create a Gastonia Technology Park in Gaston County, NC. $760,000 Senator Burr Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. 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 Senator Bond 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Grand Rapids Downtown Development Authority, MI. For the construction of a mixed-use fa- cility for use as a farmers market in a 

distressed urban area.

$700,000 Senators Stabenow, Levin 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Great Falls Development Authority, Great Falls, MT. For infrastructure improvements for de- velopment of an industrial park. $800,000 Senators Baucus, Tester Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Great Rivers Greenway, St. Louis, MO ...... For the removal of blight and related re- development concerns at the St. Louis 

Regional Greenways project.

$1,000,000 Senator Bond 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Hancock County, KY .................................. For expansion of the Owensboro Commu- nity Technical College—Hancock 

County Extension Campus for local training programs.

$300,000 Senator Bunning 
230 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS—ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES—Continued 

Agency Account Recipient and location Project purpose Amount Member 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Hanover Township, Washington County, PA. For construction and excavation in Han- over Township, Washington County, PA 

to new business to distressed community.

$200,000 Senator Casey 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Harriet Tubman Center, Maplewood, MN .. For the renovation of a building in order to consolidate youth and family services, and relocate two domestic violence shelters. $600,000 Senator Franken Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Hocking Co. Community Improvement Corporation, Logan, OH. To construct an incubator/light manufac- turing building. $750,000 Senator Voinovich Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Heritage Services, Omaha, NE .................. For construction of facility that will ac- commodate an education and interactive learning center. $800,000 Senator Ben Nelson Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Housing Vermont, Burlington, VT ............. For expansions and improvements to low income housing. $500,000 Senator Sanders Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. IA Dept. of Economic Development, Des Moines, IA. For the restoration and rehabilitation of buildings, re-introduce upper floor 

housing, and add economic value in Iowa’s historic Main Street districts.

$1,000,000 Senators Harkin, Grassley 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Ivins, UT .................................................... For the Old Town Ivins Street Improve- ments Project including safety concerns. $100,000 Senators Hatch, Bennett Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Jackson Medical Mall, Jackson, MS .......... For the expansion of the Jackson Medical Mall Development Project. $600,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Jefferson County Dept of Human Services, CO. For a facility for Jefferson County Depart- ment of Human Services in Colorado 

to provide housing for homeless veterans.

$600,000 Senator Mark Udall 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Jewish Family Service, Seattle, WA .......... For improvements and expansion of a fa- cility providing family and community 

services.

$800,000 Senator Murray 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Jewish Vocational Service, MO ................. To renovate the facility for the Jewish Vocational Service and to provide 

equipment and furnishings.

$1,000,000 Senator Bond 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. John Hope Settlement House, Providence, RI. For facility upgrades and energy retro- fits. $200,000 Senator Reed 
231 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Kauai Economic Development Board, Kauai, HI. For the rehabilitation and improvement of an abandoned facility, to provide 

employment training for low and moderate income agricultural workers.

$300,000 Senator Inouye 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Keene Family YMCA, Keene, NH ................ For the construction of a new Keene YMCA allowing for the expansion 

childcare and other services.

$300,000 Senator Shaheen 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Kentucky Blood Center, Somerset, KY ...... For construction of a Kentucky Blood Center Building. $1,000,000 Senator McConnell Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Laiopua 2020, Kailua-Kona, HI ................ For planning, design, and construction of the Laiopua 2020 Community Center. $300,000 Senator Akaka Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Logan, UT .................................................. For the Logan Northwest Park Project to continue an ongoing park project. $200,000 Senators Hatch, Bennett Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Longview Housing Authority, Longview, WA. For acquisition and improvements of a facility to serve as a regional center 

for Veterans.

$675,000 Senator Murray 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule, SD. For the Domestic Violence Building Project. $400,000 Senators Thune, Johnson Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Luke-Dorf, Inc., Portland, OR .................... For the construction of a Behavioral Healthcare Housing Facility, with 

medically-monitored treatment, for individuals.

$300,000 Senators Merkley, Wyden 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Mandell Jewish Community Center, West Hartford, CT. For community facilities renovations and improvements. $700,000 Senator Dodd Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. MARC Community Services Corporation, Wyandotte County, KS. To acquire and renovate vacant and abandoned properties as part of the 

NeighborhoodsNOW Redevelopment Plan in Wyandotte County, Kansas.

$400,000 Senator Brownback 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Maui Economic Development Board, HI ... For equipment purchase and construction to support business incubation and 

economic development for Molokai cooperatives.

$250,000 Senator Inouye 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Milwaukee Department of City Develop- ment, Milwaukee, WI. For the preservation and improvement of affordable housing. $400,000 Senator Kohl Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Missouri Institute for Biotechnology and Innovation, Cole County, MO. To renovate and equip the historic Mis- souri Institute for Biotechnology and 

Innovation in Cole County, Missouri.

$1,000,000 Senator Bond 
232 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS—ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES—Continued 

Agency Account Recipient and location Project purpose Amount Member 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Molokai Habitat for Humanity, HI ............. For construction and rehabilitation of low and very low income housing using 

the Molokai Habitat for Humanity self help housing model.

$400,000 Senators Inouye, Akaka 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. New Hampshire Community Loan Fund, Concord, NH. For support for Community Loan Fund programs for the New Hampshire 

Community Loan Fund.

$500,000 Senators Gregg, Shaheen 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. North Carolina Research Campus, Kannapolis, NC. For the High Speed Optical Networking at NCRC. $500,000 Senator Burr Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. 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 Senator Harkin Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Northern Hills Alliance for Children, Deadwood, SD. For Childcare Center building modifica- tions. $550,000 Senator Johnson Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Nye County, Pahrump, NV ......................... For the construction and expansion of a senior center. $200,000 Senator Reid Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Ocean Community YMCA Westerly, RI ...... For construction of a drop-off area for children. $250,000 Senators Reed, Whitehouse Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Opportunity Resources, Inc., Missoula, MT. For facility improvements for an employ- ment and service organization for the 

disabled.

$200,000 Senators Baucus, Tester 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Our City Reading, Inc., PA ........................ For the planning, design, renovation, and construction of housing. $200,000 Senator Specter Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Parents and Children Together, HI ........... For renovation and equipment purchase to expand the Community Technology 

Center at Kuhio Park Terrace.

$300,000 Senator Inouye 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Pickaway County, OH ................................ For construction of an economic develop- ment center. $600,000 Senator Sherrod Brown Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Pillar Community Development Corp., Bloomfield, CT. For the construction of a community wellness center. $200,000 Senator Lieberman Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Port of Lewiston, ID .................................. For expansion of the container dock ........ $850,000 Senators Crapo, RischHousing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Puerto Rican Action Board, New Bruns- wick, NJ. For the repair of facilities that assist low-income families with foreclosure 

mitigation and other economic independence initiatives.

