57–536 

111TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 111–564 

DEPARTMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION, AND HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2011 

JULY 26, 2010.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. OLVER, from the Committee on Appropriations, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

MINORITY VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 5850] 

The Committee on Appropriations submits the following report in 

explanation of the accompanying bill making appropriations for the 

Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 

2011. 

INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT 

Page Number 

Bill Report 

Major Themes and Initiatives ................................................................... ........ 2 

Title I—Department of Transportation .................................................... 2 9 

Title II—Department of Housing and Urban Development ................... 74 114 

Title III—Related Agencies ....................................................................... 156 160 

Title IV—General Provisions .................................................................... 163 166 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
2 

MAJOR THEMES AND INITIATIVES

AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT

On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) to create 

and save 3.5 million jobs, re-energize the economy, and transform 

it for long-term growth and stability. Within the Recovery Act, 

Congress provided $61.7 billion to stimulate job creation through 

investments in the nation’s transportation and housing infrastructure. 

To date, the Department of Transportation (DOT) has committed a total of $37.8 billion or 80 percent of the Recovery Act funds that 

were provided for highway, transit, airport and rail projects. DOT 

estimates that there are over 12,771 transportation projects currently underway which have created, on average, more than 41,000 

direct jobs each quarter, with many more created indirectly. 

Specifically, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Division Offices have authorized 12,323 projects in all states and territories for a total of $26 billion, 10,782 of these projects are currently underway. There are 488 projects under way on federal 

lands for a total of $466 million. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has issued grants for 362 airport rehabilitation and replacement projects totaling $1.093 billion and has 345 projects currently underway to make improvements to FAA air traffic control 

facilities and equipment. The Federal Transit Administration 

(FTA) has awarded 1,024 grants totaling more than $8.7 billion 

which includes $423.2 million in ‘‘flex-fund’’ transfers from FHWA 

for transit projects. To date, 188 Amtrak projects with a value of 

$1.252 billion are underway and have been granted a notice to proceed. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has announced 

high speed rail awards for 82 projects in 32 states. In addition, 

DOT has announced 51 infrastructure investment (TIGER) grants 

across the country. HUD has allocated approximately $13.38 billion, or over 98.2 

percent, of its Recovery Act funds, directly to state and local recipients and is reviewing competitive proposals for the remaining 

funds. HUD estimates that these funds created or retained 20,660 

jobs in the first quarter of 2010, and have served 357,808 low-income persons, primarily through the provision of housing for homeless families and individuals. In addition, 188,184 units of low-income housing have been rehabilitated or developed with Recovery 

Act funds, thus spurring the hard-hit construction industry by providing skilled jobs in all areas of the country. These investments 

have already helped communities and families that have experienced the brunt of the economic downturn. This includes $2 billion 

for the Neighborhood Stabilization Fund to purchase and rehabilitate vacant, foreclosed properties and return them to productive 

use as affordable rental housing. Another $1.5 billion has been invested in providing emergency shelter and rapid re-housing assistance for homeless families. To stimulate employment in the construction industry, as well as jump start affordable housing programs, $2.25 billion has been provided to state housing finance 

agencies to fund projects stalled by the current economic recession. 

Thousands of previously vacant, uninhabitable public housing units 

have been renovated and leased to low-income families through a 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
3 

$4 billion investment in the Public Housing Capital Fund, and 

many of these improvements have been completed in a sustainable 

fashion. 

The Recovery Act has helped create thousands of jobs by improving and repairing transportation and housing infrastructure across 

the nation. However, the infrastructure needs of our country remain great as evidenced through the tremendous state of good repair backlog that exists in our transportation and housing stock. 

Additionally, as communities grow and change, there is a continuing need to provide more capacity and transportation alternatives to help eliminate congestion on our nation’s roads, highways and transit systems. To that end, the Committee recommendation reflects the ongoing necessity to provide robust investment in our infrastructure in order to create jobs; improve the 

safety and efficiency of our transportation and housing networks; 

and to contribute to local economies. 

BUILDING LIVABLE AND SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES

The Committee is dedicated to exploring opportunities to 

strengthen the connection between transportation and housing. 

The Committee’s jurisdiction allows for the consideration of federal 

housing and transportation policy and funding decisions to be made 

in the context of larger concerns for affordability, energy efficiency, 

and economic vitality. This legislation touches the lives of families 

and individuals all across the nation, and communities are best 

served when federal policies and funding decisions are being made 

in a coordinated, cooperative fashion. 

Since 2007, the Committee has held a series of hearings on the 

topic of livability and sustainability, and has insisted on greater 

federal collaboration around these issues. The Committee has received testimony from the Secretaries of the Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); government leaders and transportation officials 

from the local level; urban planning experts from policy think 

tanks and non-profit organizations; and private sector designers 

and developers experienced in green building concepts. The testimony from these leaders and experts underscored that, when put 

to practice, sustainability initiatives improve the lives of working 

Americans and families, especially the economically disadvantaged, 

and the communities where the investments are made. 

For many Americans, transportation and housing costs make up 

the largest portion of family budgets. In fact, the average American 

household now spends 34 percent of its annual budget on housing 

and 18 percent on transportation. Therefore, a combined total of 52 

percent of household budgets are wrapped up in these two largest 

expenses. For low-income working families, the impact is more serious, with transportation representing almost a third of their costs. 

All too often, the economically disadvantaged must live great distances from their place of work in order to find a home that is affordable. In those instances, transportation costs rise dramatically 

when reasonably priced public transportation alternatives are not 

readily accessible. The Committee strongly believes that it is a worthy goal to encourage better coordination of transportation and 

housing investments, which will help reduce financial burdens on 

families. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
4 

There is also a related environmental benefit realized through 

the creation of more livable and sustainable communities. According to the Department of Transportation’s April 2010 report to Congress, ‘‘Transportation’s Role in Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions’’, the transportation sector currently accounts for 29 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. Housing contributes to almost 21 

percent of total greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, according to the most recent statistical summary from the Environmental Protection Agency. Combined, these two sectors create approximately 50 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions. Investments that advance a more seamless connection between transportation and housing will help reduce impacts on the environment. 

Further, in this time of economic recovery, states, cities and localities are searching for ways to enhance the vitality of their regions. Recognizing the unique characteristics of individual communities and the importance of local decision-making and planning, 

the Committee does not advocate a ‘‘one size fits all’’ approach to 

the concept of sustainability. The Committee believes that better 

collaboration between federal agencies can serve to eliminate bureaucratic red tape which will, in turn, allow communities to 

stretch their federal dollars further and help expedite project development and completion. When communities integrate their transportation, housing and energy plans, local resources and family 

budgets are best utilized. Through transit-oriented and mixed-use 

development, local resources are coordinated and complementary, 

not disjointed, which enhances the livability of any locality, whether a large urban center or a rural downtown. 

In order to achieve the goals of sustainability outlined above, 

inter-agency collaboration is the key to breaking down traditional 

silos and the formulation of good policy decisions. The Committee 

is pleased that based on past recommendations of this Subcommittee, the Department of Transportation and the Department 

of Housing and Urban Development have formed the Interagency 

Partnership for Sustainable Communities, along with the Environmental Protection Agency. This alliance aims to integrate green 

practices and sustainability into baseline standards for development. The Sustainable Community Initiative, funded in HUD by 

the Committee last year, provided $150,000,000 to promote this 

type of teamwork. Thus far, the Partnership has resulted in an unprecedented amount of cooperation among Federal partners, including inter-agency review teams for Notices of Funding Availability. 

The Committee is pleased that the fiscal year 2011 budget includes 

funding for livability proposals from the Department of Transportation and looks forward to continued cooperation amongst these 

agencies, and others, as appropriate. Therefore, the Committee includes $527,000,000 for livability initiatives within DOT and 

$150,000,000 for sustainability programs within HUD. 

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY TO ELIMINATE WASTE, FRAUD AND

ABUSE

The federal government must maximize taxpayer dollars by investing in programs that improve lives and promote economic 

growth. Misuse of these funds is unacceptable and a disservice to 

the American people. The Committee has taken steps to ensure 

that any waste, fraud, or abuse of taxpayer dollars is dealt with 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
5 

and related policies are examined to better utilize these resources. 

The Committee has performed this important oversight role 

through the use of hearings, reviews by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the Committee on Appropriations’ Surveys 

and Investigations staff, and directives in its annual appropriation 

Act, including the accompanying report, to promote strong project 

management and leadership at the agencies under its jurisdiction, 

with an emphasis on the Department of Transportation (DOT) and 

the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). 

This year, the Committee has focused on a number of programs 

that may be susceptible to waste, fraud, and abuse, as well as significant management issues for which the agencies must remain 

accountable. For example, oversight of the Federal Aviation Administration includes ensuring that critical safety equipment is deployed within a reasonable time frame; that air traffic controller 

training initiatives are managed properly; that actual safety technician staffing levels remain at the mutually agreed upon minimums throughout the entirety of the year. The importance of timely and reliable financial data cannot be understated, especially in 

a program as large and as complicated as the Federal-aid highway 

program. The Committee believes that accurate financial information is a critical aspect of the FHWA’s oversight role and has directed the agency to embark on a review of its financial management system in order to ensure that it has the information necessary to encourage efficient and cost-effective decision making 

from state and local governments. At the Maritime Administration 

(MARAD), conscientious management of the U.S. Merchant Marine 

Academy (the Academy) is necessary to ensure a high quality education for the next generation of merchant mariners. Therefore the 

Committee requires MARAD to submit a comprehensive spend plan 

before all funds will be released to the Academy. Additionally, in 

light of the serious concerns over the last several months surrounding unintended acceleration in vehicles, the Committee has 

highlighted oversight of electronic vehicle controls as a key management issue for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 

In other operating divisions of DOT, the Committee requests targeted inquiries from GAO and the DOT Inspector General, as well 

as regular reporting requirements to the Committee. For instance, 

the Committee has directed GAO to conduct a follow-up to its 2007 

audit of the FHWA’s emergency relief program to determine if the 

agency is doing everything within its authority to recapture unused 

program funds and tighten eligibility standards to guarantee that 

limited program resources are used effectively. Additionally, the 

Committee focuses on eliminating mismanagement of funds provided for information technology (IT) investments by requiring the 

Inspector General to monitor the progress of the DOT’s IT improvement initiatives; and directing GAO to review the expenditures of 

the Financial Management Capital account. 

The Committee believes critical areas of management focus at 

DOT must be the high speed rail and infrastructure investment 

programs first funded in the American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act. The Committee considers the investments made by these programs to be critical to the nation’s infrastructure and economic recovery. However, the Committee is adamant about the immense 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
6 

need for comprehensive oversight of these programs. The Committee expects the Department to have thorough grant management processes in place for these programs including key implementation milestones and related cost estimates. In addition, the 

Committee has directed DOT to provide regular updates to the 

Committee on the progress of these grants. 

Within HUD, the Committee has focused this year’s bill and report on strengthening the core programs of the Department and 

eliminating large carryover balances by requiring the issuance of 

Notices of Funding Availability (NOFAs) within strict timeframes. 

Further, the Committee is mandating administrative reforms in 

the Housing for the Elderly program and in the Housing for Persons with Disabilities program through the accompanying report. 

HUD’s programs are too vital to low-income populations to have 

funding that does not get obligated or expended in a timely fashion. 

Further, the Committee requires a GAO-approved spend plan for 

any information technology development at HUD before any major 

investments may be made. Due to funding lapses in the salaries 

and expenses accounts, the Committee is conducting additional 

oversight in this account and is now requiring quarterly staffing reports from the Department. 