$260,000 Senators Lautenberg, 

Menendez 
233 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Regional Economic Development, Inc, Co- lumbia, MO. For renovations and equipment for a small business incubator at the Enterprise Center. $425,000 Senator Bond Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Regional Foodbank, Akron-Canton, OH ..... For energy conservation improvements for the food bank facility. $250,000 Senators Voinovich and Sherrod Brown Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. River Ridge Dev. Authority, Jeffersonville, IN. For the development of housing as part of the River Ridge Commerce Center 

Infrastructure Planning Project.

$350,000 Senator Lugar 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. 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 Senators Bingaman, Tom 

Udall 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Tuscaloosa Housing Authority, Tusca- loosa, AL. For rehabilitation of distressed low-in- come housing, including renovation 

and reconstruction to promote safety and security.

$5,000,000 Senator Shelby 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Rural Alaska Community Action Program in Toksook Bay, AK. To construct a early childhood develop- ment center. $500,000 Senator Murkowski Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Salt Lake County, UT ................................ For construction related to the Salt Lake County Transitional Housing project. $750,000 Senators Bennett, Hatch Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Share of Vancouver, Clark and Cowlitz County, Vancouver, WA. For rehabilitation of a facility to provide for transitional homeless housing and 

other services.

$900,000 Senator Murray 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate, Agency Village, SD. For restoration efforts and safety up- grades at the Sisseton Wahpeton 

Oyate pow wow grounds.

$150,000 Senator Johnson 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. South Coast Development Council, Coos Bay, OR. For site preparation and construction of a public plaza. $500,000 Senators Merkley, Wyden Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Springfield YMCA, Springfield, IL ............. For construction of a new building .......... $500,000 Senator Durbin Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. St. Joseph Community Center, Lorain, OH. For demolition, remediation and renova- tion of the St. Joseph Community Center facility. $400,000 Senator Sherrrod Brown Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, Ft. Yates, ND. For housing renovation ............................. $300,000 Senators Dorgan, Conrad Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Storey County Community Chest, Virginia City, NV. For the creation of the Storey County Youth and Community Center. $400,000 Senator Reid Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Syracuse, UT ............................................. For the Legacy Park Handicap Renova- tions project, including meeting ADA 

requirements.

$100,000 Senators Hatch, Bennett 
234 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS—ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES—Continued 

Agency Account Recipient and location Project purpose Amount Member 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. The Ministry of Caring, Inc., Wilmington, DE. For the renovation of the Josephine Bakhita House. $300,000 Senators Kaufman, Carper Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. The Planning Office for Urban Affairs, Boston, MA. For the construction of affordable hous- ing and mixed use space. $400,000 Senator Kerry Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Tierra Madre, Sunland Park, NM .............. For construction of a capacity building center to help facilitate homeownership opportunities. $200,000 Senator Tom Udall Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Tooele, UT .................................................. For infrastructure development to the Tooele City Commercial Park. $750,000 Senators Bennett, Hatch Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Town of Carmel, NY .................................. For acquisition and construction of a new economic center. $400,000 Senator Schumer Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Town of Cheraw, SC ................................. To eliminate blighted housing structures under the Cheraw Stabilization Program. $200,000 Senator Graham Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Town of Dover-Foxcroft, ME ...................... For infrastructure improvements to the former Moosehead Manufacturing facility. $700,000 Senators Collins, Snowe Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Town of Silas, AL ...................................... To renovate abandoned school property into a community center. $300,000 Senator Sessions Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. TRF Development Partners, City of Balti- more, MD. For the planning, design, rehabilitation and construction of affordable housing 

in the Oliver neighborhood.

$500,000 Senator Mikulski 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Turtle Mountain Chippewa Tribe, Belcourt, ND. For construction of a youth center ........... $300,000 Senators Dorgan, Conrad Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Union County Child Advocacy Center, Elizabeth, NJ. For construction and renovation of new child advocacy center for sexually 

abused children in Union County.

$200,000 Senators Lautenberg, 

Menendez 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. United Community Center, Milwaukee, WI. For construction of a senior center within a low-income elderly housing complex. $2,000,000 Senator Kohl Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. United Indians of All Tribes Foundation, Seattle, WA. For rehabilitation and revitalization of a facility serving disadvantaged youth. $600,000 Senator Murray Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Urban League of Metropolitan Seattle, Seattle, WA. For improvements to a facility to allow for the expansion of affordable housing. $300,000 Senator Murray Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Ute Mountain Housing Authority, Du- rango, CO. For an affordable housing project for Ute Mountain Ute tribal members. $800,000 Senator Bennet 
235 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Valley Council of Governments, Derby, CT. For property renovation and reconstruc- tion. $400,000 Senators Dodd, Lieberman Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Vermont Community Loan Fund, Montpe- lier, VT. For the construction of community facili- ties, including child care centers. $300,000 Senator Sanders Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Vermont Division for Historic Preserva- tion, Montpelier, VT. For historic preservation improvements throughout Vermont. $200,000 Senator Sanders Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Vermont Housing & Conservation Board Montpelier, VT. For enhancement of affordable housing, community development initiatives, 

economic development, land conservation and historic preservation.

$3,000,000 Senator Leahy 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Waterboro, ME ........................................... For a technology and infrastructure project for the Waterboro Community 

Center.

$500,000 Senator Collins 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Waterloo, IA ............................................... For building renovation and improve- ments for Cedar Valley TechWorks for 

laboratory and incubator space.

$300,000 Senators Grassley, Harkin 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. West DuPage, IL ........................................ For construction of an Educare center in West Dupage to serve at-risk children. $200,000 Senator Durbin Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Western Arkansas Regional Intermodal Transportation Authority, Fort Smith, 

AR.

For infrastructure improvements related 

to the development of an industrial park.

$500,000 Senators Pryor, Lincoln 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Western Nebraska Community College, Scottsbluff, NE. For the construction and equipment pur- chase in support of a renewable energy training center. $400,000 Senator Ben Nelson Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Westminster College, Salt Lake City, UT .. For improvement to the Garfield School Renovation and Revitalization project. $500,000 Senators Bennett, Hatch Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Women’s Intercultural Center, Anthony, NM. For renovation of a facility that provides educational and economic opportunities to women. $450,000 Senator Tom Udall Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. Yakima Housing Authority, Granger, WA .. For development activities and construc- tion of affordable housing for farmworkers. $675,000 Senator Murray Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. YMCA of Pierce and Kitsap Counties, Silverdale, WA. For the construction of a community cen- ter. $1,000,000 Senator Murray Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Economic Development Initiatives. YWCA of Greater Portland, OR .................. For design and construction of a facility that provides safety and services to 

victims of Human Trafficking.