EXPIRING AUTHORIZATIONS FOR TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS

At the time the Committee began consideration of this bill to 

fund programs for fiscal year 2011, many of the transportation 

agencies under its jurisdiction were without long-term authorizations—the most recent surface transportation authorization Act, 

the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity 

Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU), expired on September 30, 

2009; the authorization for the National Transportation Safety 

Board expired on September 30, 2008; the most recent aviation authorization Act, Vision 100—Century of Aviation Reauthorization 

Act, expired on September 30, 2007; and even the most recent pipeline safety Act, the Pipeline Inspection, Protection, Enforcement, 

and Safety Act of 2006, is set to expire on September 30, 2010, unless action is taken before then. These bills provide budget authority and contract authority authorizations for most Federal aviation, 

highway, highway safety, transit, motor carrier safety, and pipeline 

safety programs and are critical to providing Federal investment in 

our transportation infrastructure and maintaining the safety of 

these systems. The role of the appropriations process with respect 

to these programs is to appropriate budget authority or to set obligation limitations on contract authority so that overall Federal 

spending stays within legislated targets. Lack of long-term authorizations creates uncertainty, erodes stability, and makes it difficult 

for states and transportation agencies to plan for current as well 

as future investments. Many of these programs are currently operating based on short-term extensions, but even those are set to expire soon. The current surface transportation extension will expire 

on December 31, 2010, and the current aviation extension expires 

on July 3, 2010, which will mark the fourteenth time the program 

will need to be extended since Vision 100 expired. Progress on a 

long-term surface transportation authorization bill has been hindered by the insolvency of the highway trust fund and the lack of 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
7 

a viable funding source to sustain our transportation investment 

needs into the future. 

Further complicating matters is the fact that the President’s 

budget that was submitted to the Committee contained no significant policy recommendations for most of the programs subject to 

reauthorization. The President’s budget instead provides only baseline funding levels for most of these programs. The Committee understands that the Department of Transportation has embarked on 

a ‘‘Surface Transportation Reauthorization Outreach Tour’’ as the 

first step in developing the Administration’s reauthorization proposal. Given the national and long-term impacts that changes to 

the authorization and financing structure of these programs will 

have, the Committee believes the Administration must exert greater leadership in this area and looks forward to seeing the product 

of this tour. The Committee strongly believes that now is the time 

to transform and modernize our transportation systems and time 

is of the essence. 

However, because reauthorization actions have not yet been completed, the Committee has continued the fiscal year 2010 program 

structure for all of the transportation programs subject to reauthorization and has, for the most part, generally assumed that the partial year funding levels provided by the current extension Acts will 

be extended and annualized for fiscal year 2011. 

OPERATING PLAN AND REPROGRAMMING PROCEDURES

The Committee continues to have a particular interest in being 

informed of reprogrammings which, although they may not change 

either the total amount available in an account or any of the purposes for which the appropriation is legally available, represent a 

significant departure from budget plans presented to the Committee in an agency’s budget justifications and supporting documents, the basis of this appropriations Act. 

The Committee directs the departments, agencies, corporations 

and offices funded within this bill, to notify the Committee prior to 

increasing any program, activity, object classification or element in 

excess of $5,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less. Likewise, the 

Committee directs the same entities noted above to not decrease 

any program, activity, object classification or element by $5,000,000 

or 10 percent, whichever is less. Additionally, the Committee expects to be promptly notified of all reprogramming actions which 

involve less than the above-mentioned amounts. If such actions 

would have the effect of significantly changing an agency’s funding 

requirements in future years, or if programs or projects specifically 

cited in the Committee’s reports are affected by the reprogramming, it must be approved by the Committee regardless of the 

amount proposed to be moved. Furthermore, the Committee must 

be consulted regarding reorganizations of offices, programs, and activities prior to the planned implementation of such reorganizations. 

The Committee also directs that the Department of Transportation and the Department of Housing and Urban Development 

shall submit operating plans, signed by the respective secretary for 

the Committee’s review within 60 days of the bill’s enactment. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
8 

RELATIONSHIP WITH BUDGET OFFICES

Through the years, the Committee has channeled most of its inquiries and requests for information and assistance through the 

budget offices of the various departments, agencies, and commissions. The Committee has often pointed to the natural affinity and 

relationship between these organizations and the Committee which 

makes such a partnership workable. The Committee reiterates its 

longstanding position that while the Committee reserves the right 

to call upon all offices in the departments, agencies, and commissions, the primary conjunction between the Committee and these 

entities must normally be through the budget offices. The Committee appreciates all the assistance received from each of the departments, agencies, and commissions during the past year. The 

workload generated by the budget process is large and growing, 

and therefore, a positive, responsive relationship between the Committee and the budget offices is absolutely essential to the appropriations process. 

TABULAR SUMMARY

A table summarizing the amounts provided for fiscal year 2010 

and the amounts recommended in the bill for fiscal year 2011 compared with the budget estimates is included at the end of this report. 

COMMITTEE HEARINGS

In addition to the hearings noted above, the Committee also conducted extensive hearings on the programs and projects provided 

for in this bill. Pursuant to House rules, each of these hearings was 

open to the public. The Committee received testimony from cabinet 

officers, agency heads, inspectors general, and other officials of the 

executive branch in areas under the bill’s jurisdiction. In addition, 

the Committee has considered written material submitted for the 

hearing record by Members of Congress, private citizens, local government entities, and private organizations. The bill recommendations for fiscal year 2011 have been developed after careful consideration of all the information available to the Committee. 

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’ shall mean 

any item for which a dollar amount is contained in an appropriations Act (including joint resolutions providing continuing appropriations) or accompanying reports of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, or accompanying conference reports and 

joint explanatory statements of the committee of conference. This 

definition shall apply to all programs for which new budget 

(obligational) authority is provided, as well as to capital investment 

grants within the Federal Transit Administration. In addition, the 

percentage reductions made pursuant to a sequestration order to 

funds appropriated for facilities and equipment within the Federal 

Aviation Administration shall be applied equally to each budget 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
9 

item that is listed under said accounts in the budget justifications 

submitted to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 

as modified by subsequent appropriations Acts and accompanying 

committee reports, conference reports, or joint explanatory statements of the committee of conference. 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $102,686,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... 117,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 111,615,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. +8,929,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ ¥5,385,000 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The bill provides $111,615,000 for the salaries and expenses of 

the offices comprising the Office of the Secretary of Transportation 

(OST). The Committee’s recommendation includes individual funding for each of these offices as has been done in prior years. The 

following table compares the fiscal year 2010 enacted level to the 

fiscal year 2011 budget request and the Committee’s recommendation by office: 

Fiscal year 2010 enacted Fiscal year 2011 

request House recommended 

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 executive secretariat ........................................... 1,658,000 1,683,000 1,683,000 

Office of the under secretary of transportation for policy ...... 11,100,000 13,568,000 12,015,000 

Official of small and disadvantaged business utilization ...... 1,499,000 1,513,000 1,513,000 

Office of the chief information officer ..................................... 13,215,000 22,995,000 19,663,000 

Office of the assistant secretary for governmental affairs ..... 2,504,000 2,530,000 2,530,000 

Office of the general counsel ................................................... 20,359,000 19,711,000 19,711,000 

Office of the assistant secretary for budget and programs ... 10,559,000 12,399,000 11,899,000 

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 2,240,000 

Office of intelligence and security and emergency response .. 10,600,000 10,999,000 10,999,000 

Total ................................................................................. 102,686,000 117,000,000 111,615,000 

Immediate office of the secretary.—The immediate Office of the 

Secretary has primary responsibility to provide overall planning, 

direction, and control of departmental affairs. The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,667,000 for the expenses of the 

immediate Office of the Secretary, which is $36,000 above the fiscal 

year 2010 enacted level and the same as the level proposed in the 

fiscal year 2011 budget request. 

Immediate office of the deputy secretary.—The Office of the Deputy Secretary has primary responsibility to assist the Secretary in 

the overall planning, direction, and control of departmental affairs. 

The Deputy Secretary serves as the chief operating officer of the 

Department of Transportation. The Committee recommends 

$1,000,000 for expenses of the Office of the Deputy Secretary, 

which is $14,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and the 

same as the level proposed in the fiscal year 2011 budget. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
10 

Executive secretariat.—The Executive Secretariat assists the Secretary and Deputy Secretary in carrying out their responsibilities 

by controlling and coordinating internal and external documents. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,683,000 for the 

expenses of the Executive Secretariat, which is $25,000 above the 

fiscal year 2010 enacted level and the same as the level proposed 

in the fiscal year 2011 budget. 

Office of the under secretary of transportation for policy.—The Office of the Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy serves as 

the Department’s chief policy officer, and is responsible for the coordination and development of departmental policy and legislative 

initiatives; international standards development and harmonization; aviation and other transportation-related trade negotiations; the performance of policy and economic analysis; and the 

execution of the Essential Air Service program. The Committee recommends $12,015,000 for the Office of the Under Secretary of 

Transportation for Policy, which is $915,000 above the fiscal year 

2010 enacted level and $1,553,000 below the level proposed in the 

fiscal year 2011 budget. 

The Committee denies the request for additional full time equivalent (FTE). The Committee believes the policy office has a sufficient number of staff to support the Department’s policy needs. The 

Committee provides half of the funding requested for staffing the 

Transportation Counsel at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul and the 

Transportation Attache for the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and believes the remainder should be provided by the Department of 

State. 

Office of small and disadvantaged business utilization.—The Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization is responsible 

for promoting small and disadvantaged business participation in 

the Department’s procurement and grants programs. The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,513,000 for this office, 

which is $14,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and the 

same as the level proposed in the fiscal year 2011 budget. 

Office of the chief information officer.—The Office of the Chief Information Officer serves as the principal advisor to the Secretary 

on information resources and information systems management. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $19,663,000 for 

the Office of the Chief Information Officer, which is $6,448,000 

above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and $3,332,000 below the 

fiscal year 2011 budget request. 

The Committee fully supports the OCIO’s efforts to improve the 

Department’s information technology systems. However, the Committee does not provide the entire request of 50 new positions for 

the Next Generation IT Environment initiative and Cyber Security 

initiative in fiscal year 2011. The Committee fears doubling the 

staff of the OCIO would create unintended consequences that 

would hinder, rather than improve, the Department’s information 

management. Therefore, the Committee has provided funding for 

13 positions and 6 FTE in this account and no funding for personnel in the Cyber Security Initiatives. The Committee directs the 

Department to allocate these positions between the two initiatives 

as appropriate to meet the stated goals. The Committee will entertain reprogramming requests if there is a dire need for additional 

FTE. In addition, the Committee provides $5,000,000 for the Next 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
11 

Generation IT Infrastructure initiative. The Committee directs the 

Department’s Inspector General to assess DOT’s progress in meeting cyber security vulnerabilities and upgrading the overall IT environment. 

Office of the assistant secretary for governmental affairs.—The 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs is responsible for coordinating all Congressional, intergovernmental, 

and consumer activities of the Department. The Committee recommends $2,530,000 for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for 

Governmental Affairs, which is $26,000 above the fiscal year 2010 

enacted level and the same as the level proposed in the fiscal year 

2011 budget. 

In addition, the bill continues a provision (Sec. 188) that requires 

the Department to notify the Committees on Appropriations no 

fewer than three business days before any discretionary grant 

award, letter of intent, or full funding grant agreement in excess 

of $1,000,000 is announced by the Department or its modal administrations from: (1) any discretionary program of the Federal Highway Administration other than the emergency relief program; (2) 

the airport improvement program of the Federal Aviation Administration; (3) any grant from the Federal Railroad Administration; 

and (4) any program of the Federal Transit Administration other 

than the formula grants and fixed guideway modernization programs. Such notification shall include the date on which the official 

announcement of the grant is to be made and no such announcement shall involve funds that are not available for obligation. 

Office of the general counsel.—The Office of the General Counsel 

provides legal services to the Office of the Secretary and coordinates and reviews the legal work of the chief counsels’ offices of the 

operating administrations. The Committee recommends 

$19,711,000 for the Office of General Counsel, which is $648,000 

below the fiscal year 2010 enacted level, and the same as the fiscal 

year 2011 budget. 

Office of the assistant secretary for budget and programs.—The 

Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs is responsible for developing, reviewing, and presenting budget resource requirements 

for the Department to the Secretary, Congress, and the Office of 

Management and Budget. The Committee recommends an appropriation of $11,899,000 for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for 

Budget and Programs, which is $1,340,000 above the fiscal year 

2010 enacted level and $500,000 below the level proposed in the 

fiscal year 2011 budget. 

The Committee approves the request for 11 positions and 6 FTE 

and provides half the funding requested for program evaluation. 

The bill contains a general provision (Sec. 194), as requested in 

the budget, which includes an additional $7,622,655 to increase the 

Department’s acquisition workforce capacity and capabilities. 

Office of the assistant secretary for administration.—The Office of 

the Assistant Secretary for Administration serves as the principal 

advisor to the Secretary on department-wide administrative matters and her responsibilities include leadership in acquisition reform and human capital. The Committee recommends an appropriation of $25,695,000 for the expenses of this office, which is 

$175,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and the same as 

the level proposed in the 2011 fiscal year budget. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
12 

Office of public affairs.—The Office of Public Affairs is responsible for the Department’s press releases, articles, briefing materials, publications, and audio-visual materials. The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,240,000 for the expenses of the Office of Public Affairs, which is $185,000 above the fiscal year 2010 

enacted level and the same as the level proposed in the 2011 fiscal 

year budget. 