$300,000 Senators Wyden, Merkley 
236 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS—NEIGHBORHOOD INITIATIVES 

Agency Account Recipient and location Project purpose Amount Member 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Neighborhood Initiatives ........ Abyssinian Development Corporation, New 

York, NY.

For the development and rehabilitation of 

new and existing low- and moderateincome housing units in the central Harlem area.

$300,000 Senators Gillibrand, Schumer 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Neighborhood Initiatives ........ Center for Planning Excellence, LA .......... To build capacity in land use planning 

and community preservation throughout Louisiana.

$750,000 Senator Landrieu 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Neighborhood Initiatives ........ City of Boise, ID ........................................ For a Petroleum Terminal Relocation Feasibility Study. $350,000 Senators Crapo, Risch Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Neighborhood Initiatives ........ City of Cranston, RI .................................. For community planning and development. $200,000 Senators Reed, Whitehouse Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Neighborhood Initiatives ........ City of Longview, WA ................................ For revitalization and renewal of the 

city’s downtown region.

$1,000,000 Senator Murray 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Neighborhood Initiatives ........ City of Philadelphia, PA ............................ For mixed-use transit oriented development in the area around the 9th and 

Berks rail station.

$350,000 Senator Casey 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Neighborhood Initiatives ........ City of Ranson, WV ................................... For the redevelopment of a blighted 

former industrial site into a mixedused center, including retail and affordable workforce housing using smart growth design and green infrastructure.

$400,000 Senator Rockefeller 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Neighborhood Initiatives ........ City of Spokane, WA ................................. For the restoration and redevelopment of 

a blighted area.

$2,000,000 Senators Murray, Cantwell 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Neighborhood Initiatives ........ Community Voice Mail, Seattle, WA ......... To improve and expand employment services for homeless veterans. $350,000 Senator Murray Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Neighborhood Initiatives ........ Consumer Credit Counseling Services, 

Las Vegas, NV.

For foreclosure-related assistance services. $500,000 Senator Reid 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Neighborhood Initiatives ........ Florida’s Heartland Rural Economic Development Initiative, Sebring, FL. To create a research park ........................ $400,000 Senator Bill Nelson Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Neighborhood Initiatives ........ Hire America’s Heroes, Redmond, WA ...... To expand employment services for veterans. $250,000 Senator Murray Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Neighborhood Initiatives ........ Mississippi State University, Mississippi 

State, MS.

For the Development of the Civic Capacity Development Initiative Project at 

Mississippi State University.

$750,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker 
237 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Neighborhood Initiatives ........ New Hampshire Food Bank, Manchester, 

NH.

To expand the food assistance program 

for the New Hampshire Food Bank.

$1,250,000 Senators Gregg, Shaheen 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Neighborhood Initiatives ........ Northern Comm. Investment Corp., St. 

Johnsbury, VT.

To continue to expand high-speed, hightechnology broadband connectivity as 

part of the North Country Community Broadband Initiative.

$1,000,000 Senator Gregg 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Neighborhood Initiatives ........ Ocean Springs, MS ................................... For the construction of the Walter Anderson Education Center. $400,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Neighborhood Initiatives ........ Scott County Housing Council, IA ............. For loans and grants to local nonprofit 

housing service providers and developers to create affordable housing.

$300,000 Senator Harkin 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Neighborhood Initiatives ........ Southwest Organizing Project, Chicago, 

IL.

To assist the Southwest Organizing 

Project ‘‘Keep Our Homes’’ campaign, a foreclosure prevention initiative in Chicago neighborhoods.

$250,000 Senator Durbin 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... EDI ......................................... TechRanch, Bozeman, MT ......................... For entrepreneurship programs and support for a business incubator. $200,000 Senator Baucus Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Neighborhood Initiatives ........ Vermont Housing and Conservation 

Board, Montpelier, VT.

For expansion and improvement of lowincome housing. $300,000 Senator Sanders 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Neighborhood Initiatives ........ Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund, Montpelier, VT. For capitalizing a revolving loan fund ..... $500,000 Senator Leahy Housing and Urban Development [HUD] ....... Neighborhood Initiatives ........ Washington State Farmworker Housing 

Trust, Seattle, WA.

For capacity building to support the expansion of affordable housing for 

farmworkers.

$200,000 Senator Murray 
238 

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] 

Item 2010 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2010 appropriation Budget estimate 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Office of the Secretary 

Salaries and expenses ............................................................................................................................................... 102,686 117,000 113,961 ∂11,275 ¥3,039 

Immediate Office of the Secretary .................................................................................................................... (2,631 ) (2,667 ) (2,667 ) (∂36 ) ............................Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary ........................................................................................................ (986 ) (1,000 ) (1,000 ) (∂14 ) ............................Office of the General Counsel ........................................................................................................................... (20,359 ) (19,711 ) (20,211 ) (¥148 ) (∂500 ) Office of the Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy .............................................................................. (11,100 ) (13,568 ) (16,568 ) (∂5,468 ) (∂3,000 ) Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs ........................................................................... (10,559 ) (20,022 ) (11,216 ) (∂657 ) (¥8,806 ) Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs ............................................................................. (2,504 ) (2,530 ) (2,200 ) (¥304 ) (¥330 ) Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration ....................................................................................... (25,520 ) (25,695 ) (25,695 ) (∂175 ) ............................Office of Public Affairs ..................................................................................................................................... (2,055 ) (2,240 ) (1,800 ) (¥255 ) (¥440 ) Office of the Executive Secretariat ................................................................................................................... (1,658 ) (1,683 ) (1,683 ) (∂25 ) ............................Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization ................................................................................ (1,499 ) (1,513 ) (1,513 ) (∂14 ) ............................Office of Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response .............................................................................. (10,600 ) (10,999 ) (10,999 ) (∂399 ) ............................Office of the Chief Information Officer ............................................................................................................. (13,215 ) (22,995 ) (18,409 ) (∂5,194 ) (¥4,586 ) Acquisition workforce capacity and capabilities .............................................................................................. ............................ 7,623 ............................ ............................ ¥7,623 

Subtotal ......................................................................................................................................................... 102,686 124,623 113,961 ∂11,275 ¥10,662 

National infrastructure development ......................................................................................................................... 600,000 ............................ 800,000 ∂200,000 ∂800,000 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, research, and development ............................................................................................... 16,168 9,819 9,819 ¥6,349 ............................

Maritime study .................................................................................................................................................. 2,000 ............................ 2,000 ............................ ∂2,000 

Working capital fund .................................................................................................................................................. (147,596 ) ............................ (147,596 ) ............................ (∂147,596 ) Minority business resource center program ............................................................................................................... 923 913 913 ¥10 ............................

(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ..................................................................................................................... (18,367 ) ............................ ............................ (¥18,367 ) ............................

Minority business outreach ........................................................................................................................................ 3,074 3,395 3,395 ∂321 ............................
239 

Payments to air carriers (Airport & Airway Trust Fund) ........................................................................................... 150,000 132,000 146,000 ¥4,000 ∂14,000 

Total, Office of the Secretary ....................................................................................................................... 889,518 351,517 1,136,855 ∂247,337 ∂785,338 

National Infrastructure Innovation and Finance Fund 

National infrastructure innovation and finance fund program account ................................................................... ............................ 4,000,000 ............................ ............................ ¥4,000,000 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Operations .................................................................................................................................................................. 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 transportation ..................................................................................................................... (15,237 ) ............................ (15,747 ) (∂510 ) (∂15,747 ) Financial services .............................................................................................................................................. (113,681 ) ............................ (114,784 ) (∂1,103 ) (∂114,784 ) Human resource management .......................................................................................................................... (100,428 ) ............................ (103,297 ) (∂2,869 ) (∂103,297 ) Region and center operations ........................................................................................................................... (341,977 ) ............................ (366,354 ) (∂24,377 ) (∂366,354 ) Staff offices ....................................................................................................................................................... (196,063 ) ............................ (212,255 ) (∂16,192 ) (∂212,255 ) Information services .......................................................................................................................................... (49,278 ) ............................ (55,949 ) (∂6,671 ) (∂55,949 ) 

Facilities & equipment (Airport & Airway Trust Fund) .............................................................................................. 2,936,203 2,970,000 2,970,000 ∂33,797 ............................Research, engineering, and development (Airport & Airway Trust Fund) ................................................................. 190,500 190,000 198,750 ∂8,250 ∂8,750 Grants-in-aid for airports (Airport and Airway Trust Fund) (Liquidation of contract authorization) ....................... (3,000,000 ) (3,550,000 ) (3,550,000 ) (∂550,000 ) ............................

(Limitation on obligations) ................................................................................................................................ (3,515,000 ) (3,515,000 ) (3,515,000 ) ............................ ............................Administration ................................................................................................................................................... (93,422 ) (100,208 ) (99,708 ) (∂6,286 ) (¥500 ) Airport Cooperative Research Program ............................................................................................................. (15,000 ) (15,000 ) (15,000 ) ............................ ............................Airport technology research ............................................................................................................................... (22,472 ) (27,217 ) (27,417 ) (∂4,945 ) (∂200 ) Small community air service development program ........................................................................................ (6,000 ) ............................ (6,000 ) ............................ (∂6,000 ) Rescission of contract authority (BY AIP) ........................................................................................................ ¥394,000 ............................ ............................ ∂394,000 ............................

Subtotal ......................................................................................................................................................... (3,121,000 ) (3,515,000 ) (3,515,000 ) (∂394,000 ) ............................Total, Federal Aviation Administration ......................................................................................................... 12,082,731 12,953,000 12,986,750 ∂904,019 ∂33,750 

Appropriations ...................................................................................................................................... (12,476,731 ) (12,953,000 ) (12,986,750 ) (∂510,019 ) (∂33,750 ) Rescissions of contract authority ........................................................................................................ (¥394,000 ) ............................ ............................ (∂394,000 ) ............................(Limitations on obligations) ................................................................................................................ (3,515,000 ) (3,515,000 ) (3,515,000 ) ............................ ............................

Total budgetary resources ............................................................................................................................ (15,597,731 ) (16,468,000 ) (16,501,750 ) (∂904,019 ) (∂33,750 ) 

Federal Highway Administration 

Limitation on administrative expenses ...................................................................................................................... (413,533 ) (420,843 ) (417,843 ) (∂4,310 ) (¥3,000 ) 
240 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2010 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2010 appropriation Budget estimate 

Federal-aid highways (Highway Trust Fund): 

(Liquidation of contract authorization) ............................................................................................................. (41,846,000 ) (42,102,000 ) (42,515,000 ) (∂669,000 ) (∂413,000 ) 

(Limitation on obligations) ....................................................................................................................... (41,107,000 ) (41,362,775 ) (41,776,000 ) (∂669,000 ) (∂413,225 ) (Exempt contract authority) ..................................................................................................................... (739,000 ) (739,000 ) (739,000 ) ............................ ............................

Surface transportation projects ................................................................................................................................. 292,829 ............................ 175,269 ¥117,560 ∂175,269 Rescission of contract authority (Highway Trust Fund) ............................................................................................ ............................ ¥263,131 ¥263,131 ¥263,131 ............................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 (Sec. 122) ................................................................................................................ 650,000 ............................ ............................ ¥650,000 ............................

Total, Federal Highway Administration ......................................................................................................... 942,829 ¥263,131 112,138 ¥830,691 ∂375,269 

Appropriations ...................................................................................................................................... (942,829 ) ............................ (375,269 ) (¥567,560 ) (∂375,269 ) Rescissions of contract authority ........................................................................................................ ............................ (¥263,131 ) (¥263,131 ) (¥263,131 ) ............................Rescissions .......................................................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................

(Limitations on obligations) ......................................................................................................................... (41,107,000 ) (41,362,775 ) (41,776,000 ) (∂669,000 ) (∂413,225 ) (Exempt contract authority) .......................................................................................................................... (739,000 ) (739,000 ) (739,000 ) ............................ ............................Total budgetary resources ............................................................................................................................ (42,049,829 ) (41,099,644 ) (41,888,138 ) (¥161,691 ) (∂788,494 ) 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 

Motor carrier safety operations and programs (General Fund) ................................................................................. ............................ ............................ 20,050 ∂20,050 ∂20,050 Motor carrier safety operations and programs (Highway Trust Fund) (Liquidation of contract authorization) ....... (239,828 ) (259,878 ) (239,828 ) ............................ (¥20,050 ) 

(Limitation on obligations) ................................................................................................................................ (239,828 ) (259,878 ) (239,828 ) ............................ (¥20,050 ) 

Motor carrier safety grants (Highway Trust Fund) (Liquidation of contract authorization) ..................................... (310,070 ) (310,070 ) (310,070 ) ............................ ............................

(Limitation on obligations) ................................................................................................................................ (310,070 ) (310,070 ) (310,070 ) ............................ ............................