Office of intelligence, security, and emergency response.—The Office of Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response was established in fiscal year 2005 by merging the Secretary’s Office of Intelligence and Security with the Research and Special Program Administration’s Office of Emergency Transportation. This office is responsible for intelligence, security policy, preparedness, training 

and exercises, national security, and operations. The Committee 

recommendation includes $10,999,000 for the Office of Intelligence, 

Security, and Emergency Response, which is $399,000 above the 

fiscal year 2010 enacted level and the same as the level proposed 

in the 2011 fiscal year budget. 

Congressional budget justifications.—The Committee directs the 

Department to include the same level of detail that was provided 

in the congressional budget justifications submitted in fiscal year 

2011. Further, the Department is directed to include in the budget 

justification funding levels for the prior year, current year, and 

budget year for all programs, activities, initiatives, and program 

elements. Each budget submitted by the Department must also include a detailed justification for the incremental funding increases 

and additional FTEs being requested above the enacted level, by 

program, activity, or program element. 

OST currently includes a helpful discussion in its justification of 

changes from the current year to the request. To ensure that each 

adjustment is identified, the Committee directs OST in future congressional justifications to include detailed information in tabular 

format, which identifies specific changes in funding from the current year to the budget year for each office, including each office 

within OST. 

Operating plan.—The Committee directs the Department to submit an operating plan for fiscal year 2011 signed by the Secretary 

for review by the Committees on Appropriations within 60 days of 

the bill’s enactment. The operating plan should include funding levels for the various offices, programs, and initiatives detailed down 

to the object class or program element covered in the budget justification and supporting documents, documents referenced in the 

House and Senate appropriations reports, and the statement of the 

managers. 

General provisions.—The Committee notes that in the past many 

general provisions included in the President’s budget request were 

not justified, addressed, nor presented in any DOT justification. 

Therefore, the Committee continues to direct DOT to justify each 

general provision proposed either in its relevant modal congressional justification or in the OST congressional justification. 

Bill language.—The bill continues language that permits up to 

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

salaries and expenses. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
13 

LIVABLE COMMUNITIES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... $20,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 20,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. +20,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ – – – 

The goal of the livable communities program is to promote livable communities through investment in transportation infrastructure to decrease transportation costs; improve access to jobs and 

services; promote healthy communities; improve air quality; protect 

the natural environment; and enhance the unique characteristics of 

communities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $20,000,000 for the livable communities program, which is $20,000,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and the same as the level proposed in the fiscal year 

2011 budget. 

Grant to states and localities.—The Committee includes 

$12,000,00 for grants and technical assistance targeted at improving states, regions, and localities’ ability to plan and execute transportation investments in support of livability and sustainability 

goals. 

Uniform benchmarks.—The Committee includes $4,000,000 to develop uniform benchmarks for assessing the effectiveness of livability-oriented interventions, including performance measures of 

livability outcomes to determine how various federal infrastructure 

investments impact livability. 

Establishing the office of livable communities.—The Committee 

includes $4,000,000 to establish the Office of Livable Communities 

and to support administrative and technical oversight activities for 

the livable communities program. The Committee expects the Office of Livable Communities to coordinate livability efforts among 

all of the modes and with external partners. Ultimately, the Committee will hold the Office of Livable Communities accountable for 

all of the Department’s livable community initiatives. 

Partnership for sustainable communities.—The Committee is 

pleased by the collaboration between the Department of Transportation, the Department of Housing and Urban Development and 

the Environmental Protection Agency in the Partnership for Sustainable Communities. The Committee urges this partnership to 

bring in other Departments and Agencies as appropriate. The Committee recognizes the difficulties of making large bureaucracies 

work together and commends this partnership on its ability to affect change in the short time since its inception. 

NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $600,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... – – – 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 400,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. ¥200,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ +400,000,000 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
14 

The national infrastructure investment program was created in 

the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) to provide 

grants to state and local governments to improve the Nation’s 

transportation infrastructure. The infrastructure investment program awards funds on a competitive basis to grantees selected because of the significant impact they will have on the Nation, a metropolitan area, or region. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $400,000,000 for the national infrastructure investment program, which is $200,000,000 below the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and $400,000,000 above the level proposed in the fiscal year 2011 budget. The Committee, recognizing 

that the applications for the $2.5 billion provided in ARRA totaled 

$56.9 billion, continues this program for fiscal year 2011. The Committee is pleased by the innovation and enthusiasm this program 

has created and believes the national infrastructure investment 

program incentivizes thinking in terms of intermodalism. 

The Committee urges the Secretary to give consideration to innovative projects that support investment in freight rail and inland 

ports. In addition, as no funding is provided for the rail line relocation and improvement program in fiscal year 2011, the Committee 

urges traditional rail line relocation applicants to apply, if their 

projects correlate to the national infrastructure investment program. 

The primary purpose of the national infrastructure investment 

program is to advance projects that will improve the efficiency and 

safety of the nation’s transportation network. To date, the program 

has focused exclusively on surface transportation projects. The 

Committee believes that the program should not ignore potential 

infrastructure investments that might serve to benefit and transform the nation’s air transportation system as well. The Committee 

recommendation allows the Secretary to use up to 10 percent of the 

funds provided for this program to conduct a demonstration of 

NextGen air traffic control capabilities. 

The Committee continues to require the Secretary to provide 

funding in an equitable appropriately balanced geographic distribution in order to address the needs of urban and rural communities. 

Additionally, the Committee continues to require the Secretary to 

give priority to projects that require a contribution of Federal funds 

in order to complete an overall financing package. 

Grant award size.—The Committee continues to set minimum 

and maximum grant size, and to set a limitation on the amount of 

funding that may be awarded to any individual State. 

Rural areas.—The Committee requires the Secretary to provide no less than $100,000,000 for projects located in rural areas. Since 

a smaller investment may constitute a significant improvement for 

rural communities, the bill lowers the minimum rural grant size to 

$1,000,000. In addition, the Committee allows the Secretary to provide a waiver for the local match requirement for such projects. 

Credit assistance.—The Committee allows up to $60,000,000 of 

the funding provided for surface transportation infrastructure to be 

used to pay for the subsidy and administrative costs of projects eligible for credit assistance under the Transportation Infrastructure 

Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA). 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
15 

Planning activities.—The Committee allows up to $20,000,000 of 

the funding provided for surface transportation infrastructure to be 

used for the planning, preparation or design of eligible projects. 

This funding will improve the capacity of state, local, and regional 

governments to develop significant transportation solutions, including innovative and multijurisdictional projects that do not fit easily 

into existing federal programs. 

Administration of the program.—The bill allows the Secretary to use $16,000,000 of the funding for administrative and oversight activities, and to transfer portions of this funding to the appropriate 

modal administrations as needed. The Committee believes that the 

modal administrations offer valuable expertise that has been acquired through years of experience, and the Committee encourages 

the Secretary to take advantage of this resource within the Department. The Committee believes this program must be a critical area 

of management focus at DOT. The Committee considers the investments made by this program to be critical to the nation’s infrastructure and economic recovery. Therefore, the Committee is adamant about the immense need for comprehensive oversight of this 

program. The Committee expects the Department to have thorough 

grant management processes in place for this program including 

key implementation milestones and related oversight cost estimates. Therefore, the Committee directs OST to submit a report on 

the oversight and grants management process of the infrastructure 

investment program to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by March 27, 2011. 

Application process.—As with all funds awarded as grants at the 

Secretary’s discretion, the Committee expects the Secretary to 

maintain an application process that is transparent, fair, and accessible to all interested parties. The Secretary must publish a set 

of project selection criteria no sooner than 60 days after enactment 

of the bill. The Committee expects the Secretary to publicize the 

criteria to all possible grant applicants, and to adhere rigorously 

and consistently to the published criteria in measuring all applications. 

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT CAPITAL

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $5,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... 21,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 18,500,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. +13,500,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ ¥2,500,000 

The Financial Management Capital program continues funding 

for a multi-year project to upgrade DOT’s financial systems and 

processes. The project will implement Treasury Department and 

Office of Management and Budget requirements. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

This Committee recommends $18,500,000 for financial manage- ment capital program, which is $13,500,000 above the fiscal year 

2010 enacted level and $2,500,000 below the fiscal year 2011 budget request. 

The Committee denies the request for FTE in this account. The 

Committee believes the Department has a sufficient number of 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
16 

staff in the office of budget to fulfill the needs of this initiative. The 

Committee reduces overall funding in this account without prejudice due to budget constraints. Over the last two years, the Committee has demonstrated its support for this initiative by providing 

$10 million. 

The Committee directs the Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) to review the cost, schedule and performance of this project. 

The assessment should include information on the status of the 

project’s schedule, budget, and expenditures as well as a 

prioritization of project risks and their mitigation efforts. 

CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... $30,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 28,188,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. +28,188,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ ¥1,812,000 

The Department’s OCIO is requesting a one-time appropriation 

to close the Department’s most serious cyber security gaps. These 

funds will be used to close DOT’s existing cyber security and privacy performance gaps; adapt DOT’s security posture to a Web 2.0 

environment; transition from a reactive to a proactive security posture; and achieve the goals of Federal cyber security strategic plans 

and initiatives. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $28,188,000 for the cyber security 

initiatives, which is $28,188,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted 

level and $1,812,000 below the level proposed in the fiscal year 

2011 budget. The Committee provides these funds for a one-time 

investment in the cyber security of the Department. The Committee directs the Department to submit quarterly reports on the 

progress made with these funds and expects that all resources will 

be part of the OCIO or working capital fund by the end of fiscal 

year 2013. 

The Committee fully supports the OCIO’s efforts to improve the 

Department’s information technology systems. However, the Committee denies the Department’s request for 25 positions and 13 

FTE. The Committee fears doubling the staff of the OCIO would 

create unintended consequences that would hinder rather than improve the Department’s information management. Therefore, the 

Committee has provided funding for 12 positions in the OCIO and 

no funding for personnel in this account. The Committee directs 

the Department to allocate these positions between the two initiatives as appropriate to achieve the stated goals. The Committee 

will entertain reprogramming requests if there is a dire need for 

additional FTE. The Committee directs the Department’s Inspector 

General to assess DOT’s progress in meeting cyber security 

vulnerabilities and upgrading the overall IT environment. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
17 

OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $9,667,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... 9,767,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 9,767,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. +100,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ – – – 

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

the full implementation of the civil rights laws and departmental 

civil rights policies in all official actions and programs. This office 

is responsible for enforcing laws and regulations that prohibit discrimination in federally operated and federally assisted transportation programs and enabling access to transportation providers. 

The Office of Civil Rights also handles all civil rights cases affecting Department of Transportation employees. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $9,767,000 for the office of civil 

rights, which is $100,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level 

and the same as the level proposed in the fiscal year 2011 budget. 

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $16,168,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... 9,819,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 9,819,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. ¥8,349,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ – – – 

This appropriation finances research activities and studies related to the planning, analysis, and information development used 

in the formulation of national transportation policies and plans. It 

also finances the staff necessary to conduct these efforts. The overall program is carried out primarily through contracts with other 

federal agencies, educational institutions, nonprofit research organizations, and private firms. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $9,918,000 for 

transportation planning, research and development, which is 

$8,349,000 below the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and equal to 

the level proposed in the fiscal year 2011 budget. 

The Committee directs funding to be allocated to the following 

projects: 

Great Lakes Maritime Research Institute, MN/WI ......................... $1,000,000 

New England Freight Rail Infrastructure Study, MA .................... 300,000 

Chicago Aviation Education Initiative, IL ........................................ 250,000 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND

Limitation, fiscal year 2010 ............................................................... ($147,596,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... – – – 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... (148,096,000) 

Bill compared with: 

Limitation, fiscal year 2010 ........................................................ (+500,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ (+148,096,000) 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
18 

The working capital fund was created to provide common administrative services to the operating administrations and outside entities that contract for the fund’s services. The working capital fund 

operates on a fee-for-service basis and receives no direct appropriations; it is fully self-sustaining and must achieve full cost recovery. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation of $148,096,000 on the 

working capital fund. The Committee recommends raising the limitation $500,000 over the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. 