Motor carrier safety grants (HTF) (rescission of contract authority) ........................................................................ ¥1,611 ............................ ¥18,900 ¥17,289 ¥18,900 Motor carrier safety (HTF) (rescission of contract authority) .................................................................................... ¥6,416 ............................ ¥7,300 ¥884 ¥7,300 
241 

National motor carrier safety program (HTF) (rescission of contract authority) ...................................................... ¥3,233 ............................ ¥15,000 ¥11,767 ¥15,000 

Total, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration ...................................................................................... ¥11,260 ............................ ¥21,150 ¥9,890 ¥21,150 (Limitations on obligations) ......................................................................................................................... (549,898 ) (569,948 ) (549,898 ) ............................ (¥20,050 ) Total budgetary resources ............................................................................................................................ (538,638 ) (569,948 ) (528,748 ) (¥9,890 ) (¥41,200 ) 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

Operations and research (general fund) ................................................................................................................... 140,427 132,837 172,773 ∂32,346 ∂39,936 Operations and research (Highway Trust Fund): 

(Liquidation of contract authorization) ............................................................................................................. (105,500 ) (117,376 ) (117,376 ) (∂11,876 ) ............................

(Limitation on obligations) ....................................................................................................................... (105,500 ) (117,376 ) (117,376 ) (∂11,876 ) ............................

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................ (245,927 ) (250,213 ) (290,149 ) (∂44,222 ) (∂39,936 ) 

National driver register (Highway Trust Fund): 

(Liquidation of contract authorization) ............................................................................................................. (4,000 ) (4,170 ) (4,170 ) (∂170 ) ............................

(Limitation on obligations) ....................................................................................................................... (4,000 ) (4,170 ) (4,170 ) (∂170 ) ............................

National driver register modernization ...................................................................................................................... 3,350 2,530 2,530 ¥820 ............................Highway traffic safety grants (Highway Trust Fund): 

(Liquidation of contract authorization) ............................................................................................................. (619,500 ) (620,697 ) (606,197 ) (¥13,303 ) (¥14,500 ) 

(Limitation on obligations) ....................................................................................................................... (619,500 ) (620,697 ) (606,197 ) (¥13,303 ) (¥14,500 ) 

Highway safety programs (23 USC 402) ........................................................................................ (235,000 ) (235,000 ) (235,000 ) ............................ ............................Occupant protection incentive grants (23 USC 405) ..................................................................... (25,000 ) (25,000 ) (25,000 ) ............................ ............................Safety belt performance grants (23 USC 406) ............................................................................... (124,500 ) (124,500 ) (60,000 ) (¥64,500 ) (¥64,500 ) 

(Distracted driving prevention grants) .................................................................................. ............................ (50,000 ) (50,000 ) (∂50,000 ) ............................

State traffic safety information system improvement grants (23 USC 408) ................................ (34,500 ) (34,500 ) (34,500 ) ............................ ............................Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures grants (23 USC 410) ................................................. (139,000 ) (139,000 ) (139,000 ) ............................ ............................Grant administration ....................................................................................................................... (18,500 ) (19,697 ) (19,697 ) (∂1,197 ) ............................High visibility enforcement ............................................................................................................. (29,000 ) (29,000 ) (29,000 ) ............................ ............................Child safety and booster seat grants ............................................................................................. (7,000 ) (7,000 ) (7,000 ) ............................ ............................Motorcyclist safety ........................................................................................................................... (7,000 ) (7,000 ) (7,000 ) ............................ ............................

National Driver Register (rescission of contract authority) ....................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ¥78 ¥78 ¥78 Operations and research (rescission of contract authority) (Sec. 142) .................................................................... ¥2,299 ............................ ¥1,829 ∂470 ¥1,829 Highway traffic safety grants (rescission of contract authority) (Sec. 143) ............................................................ ¥14,004 ............................ ¥79,843 ¥65,839 ¥79,843 

Total, National Highway Traffic Safety Admin ............................................................................................. 127,474 135,367 93,553 ¥33,921 ¥41,814 

Appropriations ...................................................................................................................................... (143,777 ) (135,367 ) (175,303 ) (∂31,526 ) (∂39,936 ) Rescissions of contract authority ........................................................................................................ (¥16,303 ) ............................ (¥81,750 ) (¥65,447 ) (¥81,750 ) 

(Limitations on obligations) ......................................................................................................................... (729,000 ) (742,243 ) (727,743 ) (¥1,257 ) (¥14,500 ) 
242 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2010 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2010 appropriation Budget estimate 

Total budgetary resources ............................................................................................................................ (856,474 ) (877,610 ) (821,296 ) (¥35,178 ) (¥56,314 ) 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Federal railroad operations ........................................................................................................................................ ............................ 153,846 ............................ ............................ ¥153,846 Offsetting fee collections ........................................................................................................................................... ............................ ¥25,000 ............................ ............................ ∂25,000 

Direct appropriation .......................................................................................................................................... ............................ 128,846 ............................ ............................ ¥128,846 

Safety and operations ................................................................................................................................................ 172,270 ............................ 205,098 ∂32,828 ∂205,098 Railroad research and development .......................................................................................................................... 37,613 40,000 40,000 ∂2,387 ............................Rail line relocation and improvement program ......................................................................................................... 34,532 ............................ ............................ ¥34,532 ............................Railroad safety technology ......................................................................................................................................... 50,000 ............................ 150,000 ∂100,000 ∂150,000 Railroad safety ........................................................................................................................................................... ............................ 49,502 ............................ ............................ ¥49,502 Capital assistance for high speed rail corridors and intercity passenger rail service ............................................ 2,500,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 ¥1,500,000 ............................National Railroad Passenger Corporation: 

Operating grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation ................................................................. 563,000 563,000 563,000 ............................ ............................Office of Inspector General ............................................................................................................................... ............................ 22,000 ............................ ............................ ¥22,000 Capital and debt service grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation ......................................... 1,001,625 1,052,000 1,400,000 ∂398,375 ∂348,000 

Total, Federal Railroad Administration ......................................................................................................... 4,359,040 2,855,348 3,358,098 ¥1,000,942 ∂502,750 

Federal Transit Administration 

Administrative expenses ............................................................................................................................................. 98,911 113,559 111,981 ∂13,070 ¥1,578 

(Rail transit safety oversight program) ............................................................................................................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................