Operating administrations’ usage of working capital fund.—The 

Committee directs the Department in its fiscal year 2011 congressional justifications to account for increases or decreases in individual modes working capital fund billings to be requested or anticipated by the mode, rather than the working capital fund managers. In addition, the Committee directs the Department to include a master table of all estimated transfers from each mode for 

the previous, current and next budget year in its fiscal year budget 

justification for the working capital fund. 

MINORITY BUSINESS RESOURCE CENTER PROGRAM

Appropriation Limitation on 

guaranteed loans 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ................................................................................... $923,000 ($18,367,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ............................................................................... 913,000 (18,367,000) 

Recommended in the bill ............................................................................................ 913,000 (18,367,000) 

Bill compared to: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .......................................................................... ¥10,000 (– – –) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ...................................................................... (– – –) (– – –) 

Through the Short Term Lending Program, the minority business resource center assists disadvantaged, minority, and womenowned businesses with obtaining short-term working capital for 

DOT and DOT-funded transportation-related contracts. The program enables qualified businesses to obtain loans at two percentage points above the prime interest rate with DOT guaranteeing up 

to 75 percent of the loan. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $913,000 for the minority business 

resource center, which is $10,000 below the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and equal to the fiscal year 2011 budget request. The 

Committee recommends a limitation on guaranteed loans of 

$18,367,000, the same as the budget request and the fiscal year 

2010 enacted level. 

MINORITY BUSINESS OUTREACH

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $3,074,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... 3,395,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 3,395,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. +321,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ – – – 

The Minority Business outreach program provides contractual 

support to small and disadvantaged businesses by providing information dissemination and technical and financial assistance to emVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:17 Jul 27, 2010 Jkt 057536 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR564.XXX HR564

pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
19 

power these businesses to compete for contracting opportunities 

with DOT and DOT-funded contracts or grants for transportation 

related projects. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $3,395,000 for minority business outreach, which is $321,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted 

level and the same as the level proposed in the fiscal year 2011 

budget. 

PAYMENTS TO AIR CARRIERS

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $150,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... 132,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 146,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. ¥4,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ +14,000,000 

The Essential Air Service program (EAS) was created by the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 as a ten-year measure to continue air 

service to communities that had received air service prior to deregulation. The program currently provides subsidies to air carriers 

serving small communities that meet certain criteria. 

The Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of 1996 

authorized the collection of ‘‘overflight fees.’’ Overflight fees are a 

type of user fee collected by the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) from aircraft that neither take off from, nor land in, the 

United States. The Act permanently appropriated these fees for authorized expenses of the FAA and stipulated that the first 

$50,000,000 of annual fee collections must be used to finance the 

EAS program. If there is a shortfall in fees, the law requires the 

FAA to make up the difference from other available funds. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

For fiscal year 2011, the Committee recommends a total EAS 

program funding level of $196,000,000. This consists of a general 

fund appropriation of $146,000,000, and $50,000,000 to be derived 

from overflight fee collections. The Committee’s recommendation is 

$4,000,000 below the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and 

$14,000,000 above the fiscal year 2011 request. 

The Committee rejects the Department’s proposal to limit the 

EAS program to only those communities being served as of October 

1, 2010 and therefore provides additional funding to the budget request. The Committee recognizes the EAS program needs reform 

and recommends the issue of capping participants be examined 

through the authorization process. 

Based on current DOT estimates, the Committee believes the 

funding level is sufficient to maintain air service to all communities 

currently being served by the EAS program. However, in the event 

of a shortfall, the bill continues language allowing the Secretary to 

transfer such sums as necessary from any available amounts appropriated to or directly administered by the Office of the Secretary. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
20 

The Committee continues language to ensure the prompt availability of funds for obligation to air carriers providing service under 

the EAS program. The Committee has also continued language 

that allows the Secretary to take into consideration the subsidy requirements of carriers when selecting between carriers competing 

to provide service to a community. 

The bill includes a provision (Sec. 102) prohibiting the use of 

funds to implement an essential air service program that requires 

local participation. 

NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE INNOVATION AND FINANCE FUND

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... $4,000,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... – – – 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ ¥4,000,000,000 

For the second year, the President’s budget includes a legislative 

proposal to create a national infrastructure fund to invest in large 

capital infrastructure projects that promise significant national or 

regional economic benefits. Through the National Infrastructure Innovation and Finance Fund (I Fund), Federal funds would be delivered through a variety of credit and grant mechanisms designed to 

not only provide Federal resources but also attract and coordinate 

state, local, and private co-investment. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee provides no funding for this fund as it is not authorized. The Committee is intrigued with the idea of a mechanism 

to prioritize and finance national investments in infrastructure. 

The Committee urges the Administration to rethink this proposal 

to include a broader scope beyond transportation infrastructure. 

The Committee believes in taking a new direction in Federal infrastructure investment, specifically one that supports regionally and 

nationally significant, high-value projects that cross programmatic 

silos and are funded through a merit-based selection process. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF

TRANSPORTATION

Section 101. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

the Office of the Secretary of Transportation from approving assessments or reimbursable agreements pertaining to funds appropriated to the operating administrations in this Act, unless such 

assessments or agreements have completed the normal reprogramming process for Congressional notification. 

Section 102. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

the use of funds to implement an essential air service local cost 

share participation program. 

Section 103. The Committee continues the provision allowing the 

Secretary or his designee to work with States and State legislators 

to consider proposals related to the reduction of motorcycle fatalities. 

Section 104. The Committee includes a provision that increases 

transparency in the National Infrastructure Investments program 

by requiring DOT to post on the Department’s web site, prior to anVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:17 Jul 27, 2010 Jkt 057536 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR564.XXX HR564

pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
21 

nouncing of grant awards, any requests or applications for program 

funding and, within five days of announcing awards, the criteria 

used in the selection process. Additionally, the DOT OIG is required to review ten percent of grant recipients under this program. 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is responsible for the 

safety and development of civil aviation and the evolution of a national system of airports. The Federal Government’s regulatory role 

in civil aviation began with the creation of an Aeronautics Branch 

within the Department of Commerce pursuant to the Air Commerce Act of 1926. This Act instructed the Secretary of Commerce 

to foster air commerce; designate and establish airways; establish, 

operate, and maintain aids to navigation; arrange for research and 

development to improve such aids; issue airworthiness certificates 

for aircraft and major aircraft components; and investigate civil 

aviation accidents. In the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938, these activities were subsumed into a new, independent agency named the 

Civil Aeronautics Authority. 

After further administrative reorganizations, Congress streamlined regulatory oversight in 1957 with the creation of two separate 

agencies, the Federal Aviation Agency and the Civil Aeronautics 

Board. When the Department of Transportation began its operations on April 1, 1967, the Federal Aviation Agency was renamed 

the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and became one of several modal administrations within the department. The Civil Aeronautics Board was later phased out with enactment of the Airline 

Deregulation Act of 1978, and ceased to exist at the end of 1984. 

FAA’s mission expanded in 1995 with the transfer of the Office of 

Commercial Space Transportation from the Office of the Secretary, 

and decreased in December 2001 with the transfer of civil aviation 

security activities to the new Transportation Security Administration. Similar to the surface transportation programs, the FAA’s 

programs have gone through a series of short-term extensions. The 

aviation programs are currently authorized through July 3, 2010. 

In order to provide greater stability and predictability to the agency’s programs and operations, the Committee is hopeful that a 

multi-year authorization will be enacted in the near future. 

OPERATIONS

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $9,350,028,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... 9,793,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 9,793,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. +442,972,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ – – – 

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

managerial costs for the FAA’s regulatory, international, medical, 

engineering and development programs as well as policy oversight 

and overall management functions. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
22 

The operations appropriation includes the following major activities: (1) operation on a 24-hour daily basis of a national air traffic 

system; (2) establishment and maintenance of a national system of 

aids to navigation; (3) establishment and surveillance of civil air 

regulations to assure safety in aviation; (4) development of standards, rules and regulations governing the physical fitness of airmen 

as well as the administration of an aviation medical research program; (5) administration of the acquisition, research and development programs; (6) headquarters, administration and other staff offices; and (7) development, printing, and distribution of aeronautical charts used by the flying public. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $9,793,000,000 for FAA operations 

which is the same level requested in the budget and $442,972,000 

above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. 

A comparison of the fiscal year 2011 budget request to the Committee recommendation by budget activity is as follows: 

Budget activity Fiscal year 2010 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2011 

request 

Committee 

recommendation 

Air traffic organization ............................................................. $7,299,299,000 $7,630,628,000 $7,630,628,000 

Aviation safety .......................................................................... 1,234,065,000 1,293,986,000 1,304,486,000 

Commercial space transportation ............................................ 15,237,000 15,747,000 16,747,000 

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 .................................................. 341,977,000 366,354,000 361,354,000 

Staff offices .............................................................................. 196,063,000 212,255,000 208,994,000 

Information services ................................................................. 49,278,000 55,949,000 53,360,000 

Adjustments .............................................................................. .............................. .............................. ¥650,000 

Total ................................................................................. 9,350,028,000 9,793,000,000 9,793,000,000

Justification of general provisions.—The Committee continues its 

direction to provide a justification for each general provision proposed in the FAA budget and therefore expects the fiscal year 2012 

budget to include adequate information on each proposed general 

provision. 

Organizational structure.—The Committee commends the Administrator’s efforts to break down organizational silos that exist between the FAA’s various lines of business. In an era when budgetary resources are only going to become more constrained and 

competitive, it will be necessary for the FAA to increase its overall 

efficiency and to reduce or eliminate duplicative functions. In that 

regard, the Committee directs the Administrator to conduct a review of the FAA’s organizational structure to identify staff functions that are duplicative and could be handled more centrally. The 

Committee supports the core mission functions of the agency, and 

is by no means suggesting any sort of wholesale reorganization. 

The Committee reminds the FAA that any reorganization must follow the reprogramming requirements specified in section 405 of 

this Act. 

Use of FAA aircraft.—The FAA possesses and operates a number 

of aircraft which are used by a variety of federal agencies to carry 

out executive branch functions. The Committee understands that 

the rates FAA charges for the use of the agency’s aircraft are out 

of date and may not adequately cover the operating costs associVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:17 Jul 27, 2010 Jkt 057536 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR564.XXX HR564

pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
23 

ated with the use of these aircraft. The Committee directs FAA to 

update its rates consistent with the OMB Circular No. A–126, Attachment A. The Committee directs FAA to report to the House 

and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 60 days of enactment as to the status of the agency’s compliance with the OMB 

Circular. 

TRUST FUND SHARE OF FAA BUDGET

The bill derives $3,900,000,000 of the total operations appropriation from the airport and airway trust fund. The balance of the appropriation ($5,893,000,000) will be drawn from the general fund of 

the Treasury. Under these provisions, roughly 65 percent of FAA’s 

entire budget will be borne by air travelers and industries using 

those services. The remaining 35 percent will be borne by the general taxpayer, regardless of whether they directly utilize FAA services. The Committee remains concerned about the increasing share 

of the FAA’s budget that must be covered by the general fund. 

STATE OF THE AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND

The following table depicts the Administration’s revenue and outlay estimates for the airport and airway trust fund as calculated 

by the Department of Treasury’s Office of Tax Analysis. Further, 

the Administration estimates that, at the end of fiscal year 2011, 

the uncommitted cash balance in the trust fund will be approximately $1,431,000,000. The Committee believes these estimates are 

overly optimistic since the Congressional Budget Office estimates 

that the end of year uncommitted cash balance will be 

¥$483,000,000. 

Fiscal year 2009 Fiscal year 2010 Fiscal year 2011 

Trust fund revenue 1 ................................................................. $10,877,000,000 $12,014,000,000 $12,739,000,000 

Trust fund outlays .................................................................... 11,803,000,000 10,436,000,000 12,730,000,000 

Difference .................................................................................. ¥926,000,000 1,578,000,000 9,000,000 

1 Includes excise taxes, offsetting collections and interest on trust fund cash balance. 

AIR TRAFFIC ORGANIZATION

The bill provides $7,630,628,000 for air traffic services which is equal to the budget request and $331,329,000 above the fiscal year 

2010 enacted level. 

Controller workforce, training and staffing.—As a result of the 

new contract agreement with the FAA’s air traffic controller workforce, the Committee is pleased with the increased level of collaboration between the FAA’s management and controller workforce. 