Technical assistance and workforce development .................................................................................................... ............................ 28,647 ............................ ............................ ¥28,647 Formula and Bus Grants (Hwy Trust Fund, Mass Transit Account (Liquidation of contract authorization) ............ (9,400,000 ) ............................ (9,200,000 ) (¥200,000 ) (∂9,200,000 ) 

(Limitation on obligations) ................................................................................................................................ (8,343,171 ) ............................ (8,360,565 ) (∂17,394 ) (∂8,360,565 ) 

Transit Formula Grants (Hwy Trust Fund, Mass Transit Account (Liquidation of contract authorization) .............. ............................ (9,200,000 ) ............................ ............................ (¥9,200,000 ) 

(Limitation on obligations) ................................................................................................................................ ............................ (8,271,700 ) ............................ ............................ (¥8,271,700 ) 

Greenhouse gas and energy reduction (Limitation on obligations) .......................................................................... ............................ (52,743 ) ............................ ............................ (¥52,743 ) 
243 

Livable communities (Limitation on obligations) ...................................................................................................... ............................ (306,905 ) ............................ ............................ (¥306,905 ) Rail transit safety oversight program ....................................................................................................................... ............................ 24,139 ............................ ............................ ¥24,139 Research and University Research Centers ............................................................................................................... 65,670 29,729 69,750 ∂4,080 ∂40,021 Capital investment grants ......................................................................................................................................... 2,000,000 1,822,112 2,000,000 ............................ ∂177,888 Energy efficiency and greenhouse gas reduction grants .......................................................................................... 75,000 ............................ 100,000 ∂25,000 ∂100,000 Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority capital and preventive maintenance ........................................... 150,000 150,000 150,000 ............................ ............................East Baseline Park and Ride reallocation (Sec. 166) ............................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................

Total, Federal Transit Administration ........................................................................................................... 2,389,581 2,168,186 2,431,731 ∂42,150 ∂263,545 (Limitations on obligations) ......................................................................................................................... (8,343,171 ) (8,631,348 ) (8,360,565 ) (∂17,394 ) (¥270,783 ) Total budgetary resources ............................................................................................................................ (10,732,752 ) (10,799,534 ) (10,792,296 ) (∂59,544 ) (¥7,238 ) 

Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation 

Operations and maintenance (Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund) .............................................................................. 32,324 32,150 32,324 ............................ ∂174 

Maritime Administration 

Maritime 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 Administration ..................................................................................................................... 362,750 352,041 390,754 ∂28,004 ∂38,713 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 

Administrative expenses: 

General Fund ..................................................................................................................................................... 20,493 21,744 21,744 ∂1,251 ............................Pipeline Safety Fund ......................................................................................................................................... 639 639 639 ............................ ............................Pipeline Safety information grants to communities ......................................................................................... (1,000 ) (1,000 ) (1,000 ) ............................ ............................

Subtotal ......................................................................................................................................................... 21,132 22,383 22,383 ∂1,251 ............................

Hazardous materials safety ....................................................................................................................................... 37,994 40,434 50,434 ∂12,440 ∂10,000 
244 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2010 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2010 appropriation Budget estimate 

Pipeline safety: 

Pipeline Safety Fund ......................................................................................................................................... 86,334 92,206 92,206 ∂5,872 ............................Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund ............................................................................................................................. 18,905 18,905 18,905 ............................ ............................

Subtotal ......................................................................................................................................................... 105,239 111,111 111,111 ∂5,872 ............................

Emergency preparedness grants: 

Limitation on emergency preparedness fund ................................................................................................... (28,318 ) (28,318 ) (28,318 ) ............................ ............................

(Emergency preparedness fund) .............................................................................................................. (188 ) (188 ) (188 ) ............................ ............................

Total, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration ........................................................ 192,683 202,246 212,246 ∂19,563 ∂10,000 

Research and Innovative Technology Administration 

Research and development ........................................................................................................................................ 13,007 17,200 16,900 ∂3,893 ¥300 

Office of Inspector General 

Salaries and expenses ............................................................................................................................................... 75,114 79,772 86,406 ∂11,292 ∂6,634 

Surface Transportation Board 

Salaries and expenses ............................................................................................................................................... 29,066 25,988 29,934 ∂868 ∂3,946 

Offsetting collections ........................................................................................................................................ ¥1,250 ¥1,250 ¥1,250 ............................ ............................

Total, Surface Transportation Board ............................................................................................................ 27,816 24,738 28,684 ∂868 ∂3,946 Total, title I, Department of Transportation ................................................................................................. 21,455,289 22,880,116 20,836,971 ¥618,318 ¥2,043,145 

Appropriations ...................................................................................................................................... (21,876,852 ) (23,143,247 ) (21,223,052 ) (¥653,800 ) (¥1,920,195 ) Rescissions .......................................................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................Rescission of contract authority .......................................................................................................... (¥421,563 ) (¥263,131 ) (¥386,081 ) (∂35,482 ) (¥122,950 ) 

(Limitations on obligations) ......................................................................................................................... (54,244,069 ) (54,821,314 ) (54,929,206 ) (∂685,137 ) (∂107,892 ) (Exempt contract authority) .......................................................................................................................... (739,000 ) (739,000 ) (739,000 ) ............................ ............................(Limitations) .................................................................................................................................................. (28,318 ) (28,318 ) (28,318 ) ............................ ............................
245 

Total budgetary resources ............................................................................................................................ (75,699,358 ) (77,701,430 ) (75,766,177 ) (∂66,819 ) (¥1,935,253 ) 

TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

Management and Administration 

Executive direction ..................................................................................................................................................... 26,855 30,265 30,265 ∂3,410 ............................Administration, operations and management ........................................................................................................... 537,011 538,552 528,846 ¥8,165 ¥9,706 

Acquisition workforce capacity and capabilities .............................................................................................. ............................ 2,071 ............................ ............................ ¥2,071 

Subtotal ......................................................................................................................................................... 537,011 540,623 528,846 ¥8,165 ¥11,777 

Personnel compensation and benefits: 

Public and Indian Housing ............................................................................................................................... 197,074 197,282 195,508 ¥1,566 ¥1,774 Community Planning and Development ............................................................................................................ 98,989 105,768 105,281 ∂6,292 ¥487 Housing .............................................................................................................................................................. 374,887 395,917 395,917 ∂21,030 ............................Office of the Government National Mortgage Association ............................................................................... 11,095 10,902 16,000 ∂4,905 ∂5,098 Policy Development and Research .................................................................................................................... 21,138 23,588 22,556 ∂1,418 ¥1,032 Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity ................................................................................................................ 71,800 67,964 70,363 ¥1,437 ∂2,399 Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control .......................................................................................... 7,151 6,762 7,151 ............................ ∂389 

Subtotal ......................................................................................................................................................... 782,134 808,183 812,776 ∂30,642 ∂4,593 Total, Management and Administration ....................................................................................................... 1,346,000 1,379,071 1,371,887 ∂25,887 ¥7,184 

Public and Indian Housing 

Tenant-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 coordinators ................................................................................................................. 60,000 60,000 ............................ ¥60,000 ¥60,000 Incremental family unification vouchers .......................................................................................................... 15,000 ............................ 15,000 ............................ ∂15,000 Veterans affairs supportive housing ................................................................................................................. 75,000 ............................ 75,000 ............................ ∂75,000 Sec. 811 Mainstream voucher renewals ........................................................................................................... ............................ 113,663 113,663 ∂113,663 ............................Disaster housing assistance program .............................................................................................................. ............................ 66,000 66,000 ∂66,000 ............................Homeless vouchers demonstration program ..................................................................................................... ............................ 85,000 85,000 ∂85,000 ............................Transformation initiative (transfer out) ............................................................................................................ ............................ (¥195,507 ) (¥100,000 ) (¥100,000 ) (∂95,507 ) 

Subtotal (available this fiscal year) ............................................................................................................ 18,184,200 19,550,663 19,495,663 ∂1,311,463 ¥55,000 

Advance appropriations ..................................................................................................................................... 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 ............................ ............................
246 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2010 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2010 appropriation Budget estimate 

Less appropriations from prior year advances ................................................................................................. ¥4,000,000 ¥4,000,000 ¥4,000,000 ............................ ............................