The agency’s success in the area of safety and in its implementation of NextGen technologies rests upon strong oversight, careful 

training, and a productive and cooperative environment between 

FAA’s management and the agency’s air traffic controllers. 

According to the FAA Administrator’s testimony before the Committee on March 18, 2010, the FAA has hired over 7,300 new air 

traffic controllers over the last five years. This dramatic increase 

in hiring was in response to the fact that thousands of controllers 

hired in the 1980’s will be eligible to retire by 2017. While the 

number of controller retirements appears to have peaked in fiscal 

year 2007, it is critical that the agency continue to hire new controllers at a fiscally responsible and steady pace in order to avoid 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
24 

another surge in retirements in the years ahead and to ensure adequate staffing levels as air traffic activity increases. The Committee notes that FAA’s most recent controller workforce plan indicates that the agency expects to reduce its controller workforce between 2010 and 2019 by 527, or 3.4 percent. The Committee intends to closely monitor the agency’s controller requirements and 

therefore has continued bill language requiring FAA to continue to 

submit an air traffic controller workforce plan no later than March 

31, 2011. 

The Committee recommendation includes funding to hire 915 

new controllers in fiscal year 2011. As FAA hires new controllers, 

it must also improve its overall training regimen. The Committee 

was greatly concerned by the DOT Office of Inspector General’s 

(OIG) April 2010 review of FAA’s screening, placement and training of newly hired air traffic controllers. In summary, the OIG’s 

key findings included: 

—the FAA is not effectively using its air traffic selection and 

training test (AT–SAT) to determine the appropriate level of 

facility in which new controllers are placed; 

—the FAA does not use academy training performance as a 

criteria in its placement process; 

—the agency’s final performance verification tests do not 

adequately assess whether candidates have the core skills to 

succeed; and, 

—the 2007 Controller Training and Development Group’s 

recommendations have not been fully implemented. 

The Committee strongly believes that new controllers should be 

placed in facilities that are appropriate for their skill level. As the 

following table from the OIG’s review demonstrates, the majority 

of new controllers in fiscal year 2008 were placed in level 10 

through 12 facilities, which are the agency’s busiest and most complicated facilities. 

The Committee found FAA’s response to the OIG’s recommendations to be not responsive. The Committee does not dispute that 

the FAA’s air traffic controllers are among the best in the world 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRIInsert graphic folio 21 56916a.001
25 

and that new controllers receive important on-the-job training in 

the field. The Committee, however, does believe that FAA should 

better match controller capabilities with facility level and that the 

agency should make every effort to address the OIG’s recommendations sooner than December 31, 2012. The Committee directs FAA 

to provide a progress report to the House and Senate Committees 

on Appropriations by March 1, 2011 on the status of additional 

evaluation and testing necessary to implement the OIG’s recommendations. The Committee also believes that FAA’s training 

protocol warrants further analysis and therefore directs the OIG to 

conduct a review of the training and staffing levels at FAA’s most 

critical facilities. The Committee directs the OIG to provide a report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by 

May 15, 2011. 

One of the key training tools utilized by the FAA is the relatively 

new controller training contract known as the air traffic control optimal training solution (ATCOTS). The ATCOTS contract was 

awarded in September 2008 and is a multi-year performance-based 

contract totaling nearly $900 million. The program is intended to 

manage controller training at the FAA’s training academy and at 

air traffic facilities. The first year of the contract exceeded cost estimates by over 30 percent or $32 million and the revised estimates 

for the second year have grown nearly 22 percent or $20 million. 

The root of these higher costs appears to be that the FAA underestimated the number and types of controllers that needed to be 

trained and FAA did not adequately define requirements for performance. The OIG is in the midst of a review of the ATCOTS program to determine whether effective controls were in place to ensure that the training and financial goals will be met. Based on the 

cost growth the program has experienced so far, the Committee believes that the FAA’s early management and administration of the 

contract was lacking. The Committee expects FAA to provide biannual updates to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on the performance and cost of this program. 

There is no question that the FAA’s air traffic controller workforce is facing a time of great transition with thousands of new controllers on the job; with thousands more eligible to retire over the 

next seven years; and with the implementation of new technologies 

and tools to modernize the equipment and systems of the air traffic 

control system. Controller staffing and training will continue to be 

a high priority for committee oversight in the years to come. 

Workforce diversity.—Over the last few years, the Committee has 

expressed repeated concern about the lack of ethnic diversity within the ranks of the FAA’s controller workforce. The Committee has 

required the FAA to provide reports on the agency’s outreach and 

hiring efforts in minority communities, and has encouraged the 

FAA to consider the diversity of student populations in its selection 

of eligible college and university participants in the collegiate training initiative. The Committee directs FAA to continue both of these 

efforts and to pursue other avenues to increase the diversity of the 

controller workforce. To that end, the Committee has provided additional resources within the FAA’s Office of Civil Rights to conduct 

an analysis on the barriers to increasing diversity within the FAA’s 

workforce. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
26 

RNAV/RNP procedure development.—The Committee recommendation includes $47,300,000 for the area navigation (RNAV) 

and required navigation performance (RNP) program which is the 

same level requested in the budget and $15,000,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. The Committee is pleased that FAA intends to focus its fiscal year 2011 resources on developing RNAV 

and RNP routes and procedures that address the recommendations 

included in RTCA Task Force Five report. RNAV and RNP procedures, if properly developed and implemented, can result in significant benefits to the FAA and its users, including increased capacity, reductions in delay, and lower carbon emissions. The Committee notes that many of these new procedures require environmental analysis which can add significant time to their approval 

and implementation. The Committee encourages FAA to explore 

avenues to expedite the development of RNAV and RNP procedures 

that will provide user benefits without sacrificing appropriate environmental reviews. 

Technical workforce staffing.—The Committee is frustrated that 

the FAA’s air traffic control technician workforce continues to fall 

below the mutually agreed upon minimum level of 6,100. This is 

the level which was determined to be necessary to safely maintain 

the air traffic control system. The Committee understands that the 

FAA is not currently expected to meet the minimum staffing level 

until the end of the fiscal year. This is unacceptable. The FAA 

must demonstrate better workforce planning to ensure that there 

are an adequate number of trained technicians available to perform 

preventative maintenance and to repair systems that fail. In addition, the Committee believes that the agency must also maintain 

an ample technician workforce to sustain NextGen equipment as it 

is deployed. The Committee directs FAA to maintain a technical 

workforce of no less than 6,100 individuals from the beginning of 

the fiscal year consistently through the end of the fiscal year. If 

FAA cannot sustain this level, the Committee will seek reductions 

in other areas of the agency’s operating budget. The Committee 

will continue to insist that FAA meet these minimum levels, until 

such a time that changes to staffing levels are mutually agreed 

upon. 

Contract tower program.—The Committee recommendation includes $117,200,000 to continue the contract tower base program, 

which is the same level requested in the budget. This will fund 

three non-towered airports that are expected to enter the program 

during fiscal year 2011. In addition, the bill provides $9,500,000 to 

continue the contract tower cost-sharing program. It has been nearly three decades since the FAA began contracting out air traffic 

services at lower level tower facilities; there are currently 245 airports in 46 states that participate in the program. The Committee 

believes that the contract tower program is a cost-effective program 

that performs an important safety function. However, it has been 

nearly a decade since the program has been reviewed by the DOT 

OIG. Therefore, the Committee directs the OIG to conduct a review 

of the contract tower program’s cost-effectiveness, safety benefits, 

and the overall value to the users of these airports. The Committee 

directs the OIG to provide a report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by June 1, 2011. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
27 

The Committee notes that the number of airports participating 

in the cost-sharing program fluctuates regularly because of changes 

in air traffic activity. In order to prevent program disruptions and 

provide more certainty, the Committee continues to permit the 

FAA to use unsubscribed funds from the contract tower base-line 

program to avoid elimination of communities from the cost-share 

towers program. However, FAA should only employ this flexibility 

with surplus funds in the base-line contract tower program, after 

all base-line contract tower obligations have been fulfilled. 

Office of airline transportation statistics.—The Committee recommendation includes $4,000,000, as requested in the budget, for 

the activities of the office of airline transportation statistics (ATS). 

The ATS collects data on a wide range of aviation activities with 

the intent of providing accurate, timely, and useful information in 

making and administering aviation policy. The program is managed by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS). BTS collects 

and disseminates information from 150 U.S. airlines and 135 foreign carriers. This information includes financial, traffic, performance, and operational airline data such as on-time statistics, airline 

employment figures, and fuel costs. The Committee expects FAA to 

provide these resources to the DOT Bureau of Transportation Statistics promptly. 

AVIATION SAFETY

The bill provides $1,304,486,000 for aviation safety which rep- resents an increase of $70,421,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and $10,500,000 above the budget request. The Committee approves the FAA’s request for $14,000,000 to hire 82 additional flight standards, aircraft certification, and operational safety 

personnel to assist with critical safety oversight and regulatory activities; aircraft and avionics certification requirements; environmental compliance efforts; oceanic and domestic navigation; area 

navigation and required navigation performance to advance 

NextGen; unmanned aircraft systems operations and approvals; 

emergency medical helicopter oversight; and additional product certification efforts. 

Oversight of foreign repair stations.—In an effort to provide additional safety oversight, the Committee recommendation includes an 

increase of $10,500,000 for increased inspections of foreign repair 

stations. Within the amounts provided, the Committee includes 

funding for 40 additional inspector positions as well as additional 

resources to cover travel costs associated with the inspection of foreign repair stations. The Committee directs FAA to provide a 

progress report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations six months after enactment on FAA’s hiring and foreign repair inspection plans. 

The additional funds provided for the aviation safety offices are 

designated as congressional items of interest. Therefore, the Committee prohibits the reprogramming of funds between the offices, or 

for any other purpose within or outside of the aviation safety office, 

including the hiring of other types of personnel within aviation 

safety without the approval of the House and Senate Committees 

on Appropriations. 

The Committee continues its direction requiring the Secretary to 

provide annual reports regarding the use of the funds provided, inVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:17 Jul 27, 2010 Jkt 057536 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR564.XXX HR564

pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
28 

cluding, but not limited to, the total full-time equivalent staff years 

in the offices of aircraft certification and flight standards, total employees, vacancies, and positions under active recruitment. The 

Committee directs the Secretary to provide this report to the House 

and Senate Committees on Appropriations by March 31, 2011. 

Pilot flight/duty time and crew training requirements.—In the 

aftermath of the tragic crash of Colgan Air Flight 3407 in February 

2009, the FAA Administrator issued a call to action on airline safety and pilot training. Two of the key components of that action 

plan have been pilot flight and duty time as well as crew training. 

The FAA has been heavily engaged in the process of updating the 

regulations governing pilot flight and duty time. The Committee 

recognizes the complexity of these rules given that they have not 

been substantially updated in decades. However, the Committee 

expects the proposed rule to be published before the end of fiscal 

year 2010. With regard to crew training, the FAA issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking in early February and comments to the proposal were due April 9, 2010. Proper training of 

aviation crew is critical to ensure the safety of the flying public. 

The Committee is pleased that the FAA is undertaking both of 

these important safety efforts and urges the agency to move expeditiously to complete these rules. 

COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION

The Committee recommends $16,747,000 for the office of commercial space transportation which is $1,000,000 above the budget 

request and $1,510,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. 

With the expected retirement of the space shuttle next year, commercial space vehicles may be utilized to launch cargo and materials to the international space station. In addition, there is increasing interest in suborbital space tourism which will increase 

the licensing and regulatory workload of the office of commercial 

space. As the commercial space industry grows and evolves, the 

GAO has indicated that the FAA may not have sufficient staff with 

the necessary expertise to oversee the safety of launches and spaceport operations. The increase provided above the budget request is 

for seven additional positions including safety inspectors, aerospace 

engineers and transportation analysts. In addition, the FAA may 

utilize up to $500,000 of the funds provided under this heading to 

continue the space transportation infrastructure matching grant 

program as authorized under title 49, chapter 70305. 

FINANCIAL SERVICES

The Committee recommends $114,784,000 for the office of financial services which is the same as the budget request and 

$1,103,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. 

HUMAN RESOURCES

The Committee recommends $103,297,000 which represents an increase of $2,869,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and 

the same level requested in the budget. 

Workforce diversity report.—The Committee reiterates its direction that the FAA report data and information on the agency’s recruitment outreach and hiring efforts in minority communities. The 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
29 

Committee expects the report to include a year-to-year comparison 

of hiring statistics for underrepresented populations. The FAA is 

directed to provide its letter report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by January 15, 2011. 

REGION AND CENTER OPERATIONS

The Committee recommends $361,354,000 for the region and center operations, which is $5,000,000 below the budget request and 

$19,377,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. The Committee recommendation includes $15,000,000 for the agency’s central service center project. The budget request seeks funding for 

FAA-specific security, facility, telecommunications, equipment and 

furnishing requirements for three new service center facilities. The 

Committee notes that the current leases for two of the facilities 

will not expire until the end of fiscal year 2013. The Committee has 

reduced the service center request by $5,000,000 and expects the 

amount provided in the recommendation will be sufficient to begin 

planning for the new facilities. The Committee will revisit remaining facility resource needs during the fiscal year 2012 budget process. 

STAFF OFFICES

The Committee recommendation includes $261,943,000 for staff 

offices, including information services, which is $5,850,000 below 

the budget request and $17,013,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. Within the total amount, the Committee recommendation provides $3,000,000 for additional information security infrastructure and $4,011,000 in half-year funding for 110 additional 

hazardous materials safety inspectors and emergency operations 

positions. The Committee notes that the bill includes $28,188,000 

within the Office of the Secretary for department-wide cyber security initiatives and last September, the Committee approved reprogramming requests totaling $6,400,000 for additional facility 

and information security improvements. The Committee also includes $750,000 for the FAA’s Office of Civil Rights to conduct an 

analysis to identify barriers to improving ethnic diversity within 

FAA’s workforce, with a focus on air traffic controllers and inspectors. 

ACCOUNT-WIDE ADJUSTMENTS

Inspector general audits.—The recommendation includes a reduction of $650,000 in the operations account for the costs associated 

with the DOT OIG’s audit of the FAA’s portion of the DOT financial statement and for the Enterprise Services Center SAS–70 

audit. In an effort to provide greater transparency, the Committee 

has provided these resources directly to the Office of Inspector General. 

BILL LANGUAGE

Second career training program.—The bill retains language prohibiting the use of funds for the second career training program. 

This prohibition has been in annual appropriations Acts for many 

years, and is included in the President’s budget request. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
30 

Aviation user fees.—The bill includes a limitation carried for several years prohibiting funds from being used to finalize or implement any new unauthorized user fees. 

Aeronautical charting and cartography.—The bill maintains the 

provision which prohibits funds in this Act from being used to conduct aeronautical charting and cartography (AC&C) activities 

through the working capital fund (WCF). 

Credits.—Funds received from specified public, private, and foreign sources for expenses incurred may be credited to the appropriation. 

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $2,936,203,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... 2,970,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 3,000,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. +63,797,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ +30,000,000 

The Facilities and Equipment (F&E) account is the principal 

means for modernizing and improving air traffic control and airway 

facilities. The appropriation also finances major capital investments required by other agency programs, experimental research 

and development facilities, and other improvements to enhance the 

safety and capacity of the airspace system. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,000,000,000 

for the FAA’s facilities and equipment program, an increase of 

$63,797,000 above the level provided in fiscal year 2010 and 

$30,000,000 above the budget request. The bill provides that of the 

total amount recommended, $2,508,000,000 is available for obligation until September 30, 2012, and $492,000,000 (the amount for 

personnel and related expenses) is available until September 30, 

2011. These obligation availabilities are consistent with past appropriations Acts. 

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

FY 2010 enacted FY 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 28,250,000 

Data Communications in support of Next Generation Air 

Transportation System ................................................ 46,700,000 153,300,000 153,300,000 

Next Generation Transportation System Demonstration 

and Infrastructure Development ................................. 33,773,730 27,000,000 27,000,000 

Next Generation Transportation System—System Development ........................................................................ 66,100,000 95,000,000 93,800,000 

Next Generation Transportation System—Trajectory 

Based Operations ........................................................ 63,500,000 58,600,000 58,600,000 

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


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
31 

FY 2010 enacted FY 2011 estimate Committee 

recommendation 

Next Generation Transportation System—High Density 

Arrivals/Departures ..................................................... 51,800,000 57,000,000 57,000,000 

Next Generation Transportation System—Collaborative 

ATM ............................................................................. 44,640,770 75,500,000 75,500,000 

Next Generation Transportation System—Flexible Terminals and Airports .................................................... 64,300,000 80,700,000 80,700,000 

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

Next Generation Transportation System—Networked Facilities ......................................................................... 24,000,000 35,000,000 29,000,000 

NextGen Integrated Airport .............................................. 827,900 .............................. ..............................

Total, Activity 1 ...................................................... 520,742,400 708,552,000 701,352,000 

Activity 2, 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 Communications Gateway (ECG) ..................... 3,600,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 

Next Generation Weather Radar (NEXRAD)—Provide ..... 6,900,000 6,700,000 6,700,000 

Air Traffic Control System 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 

ATC Beacon Interrogator (ATCBI)—Replacement ........... 4,700,000 .............................. ..............................

Air Traffic Control En Route Radar Facilities Improvements .......................................................................... 5,300,000 5,300,000 5,300,000 

Voice Switching 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 Weather Integrated System (CWIS) ................... 2,300,000 .............................. ..............................

Next Generation Very High Frequency Air/Ground Communications System (NFXCOM) .................................. 64,200,000 49,850,000 49,850,000 

System-Wide Information Management .......................... 56,548,000 92,000,000 92,000,000 

ADS–B NAS Wide Implementation ................................... 201,350,000 176,100,000 176,100,000 

ADS–B Additional Coverage—General Aviation ............. .............................. .............................. 21,300,000 

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 Automation Modernization (ERAM)—Post Release 3 ........................................................................ .............................. 5,000,000 5,000,000 

Subtotal En Route Programs .................................. 678,048,000 594,942,000 616,242,000 

Terminal Programs 

Airport Surface Detection Equipment—Model X (ASDEX) ................................................................................. 25,302,000 4,200,000 4,200,000 

Terminal Doppler Weather Radar (TDWR) ....................... 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 20,000,000 

Terminal Automation Program ........................................ 9,600,000 3,900,000 3,900,000 

Terminal Air Traffic Control Facilities—Replace ............ 179,000,000 114,600,000 124,600,000 

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) ................................ 3,500,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 

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

Precision Runway Monitor (PRM) .................................... .............................. 950,000 950,000 

Runway Status Lights ..................................................... 117,300,000 55,000,000 55,000,000 

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 

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 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
32 

FY 2010 enacted FY 2011 estimate Committee 

recommendation 

Terminal Automation Modernization/Replacement Program (TAMR Phase 2) ................................................ .............................. 3,100,000 3,100,000 

Remote Maintenance and Logging System (RMLS) 1,000,000 6,500,000 6,500,000 

Mode S Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) .............. .............................. 1,500,000 1,500,000 

Subtotal Terminal Programs .................................. 527,265,000 386,950,000 396,950,000 

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 20,100,000 

Weather Camera Program ............................................... 3,800,000 3,200,000 3,200,000 

Subtotal Flight Service Programs .......................... 29,400,000 31,300,000 30,000,000 

Landing and Navigational Aids Program 

VHF Omnidirectional Radio Range (VOR) with Distance 

Measuring Equipment (DMF) ...................................... 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 92,000,000 

Ground-Based Augmentation System (GBAS) ................. .............................. .............................. 10,100,000 

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 4,500,000 

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 6,000,000 

VASI Replacement—Replace with Precision Approach 

Path Indicator ............................................................. 4,500,000 4,000,000 4,500,000 

GPS Civil Requirements .................................................. 43,400,000 58,500,000 58,500,000 

Runway Safety Areas—Navigational Mitigation ............. .............................. 20,000,000 20,000,000 

Subtotal Landing and Navigational Aids Programs 198,412,000 214,800,000 223,100,000 

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 .............................. 9,000,000 9,000,000 9,000,000 

Aircraft Related Equipment Simulator Replacement ...... 1,000,000 .............................. ..............................

Airport Cable Loop Systems—Sustained Support .......... 6,000,000 7,000,000 6,000,000 

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 Systems—Sustain/Support .................. 87,750,100 95,000,000 92,500,000 

Aircraft Fleet Modernization ............................................ 5,969,000 .............................. ..............................

Subtotal Other ATC Facilities Programs ................ 148,119,100 149,900,000 146,400,000 

Total, Activity 2 ...................................................... 1,581,244,100 1,377,892,000 1,412,692,000 

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

Support Equipment 

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 Airspace System 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 ........................... 20,000,000 23,400,000 23,400,000 

Aviation Safety Knowledge Management Environment 

(ASKME) ....................................................................... 8,100,000 14,800,000 13,500,000 

Data Center Operations ................................................... .............................. 1,956,000 1,956,000 

Subtotal Support Equipment .................................. 108,406,000 133,456,000 132,156,000 

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 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
33 

FY 2010 enacted FY 2011 estimate Committee 

recommendation 

National Airspace System (NAS) Training—Simulator ... 8,200,000 .............................. ..............................

Subtotal Training, Equipment and Facilities ......... 23,510,500 17,000,000 17,000,000 

Total, Activity 3 131,916,500 150,456,000 149,156,000 

Activity 4, Facilities and Equipment Mission Support: 

System Support and Services 

System Engineering and Development Support .............. 31,700,000 32,300,000 31,700,000 

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 14,300,000 

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 86,000,000 

Aeronautical Information Management Program ............ 10,000,000 18,300,000 18,000,000 

Total, Activity 4 ...................................................... 232,300,000 241,100,000 244,800,000 

Activity 5, Personnel and Related Expenses: 

Personnel and Related Expenses—ATO .......................... 470,000,000 492,000,000 492,000,000 

Total, All Activities ................................................. 2,936,203,000 2,970,000,000 3,000,000,000 

ENGINEERING, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION

Next generation air transportation system.—The Committee provides significant increases above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level 

for the continued development of the FAA’s next generation air 

transportation system (NextGen). This multi-year, multi-billion dollar effort to modernize the FAA’s aging air traffic control system 

is a complex undertaking and requires careful oversight and implementation. FAA must carefully develop and transition to the new 

system while maintaining its existing system. 

As noted in the table below, the federal resources committed to 

FAA’s NextGen program has grown dramatically on a year-by-year 

basis since fiscal year 2007. 

Despite this growth, there continues to be some dissatisfaction 

about the pace of FAA’s progress. As a result, in early 2009, the 

FAA requested that the Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics (RTCA) establish a government-industry task force to identify NextGen operational improvements that could be implemented 

by 2018. In September 2009, the task force issued its recommendaVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:17 Jul 27, 2010 Jkt 057536 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR564.XXX HR564

pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRIInsert offset folio 09 here 56916a.002
34 

tions in a report, known as the ‘‘Task Force 5 Report,’’ which focused on seven areas: (1) Improving airport surface situational 

awareness and data sharing; (2) Increasing throughput at airports 

with closely-spaced, converging and intersecting runways; (3) Deconflicting traffic to increase metroplex capacity and efficiency; (4) 

Increasing cruise efficiency through enhanced procedures and automation; (5) Improving access to low-altitude, non-radar airspace for 

general aviation traffic and increasing availability of GPS approaches to general aviation airports; (6) Deploying air-ground digital data communication applications to decrease delays and enhance safety and efficiency especially in severe weather; and (7) 

Improving overall operational efficiency through collaborative decision making. 

The Committee acknowledges that the FAA’s budget request for 

NextGen program investments seeks to respond to the Task Force 

5 Report recommendations. However, much work remains to move 

NextGen into implementation. The DOT Inspector General (OIG) 

continues to raise concerns about FAA’s workforce readiness to 

oversee and integrate the many complex technologies and procedures required to fully transition to a satellite-based air traffic control system. Specifically, the OIG review, issued on June 16, 2010, 

identified key areas of risk that FAA must continue to address. 

These include FAA’s need to: (1) Establish requirements, costs and 

schedules for existing projects or new NextGen acquisitions; (2) Update the agency’s acquisition management system to better manage 

investments and systems; (3) Address key safety concerns as 

throughput increases at congested airports; and (4) Assess the 

agency’s ability to implement multiple capabilities at the same 

time and secure sufficient expertise to manage a NextGen focused 

workforce. 