Total, Tenant-based rental assistance appropriated in this bill ................................................................ 18,184,200 19,550,663 19,495,663 ∂1,311,463 ¥55,000 

Transforming rental assistance demonstration program .......................................................................................... ............................ 350,000 ............................ ............................ ¥350,000 Public Housing Capital Fund ..................................................................................................................................... 2,500,000 2,044,200 2,510,000 ∂10,000 ∂465,800 

Transformation initiative (transfer out) ............................................................................................................ ............................ (¥20,442 ) (¥25,000 ) (¥25,000 ) (¥4,558 ) 

Public Housing Operating Fund ................................................................................................................................. 4,775,000 4,829,000 4,829,000 ∂54,000 ............................

Transformation initiative (transfer out) ............................................................................................................ ............................ (¥48,290 ) ............................ ............................ (∂48,290 ) 

Revitalization of severely distressed public housing ................................................................................................ 200,000 ............................ ............................ ¥200,000 ............................

(Choice neighborhoods) ..................................................................................................................................... (65,000 ) ............................ ............................ (¥65,000 ) ............................

Choice neighborhoods ................................................................................................................................................ ............................ 250,000 250,000 ∂250,000 ............................

Transformation initiative (transfer out) ............................................................................................................ ............................ (¥2,500 ) (¥2,500 ) (¥2,500 ) ............................

Native American housing block grants ...................................................................................................................... 700,000 580,000 700,000 ............................ ∂120,000 

Transformation initiative (transfer out) ............................................................................................................ ............................ (¥5,800 ) ............................ ............................ (∂5,800 ) 

Native Hawaiian housing block grant ....................................................................................................................... 13,000 10,000 13,000 ............................ ∂3,000 

Transformation initiative (transfer out) ............................................................................................................ ............................ (¥100 ) ............................ ............................ (∂100 ) 

Indian housing loan guarantee fund program account ............................................................................................ 7,000 9,000 9,000 ∂2,000 ............................

(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ..................................................................................................................... (919,000 ) (994,000 ) (994,000 ) (∂75,000 ) ............................Transformation initiative (transfer out) ............................................................................................................ ............................ (¥8 ) ............................ ............................ (∂8 ) 

Native Hawaiian loan guarantee fund program account .......................................................................................... 1,044 ............................ 1,044 ............................ ∂1,044 

(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ..................................................................................................................... (41,504 ) ............................ (41,504 ) ............................ (∂41,504 ) 

Total, Public and Indian Housing ................................................................................................................. 26,380,244 27,622,863 27,807,707 ∂1,427,463 ∂184,844 

Community Planning and Development 

Housing opportunities for persons with AIDS ............................................................................................................ 335,000 340,000 340,000 ∂5,000 ............................

Transformation initiative (transfer out) ............................................................................................................ ............................ (¥3,400 ) (¥3,400 ) (¥3,400 ) ............................

Community development fund ................................................................................................................................... 4,450,000 4,380,100 4,450,000 ............................ ∂69,900 

Transformation initiative (transfer out) ............................................................................................................ ............................ (¥43,801 ) (¥44,500 ) (¥44,500 ) (¥699 ) 
247 

Community development loan guarantees (Section 108): 

(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ..................................................................................................................... (275,000 ) (500,000 ) (275,000 ) ............................ (¥225,000 ) Credit subsidy ................................................................................................................................................... 6,000 ............................ 6,435 ∂435 ∂6,435 

Brownfields redevelopment ........................................................................................................................................ 17,500 ............................ ............................ ¥17,500 ............................HOME investment partnerships program ................................................................................................................... 1,825,000 1,650,000 1,825,000 ............................ ∂175,000 

Transformation initiative (transfer out) ............................................................................................................ ............................ (¥16,500 ) (¥18,250 ) (¥18,250 ) (¥1,750 ) 

Self-help and assisted homeownership opportunity program ................................................................................... 82,000 ............................ 82,000 ............................ ∂82,000 Capacity building ....................................................................................................................................................... ............................ 60,000 ............................ ............................ ¥60,000 

Transformation initiative (transfer out) ............................................................................................................ ............................ (¥600 ) ............................ ............................ (∂600 ) 

Homeless assistance grants ...................................................................................................................................... 1,865,000 2,055,000 2,055,000 ∂190,000 ............................

Transformation initiative (transfer out) ............................................................................................................ ............................ (¥20,550 ) ............................ ............................ (∂20,550 ) 

Total, Community Planning and Development ............................................................................................. 8,580,500 8,485,100 8,758,435 ∂177,935 ∂273,335 

Housing Programs 

Project-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 fiscal year) ............................................................................................................ 8,557,853 9,376,000 9,376,000 ∂818,147 ............................

Transformation initiative (transfer out) ............................................................................................................ ............................ (¥89,760 ) ............................ ............................ (∂89,760 ) Advance appropriations ..................................................................................................................................... 393,672 400,000 400,000 ∂6,328 ............................Less appropriations from prior year advances ................................................................................................. ¥400,000 ¥393,672 ¥393,672 ∂6,328 ............................

Total, Project-based rental assistance appropriated in this bill ................................................................ 8,551,525 9,382,328 9,382,328 ∂830,803 ............................

Housing for the elderly ............................................................................................................................................... 825,000 273,700 825,000 ............................ ∂551,300 

Transformation initiative (transfer out) ............................................................................................................ ............................ (¥2,737 ) (¥8,250 ) (¥8,250 ) (¥5,513 ) 

Housing for persons with disabilities ........................................................................................................................ 300,000 90,037 200,000 ¥100,000 ∂109,963 

Transformation initiative (transfer out) ............................................................................................................ ............................ (¥900 ) (¥2,000 ) (¥2,000 ) (¥1,100 ) 

Housing counseling assistance .................................................................................................................................. 87,500 88,000 100,000 ∂12,500 ∂12,000 

Transformation initiative (transfer out) ............................................................................................................ ............................ (¥880 ) (¥1,000 ) (¥1,000 ) (¥120 ) 

Energy Innovation Fund .............................................................................................................................................. 50,000 ............................ ............................ ¥50,000 ............................Rental housing assistance ......................................................................................................................................... 40,000 40,600 40,600 ∂600 ............................