The Committee is pleased that FAA agreed with the OIG’s recommendations and findings and expects FAA to work expeditiously 

to mitigate risk areas; establish realistic benchmarks; and develop 

a more robust plan for research and options for technology transfer. 

Given the size, scope and importance of NextGen to FAA’s core 

mission of safety and to the efficiency provided to the users of the 

NAS, the Committee will continue rigorous oversight of the agency’s progress on the implementation of the RTCA Task Force 5 Report and the OIG recommendations. 

NextGen data communications.—The Committee recommendation 

includes $153,300,000 for data communications in support of 

NextGen, equal to the budget request and $106,600,000 above the 

fiscal year 2010 enacted level. The continued development of a reliable and efficient communication system between air traffic controllers and pilots was one of the key recommendations included in 

the RTCA Task Force 5 report. The FAA expects to make its final 

investment decision for air-ground network and tower automation 

requirements in fiscal year 2011. Once implemented, these improvements will provide significant operational benefits for both 

the FAA and its users by decreasing gate departure delays and increasing the safety and efficiency of airborne traffic. The Committee directs FAA to provide an update to the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations by March 30, 2011 on FAA’s 

progress in meeting program implementation milestones for the 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
35 

initial segment of the agency’s NextGen data communications system. 

NextGen—system development.—The Committee recommendation 

includes $93,800,000 for NextGen system development which is 

$1,200,000 below the budget request and $27,700,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. The Committee reduces funding for the 

staffed NextGen towers portion of the system development program. 

NextGen—networked facilities.—The Committee provides 

$29,000,000 for NextGen networked facilities, which is $6,000,000 

below the budget request and $5,000,000 above the fiscal year 2010 

enacted level. The Committee provides $18,000,000 for future facilities investment planning. Since the FAA is in the midst of revising 

its facility investment analysis process for replacing the existing 

tower and terminal radar control facilities (TRACON), the Committee withholds full funding for future facilities until that process 

has been completed and the Committee gains a better understanding of how tower and TRACON replacement investment decisions fit into the future facilities program. 

AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

The bulk of the FAA’s facilities and equipment funding is directed toward specific facility and technology improvements to en 

route programs; terminal programs; flight service programs; landing and navigational aids; and, other air traffic control facilities. 

The Committee recommendation includes $1,412,692,000 for these 

activities which is $34,800,000 above the budget request and 

$168,552,100 below the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. 

EN ROUTE PROGRAMS

En route automation modernization (ERAM).—The Committee 

provides $132,300,000 for the en route modernization program 

which is equal to the budget request and $39,450,000 below the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. ERAM is the FAA’s modernization program to replace the FAA’s en route host computer system, its 

backup system and other related display system and radar position 

processor infrastructure. The program includes 1.4 million source 

lines of code and represents one of the most complex transitions 

that the FAA has undertaken in decades. The program has experienced its share of technical problems as the agency has sought to 

bring the program on-line at initial key sites. The Committee well 

understands that many new systems introduced into the NAS often 

need to be adjusted to address the unique characteristics of a particular facility or area’s airspace. In April 2010, the Committee requested that the DOT OIG examine the impact of the delay in 

ERAM’s in-service decision on the overall cost and deployment 

schedule at all 20 en route centers. The Committee will carefully 

review the OIG’s findings once the audit is completed and determine whether funding adjustments are warranted as the appropriations process moves forward. The Committee is pleased that 

FAA has recently begun to seek input from and to leverage the expertise of the existing controller workforce. The controllers have 

provided an additional layer of testing at key facilities and the FAA 

technical center. In addition, the controllers have provided helpful 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
36 

suggestions on training to help smooth the transition to ERAM for 

both experienced and new controllers. 

Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS–B).—One of 

the key backbone technologies of NextGen is the automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS–B) system. Once fully operational, 

ADS–B will provide an advanced surveillance technology which will 

result in greater positional accuracy and better utilization of airspace. In addition, it will reduce congestion; increase safety and capacity; and, provide greater predictability in departure and arrival 

times. To date, the program has met important milestones, including deployment and testing at four key sites and the on-going installation of ground station infrastructure across the nation. The 

Committee will continue to monitor the performance of the system 

at the key initial sites as well as other sites as they become operational. On May 27, 2010, the FAA issued its final rule regarding 

the broadcast performance requirements necessary for ADS–B for 

all aircraft flying in Class A, B and C airspace and above 10,000 

feet. The FAA rule requires compliance by 2020. The Committee 

acknowledges that key challenges remain in gaining broad user acceptance and aircraft equipage since many of the older commercial 

aircraft and general aviation aircraft are not currently equipped to 

broadcast the ADS–B signal. In that regard, the Committee continues to believe the FAA should explore options to lower the investment risk for NAS users which could serve to incentivize an 

earlier adoption of ADS–B avionics. The Committee recommendation fully funds the budget request of $176,100,000 which is 

$25,250,000 below the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. 

ADS–B additional coverage-general aviation.—The Committee 

recommendation includes $21,300,000 to provide additional ADS– 

B surveillance coverage for airports that are not currently covered 

by radar. This investment will provide a further safety benefit to 

commercial and general aviation users as it will allow aircraft 

equipped with ‘‘ADS–B Out’’ technology to be monitored by air traffic controllers and will help mitigate risks like in-flight collisions 

and controlled flight into terrain. 

TERMINAL PROGRAMS

Terminal automation modernization/replacement program 

(TAMR Phase 3).—The Committee recommendation includes 

$20,000,000 for the terminal automation modernization and replacement program which is equal to the budget request and 

$2,000,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. Phase 3 of the 

TAMR program is intended to mordernize or replace terminal automation systems at TRACON facilities around the country. Over the 

last several years, FAA has invested significant resources in upgrading the automation systems at our nation’s busiest air traffic 

control facilities. Automation upgrades are necessary at lower level 

facilities in order to realize the true benefits of NextGen. The Committee recommendation provides funding to replace, upgrade, and 

sustain terminal automation hardware and software to accept future NextGen technologies, tools and procedures. The Committee is 

aware that FAA issued two requests for information last year seeking input from industry stakeholders on potential modernization 

solutions for terminal air traffic control systems. The Committee 

understands that the existing standard terminal automation reVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:17 Jul 27, 2010 Jkt 057536 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR564.XXX HR564

pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
37 

placement systems (STARS) and the common automated radar terminal systems (CARTS) at key test sites have demonstrated that 

STARS and CARTS can meet the near term requirements for 

NextGen. The Committee does not believe FAA should abandon the 

use of automation systems that have proven their utility in a 

NextGen environment and have not yet met the end of their useful 

operating life. The Committee urges FAA to focus replacement and 

modernization efforts on the most critical facilities in the NAS in 

order to help expedite the benefits offered by ADS–B and other 

NextGen technologies. The Committee directs FAA to brief the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on the agency’s 

terminal automation plans within 60 days of enactment of this Act. 

Terminal air traffic control facilities replacement.—The Committee provides a total of $124,600,000 for the FAA’s tower/ 

TRACON rehabilitation and replacement program which is 

$10,000,000 above the budget request and $54,400,000 below the 

fiscal year 2010 enacted level. The budget request includes specific 

funding levels for Presidentially-designated tower and TRACON facilities. The Committee does not include project-by-project funding 

recommendations for two primary reasons. First, the Committee 

understands that FAA is currently revising its facility investment 

analysis process. Second, the Committee understands that the FAA 

has established a joint working group with its employees to review 

pending relocation plans for eight facilities. The Committee supports both of these efforts. However, the Committee urges FAA to 

be prudent and not unnecessarily delay projects that are adequately justified and well into design and construction. 

The Committee expects FAA to utilize a merit-based approach for 

tower and TRACON rehabilitation and replacement projects. The 

FAA should consider the safety and condition of the facility; the 

service the facility provides to the users of the NAS; and the longterm facility needs as NextGen is implemented. The facility needs 

of the FAA will certainly change as the agency transitions to 

NextGen. The FAA must be pragmatic in identifying where consolidations and realignments make sense and the Committee hopes 

that the investment analysis under development and the joint 

working group will help inform that process. The FAA’s long term 

future facilities program, however, should not interfere or delay the 

replacement of key facilities, critical to the NAS, that are deteriorating and in a state of serious disrepair. As facilities are updated, 

the Committee encourages FAA to take measures to increase their 

energy efficiency and incorporate green building practices where 

feasible. 

In an era where the competition for federal resources will be increasingly tighter, the FAA must also be mindful of long term impacts that facility costs place on the agency’s operating and capital 

budgets. However, the safety of the overall air traffic control system must be a primary concern. The Committee instructs FAA to 

utilize these funds for urgent facility needs and prohibits the use 

of these funds for the future facilities program unless prior approval is granted by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations through the reprogramming process stipulated in Section 

405 of this Act. 

Runway status lights (RWSL).—The Committee recommendation 

includes $55,000,000 for the runway status lights program which 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
38 

is the same as the budget request and $62,300,000 below the fiscal 

year 2010 enacted level. Runway status lights perform an important safety function by signaling to aircraft and vehicle operators 

when it is safe to proceed onto active runways and airport surfaces. 

The funds provided for RWSL in the recommendation will continue 

construction at twelve sites; begin construction at two new sites; 

and finish installation at eleven airports. The Committee strongly 

supports efforts to reduce the incidents of runway incursions and 

the risks associated with them, and will continue to monitor the 

deployment and performance of these important safety systems. 

FLIGHT SERVICE PROGRAMS

Flight service station (FSS) modernization.—The Committee recommendation holds funding for the flight service station modernization to the fiscal year 2010 enacted level of $20,100,000, 

which is $1,300,000 below the budget request. 

LANDING AND NAVIGATIONAL AIDS

Instrument landing system establishment.—The Committee recommendation includes $7,800,000 for instrument landing systems 

which is equal to the budget request and $4,775,000 below the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. Within the funds provided, the Committee includes $500,000 to upgrade the instrument landing system 

to a Category II level on Runway 5 at the Kinston Regional Jetport, NC. 

Wide area augmentation system (WAAS).—The Committee recommendation includes $92,000,000 for the wide area augmentation 

system program which is $3,000,000 below the level requested in 

the budget and $1,000,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. 

Through fiscal year 2010, the total federal investment in the WAAS 

program has been $1,530,824,800. 

Ground-based augmentation systems.—The Committee recommends $10,100,000 for the procurement of three ground-based 

augmentation systems (GBAS). As a potential key component of 

the Next Generation Air Transportation System, the Committee is 

highly interested in the ability of GBAS to perform precision Category I and eventually Category II and III approaches and other 

precision terminal area operations. Three additional systems will 

allow for additional data collection and testing by the FAA while 

unlocking safety and efficiency benefits for the airports the sites selected by the FAA to receive these systems. No later than 90 days 

after the enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall report to 

the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations to detail 

where these systems will be installed, what process determined 

their site selection, and a plan for how each individual site’s operational demonstration will be conducted. 

Runway visual range (RVR).—The Committee recommendation 

includes $5,000,000 for the runway visual range program which is 

the same level requested in the budget and the same level provided 

in the fiscal year 2010 enacted bill. RVR systems provide air traffic 

controllers and pilots with important visibility information that is 

used to allow take offs and landings during limited visibility due 

to weather conditions. Roughly 20 percent of the RVR systems in 

the NAS exceed their 20 year life-cycle use. The recommendation 

includes funding to procure and install 10 new RVR systems. The 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
39 

Committee understands that there are as many as 30 RVR systems 

that have been procured and are sitting in a warehouses waiting 

to be installed and there are 38 systems that have been procured 

but not yet delivered. The Committee believes the FAA must be 

more vigilant in getting these important safety systems deployed 

once they have been delivered. The Committee directs FAA to put 

together an installation plan that will ensure that all procured systems are deployed within a reasonable timeframe. The Committee 

directs FAA to brief the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on the agency’s plans within 60 days of enactment of this 

Act. 

Visual Navaids-Establish/Expand.—The Committee recommendation includes $4,500,000 for precision approach path indicator 

systems and new-generation runway end identifier light systems. 

The recommendation is $700,000 more than the budget request and 

$800,000 more than the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. The Committee notes that the Commercial Aviation Safety Team, including 

FAA and industry representatives, identified 781 runway ends that 

require implementation of visual-like precision approach capability. 

The increase above the budget is to provide necessary logistics and 

engineering support and for the procurement and installation of additional systems. 