Transformation initiative (transfer out) ............................................................................................................ ............................ (¥406 ) (¥406 ) (¥406 ) ............................

Rent supplement (rescission) .................................................................................................................................... ¥72,036 ¥40,600 ¥40,600 ∂31,436 ............................Manufactured housing fees trust fund ...................................................................................................................... 16,000 14,000 14,000 ¥2,000 ............................

Offsetting collections ........................................................................................................................................ ¥7,000 ¥7,000 ¥7,000 ............................ ............................Transformation initiative (transfer out) ............................................................................................................ ............................ (¥70 ) (¥70 ) (¥70 ) ............................
248 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2010 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2010 appropriation Budget estimate 

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 collections ........................................................................................................................... (¥7,000 ) (¥7,000 ) (¥7,000 ) ............................ ............................

Federal Housing Administration 

FHA—Mutual mortgage insurance program account: 

(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ..................................................................................................................... (400,000,000 ) (400,000,000 ) (400,000,000 ) ............................ ............................(Limitation on direct loans) .............................................................................................................................. (50,000 ) (50,000 ) (50,000 ) ............................ ............................Offsetting receipts ............................................................................................................................................. ............................ ¥960,000 ¥960,000 ¥960,000 ............................Proposed additional offsetting receipts (Sec. 211) .......................................................................................... ............................ ¥902,000 ¥902,000 ¥902,000 ............................Positive credit subsidy (HECM) ......................................................................................................................... ............................ 250,000 150,000 ∂150,000 ¥100,000 Administrative contract expenses ..................................................................................................................... 181,400 207,000 220,000 ∂38,600 ∂13,000 Additional contract expenses ............................................................................................................................ 14,000 4,000 4,000 ¥10,000 ............................Transformation initiative (transfer out) ............................................................................................................ ............................ (¥1,355 ) (¥1,355 ) (¥1,355 ) ............................Working capital fund (transfer out) .................................................................................................................. (¥70,794 ) (¥71,500 ) (¥71,500 ) (¥706 ) ............................Consumer education and outreach ................................................................................................................... 7,500 ............................ ............................ ¥7,500 ............................

FHA—General and special risk program account: 

(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ..................................................................................................................... (15,000,000 ) (20,000,000 ) (20,000,000 ) (∂5,000,000 ) ............................(Limitation on direct loans) .............................................................................................................................. (20,000 ) (20,000 ) (20,000 ) ............................ ............................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 Administration ......................................................................................................... 76,500 ¥1,711,000 ¥1,803,000 ¥1,879,500 ¥92,000 
249 

Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA) 

Guarantees of mortgage-backed securities loan guarantee program account: 

(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ..................................................................................................................... (500,000,000 ) (500,000,000 ) (500,000,000 ) ............................ ............................Offsetting receipts ............................................................................................................................................. ¥720,000 ¥720,000 ¥720,000 ............................ ............................

Total, Gov’t National Mortgage Association ................................................................................................. ¥720,000 ¥720,000 ¥720,000 ............................ ............................

Policy Development and Research 

Research and technology ........................................................................................................................................... 48,000 87,000 62,000 ∂14,000 ¥25,000 

Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity 

Fair housing activities ............................................................................................................................................... 72,000 61,100 72,000 ............................ ∂10,900 

Transformation initiative (transfer out) ............................................................................................................ ............................ (¥611 ) (¥720 ) (¥720 ) (¥109 ) 

Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes 

Lead hazard reduction ............................................................................................................................................... 140,000 140,000 140,000 ............................ ............................

Transformation initiative (transfer out) ............................................................................................................ ............................ (¥1,400 ) (¥1,400 ) (¥1,400 ) ............................

Management and Administration 

Working 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 Administration ....................................................................................................... 345,000 385,500 388,500 ∂43,500 ∂3,000 (Grand total, Management and Administration) .......................................................................................... (1,691,000 ) (1,764,571 ) (1,760,387 ) (∂69,387 ) (¥4,184 ) Total, title II, Department of Housing and Urban Development .................................................................. 46,059,233 45,570,699 46,591,857 ∂532,624 ∂1,021,158 

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 appropriations ....................................................................................................................... (4,393,672 ) (4,400,000 ) (4,400,000 ) (∂6,328 ) ............................Offsetting receipts ............................................................................................................................... (¥860,000 ) (¥2,897,000 ) (¥2,897,000 ) (¥2,037,000 ) ............................1Offsetting collections ......................................................................................................................... (¥7,000 ) (¥7,000 ) (¥7,000 ) ............................ ............................

(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 loans) .......................................................................................................................... (70,000 ) (70,000 ) (70,000 ) ............................ ............................(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ................................................................................................................. (916,235,504 ) (921,494,000 ) (921,310,504 ) (∂5,075,000 ) (¥183,496 ) 
250 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2010 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2010 appropriation Budget estimate 

TITLE III—OTHER INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

Access 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 ∂3,900 

Amtrak Office of Inspector General ........................................................................................................................... 19,000 ............................ 19,500 ∂500 ∂19,500 Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation ................................................................................................................... 233,000 250,000 300,000 ∂67,000 ∂50,000 United States Interagency Council on Homelessness ................................................................................................ 2,450 2,680 2,680 ∂230 ............................

Total, title III, Other Independent Agencies ................................................................................................. 383,935 385,878 459,345 ∂75,410 ∂73,467 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 contract authority ........................................................................................................ (¥421,563 ) (¥263,131 ) (¥386,081 ) (∂35,482 ) (¥122,950 ) Advance appropriations ....................................................................................................................... (4,393,672 ) (4,400,000 ) (4,400,000 ) (∂6,328 ) ............................Negative subsidy receipts .................................................................................................................... (¥860,000 ) (¥2,897,000 ) (¥2,897,000 ) (¥2,037,000 ) ............................Offsetting collections ........................................................................................................................... (¥7,000 ) (¥7,000 ) (¥7,000 ) ............................ ............................

(Limitation on obligations) ........................................................................................................................... (54,244,069 ) (54,821,314 ) (54,929,206 ) (∂685,137 ) (∂107,892 ) (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 resources ............................................................................................................................ (122,142,526 ) (123,658,007 ) (122,817,379 ) (∂674,853 ) (¥840,628 ) 

Discretionary total ...................................................................................................................................................... (67,900,000 ) (68,737,520 ) (67,900,000 ) ............................ (¥837,520 ) 

Æ