VASI Replacement—Precision approach path indicator (PAPI).— 

The Committee recommendation includes $4,500,000 for additional 

PAPI systems and requirements which is $500,000 more than the 

budget request and equal to the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. The 

increase above the budget request is to help expedite FAA’s ongoing effort to comply with the International Civil Aviation Organization’s standard for visual approach slope indicators. 

Runway safety areas—navigational mitigation.—Last year, the 

Committee provided additional resources for the FAA’s navigation 

and landing aids program in order to address OIG’s recommendation that the agency must take additional action to mitigate the 

hazards that navigational aids present in runway safety areas. The 

Committee notes that the airport program office has made significant progress improving the runway safety areas in order to meet 

the statutory deadline of 2015. Similar progress must be made with 

regard to the navigational aids that are not in compliance with 

runway safety requirements. The Committee recommendation believes that this is an important safety initiative and has provided 

$20,000,000 as requested in the budget. The Committee directs the 

FAA to provide status reports to the House and Senate Committees 

on Appropriations with the agency’s plan to address the 2,500 identified navigational objects at various airports. The FAA is directed 

to provide its first status report on March 15, 2011, the plan should 

outline the FAA’s timeline, cost estimates and year-by-year objectives to meet the 2015 deadline. 

OTHER AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL FACILITIES PROGRAMS

Airport cable loop systems—sustained support.—The Committee 

recommendation reduces funding for the FAA’s airport cable loop 

system program by $1,000,000 and freezes the program at the fiscal year 2010 enacted level of $6,000,000. 

Electrical power systems.—The Committee recommendation includes $92,500,000 for electrical power systems, an increase of 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
40 

$4,749,900 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and $2,500,000 

below the budget request. The Committee reduces funding below 

the budget request in order to fund other programmatic priorities. 

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT

Aviation safety knowledge management environment (ASKME).— 

The Committee recommendation includes $13,500,000 for the aviation safety knowledge management environment program which is 

$1,300,000 below the budget request and $5,400,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. The Committee supports the goals of 

the ASKME program which is to develop a comprehensive automated safety management system capable of electronically storing 

FAA technical documentation and other important safety data. 

However, the justification included in the fiscal year 2011 budget 

request was virtually identical to the justification that was provided in fiscal year 2010. The Committee withholds full funding for 

the program until the FAA provides greater specificity for the use 

of funds requested in fiscal year 2011. 

MISSION SUPPORT

Engineering support programs.—The recommendation freezes 

funding for engineering support programs at the fiscal year 2010 

enacted level due to overall budget constraints. Transition engineering support is funded at $14,300,000, which is $700,000 below 

the budget request, and system engineering and development support is funded at $31,700,000, which is $600,000 below the budget 

request. 

Center for advanced aviation systems development (CAASD).— 

The Committee provides $86,000,000 for CAASD which is 

$5,300,000 above the budget request and $4,000,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. The FAA’s fiscal year 2011 request for 

activities related to engineering, development, test and evaluation 

(EDT&E) has increased by 36 percent over fiscal year 2010. These 

EDT&E activities are in their earliest stage of development and require significant engineering and technical support. The Committee 

notes that FAA recently announced three major new systems engineering contracts to assist with the development of NextGen procedures and technologies. While these contracts will provide systems 

engineering support for EDT&E activities, the Committee believes 

that FAA could benefit from additional core mission support especially for programs that are security sensitive. In addition to the 

critical research and systems engineering that CAASD performs in 

assisting FAA in its development of NextGen systems and procedures, CAASD also provides important technical guidance on how 

to engineer security capabilities into the NAS. 

Aeronautical information management program.—The Committee 

recommendation includes $18,000,000 for the aeronautical information management program which is $300,000 below the budget request and $8,000,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. The 

minor reduction below the budget request was done without prejudice in order to fund other programmatic priorities. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
41 

PERSONNEL AND RELATED EXPENSES

The Committee recommends $492,000,000 for personnel and related expenses which is an increase of $22,000,000 above the fiscal 

year 2010 enacted level and the same level as the budget request. 

This appropriation finances the personnel, travel and related expenses of the FAA’s facilities and equipment workforce. 

BILL LANGUAGE

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

RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, AND DEVELOPMENT

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $190,500,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... 190,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 198,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. +7,500,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ +8,000,000 

This appropriation provides funding for long-term research, engineering and development programs to improve the air traffic control system and to raise the level of aviation safety, as authorized 

by the Airport and Airway Improvement Act and the Federal Aviation Act. The appropriation also finances the research, engineering 

and development needed to establish or modify federal air regulations. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $198,000,000, an increase of 

$7,500,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and $8,000,000 

above the President’s budget estimate. 

A table showing the fiscal year 2010 enacted level, the fiscal year 

2011 budget estimate, and the Committee recommendation follows: 

RESEARCH, ENGINEERING AND DEVELOPMENT

Program Fiscal year 2010 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2011 

estimate 

Committee 

recommendation 

Improve Aviation Safety ............................................................ 93,572,000 93,702,000 93,702,000 

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 materials/structural safety ............................. 4,935,000 2,566,000 2,566,000 

Atmospheric hazards/digital system safety .................... 4,482,000 6,635,000 6,635,000 

Aging aircraft ................................................................... 10,944,000 10,801,000 10,801,000 

Aircraft catastrophic failure prevention .......................... 1,545,000 1,165,000 1,165,000 

Flightdeck safety/systems integration ............................. 7,128,000 7,174,000 7,174,000 

Aviation safety risk analysis ........................................... 12,698,000 11,907,000 11,907,000 

ATC/AF human factors ..................................................... 10,302,000 10,475,000 10,475,000 

Aeromedical research ....................................................... 10,378,000 11,217,000 11,217,000 

Weather research ............................................................. 16,789,000 16,505,000 16,505,000 

Unmanned aircraft system .............................................. 3,467,000 3,694,000 3,694,000 

NextGen Alternative Fuels for General Aviation .............. – – – 2,000,000 2,000,000 

Improve Efficiency of the ATC System ..................................... 48,543,000 54,874,000 54,874,000 

Joint program and development office ............................ 14,407,000 14,292,000 14,292,000 

Wake turbulence .............................................................. 10,631,000 10,685,000 10,685,000 

NextGen—Air Ground Integration .................................... 5,688,000 10,614,000 10,614,000 

NextGen—Self Separation ............................................... 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 Impacts ................................................ 42,031,000 35,974,000 43,974,000 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
42 

Program Fiscal year 2010 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2011 

estimate 

Committee 

recommendation 

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 28,600,000 

Mission Support ........................................................................ 6,354,000 5,450,000 5,450,000 

System planning and resource management .................. 1,766,000 1,733,000 1,733,000 

Technical laboratory facilities ......................................... 4,588,000 3,717,000 3,717,000 

Total ........................................................................ 190,500,000 190,000,000 198,000,000 

NextGen alternative fuels for general aviation.—The Committee 

recommendation fully funds the FAA’s new initiative to research 

and test new unleaded fuels and piston engine modifications to 

seek a safe alternative to the currently utilized leaded aviation gasoline (avgas). The Committee recognizes the importance of moving 

forward with this initiative and includes $2,000,000 as requested 

in the budget. 

The Committee recognizes the need for FAA to implement a program to develop aircraft engine emissions and airworthiness regulatory standards and policies to remove lead from the fuel used in 

piston engine aircraft. This program should be coordinated with 

current industry initiatives established to transition the piston engine aircraft fleet to reduced lead or unleaded fuel. The FAA should 

collaborate in this effort with industry groups representing aviation 

consumers, manufacturers, fuel producers and distributors, EPA 

and other relevant agencies as appropriate. FAA should also take 

proper account of aviation safety, environmental improvements, 

technical feasibility and economic impact on the current and future 

general aviation fleet. The Committee recognizes that this program 

will have a resource impact on the FAA and expects FAA to detail 

in future budgets the resources necessary to implement this program including certification. 

NextGen environmental research—aircraft technologies, fuels and 

metrics.—The Committee provides $28,600,000 for the FAA’s 

NextGen environmental research aircraft technologies, fuels and 

metrics program, which represents an $8,000,000 increase above 

the budget request and $2,091,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. These additional funds will assist the continuous, lower 

energy, emissions, and noise program (CLEEN) move forward with 

the research and development of alternative jet fuels as well as establish important environmental metrics. Within the amounts provided, $6,500,000 is included to advance the development of open 

rotor technologies which have the potential of increasing fuel efficiency in aircraft by 30 percent and $1,500,000 is included to conduct community surveys to measure the impacts of aircraft noise 

on communities surrounding airports across the nation. 

GRANTS-IN-AID FOR AIRPORTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Liquidation of contract authorization Limitation on 

obligations 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ................................................................................... $3,000,000,000 ($3,515,000,000) 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
43 

Liquidation of contract authorization Limitation on 

obligations 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ............................................................................... 3,550,000,000 (3,515,000,000) 

Recommended in the bill ............................................................................................ 3,550,000,000 (3,515,000,000) 

Bill compared to: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .......................................................................... 550,000,000 (– – –) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ...................................................................... (– – –) (– – –) 

The bill includes a liquidating cash appropriation of 

$3,550,000,000 for grants-in-aid for airports, authorized by the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as amended. This funding provides for liquidation of obligations incurred pursuant to contract authority and annual limitations on obligations for grants-inaid for airport planning and development, noise compatibility and 

planning, the military airport program, reliever airports, airport 

program administration, and other authorized activities. 

LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS

The bill includes a limitation on obligations of $3,515,000,000 for 

fiscal year 2011 which is the same level as both the budget request 

and the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. 

ADMINISTRATION AND RESEARCH PROGRAMS

Airport administrative expenses.—Within the overall obligation 

limitation, the bill includes $99,622,000 for the administration of 

the airports program by the FAA. This funding level is $586,000 

below the budget request and $6,200,000 above the fiscal year 2010 

enacted level. The recommendation includes $172,000 for two additional safety management systems positions to enhance regional 

participation in safety risk management document teams; 

$1,360,000 for ten positions to increase the oversight of airport improvement program funds and to address internal control issues 

raised by the DOT Office of Inspector General; $172,000 for two additional engineering support staff to assist with airport design 

issues and runway safety data collection and analysis. The Committee recommendation also includes $400,000, as requested in the 

budget, to increase the frequency of data collected on private airports. The Committee recognizes the importance of maintaining 

current data at private airports since these airports can be used in 

the event of an emergency aircraft landing. The Committee denies 

the request for $586,000 for contract support to produce a video 

demonstrating the benefits of NextGen on airport chokepoints. The 

Committee believes this activity should be requested and funded 

within the Joint Program and Development Office. 

Airport cooperative research program (ACRP).—The recommendation includes $15,000,000 which is the same level as the budget request and the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. The ACRP was established through Section 712 of the ‘‘Vision 100—Century of Aviation 

Reauthorization Act’’ (P.L. 108–176) to identify shared problem 

areas facing airports that can be solved through applied research 

but are not adequately addressed by existing Federal research programs. To date, the ACRP has completed 15 research projects resulting in 64 publications on a variety of airport-related topics and 

there are nearly 100 additional research projects either in progress 

or about to commence. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
44 

Airport technology research.—The recommendation includes a 

minimum of $27,217,000 for the FAA’s airport technology research 

program which is equal to the budget request and $4,745,000 above 

the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. The funds provided for this program are utilized to conduct research in the areas of airport pavement; airport marking and lighting; airport rescue and firefighting; 

airport planning and design; wildlife hazard mitigation; and, visual 

guidance. 

Runway safety areas (RSAs).—While there has been some 

progress in reducing the number of runway safety incidents over 

the last decade, runway safety must continue to be an area of high 

priority for the FAA. The Committee notes that FAA has initiated 

a number of strategies to improve runway safety including the installation of engineered materials arresting systems (EMAS) on 44 

runway ends at 30 airports across the nation. In addition, the 

agency has undertaken a comprehensive effort to improve, where 

practicable, the runway safety areas at 558 certificated airports in 

order to meet the legislative mandate at the end of 2015. The Committee understands that the FAA expects to have over 81 percent 

of runway safety area improvements completed by the end of 2010 

and nearly 91 percent completed by 2012. The FAA also has started a separate program within the facilities and equipment account 

to relocate or modify the navigational aids that present hazards at 

the end of runways. 

Foreign object debris.—The Committee is acutely aware of the severe safety hazard that the presence of foreign object debris (FOD) 

can cause to aircraft when left undetected on airport runways, 

taxiways and ramps. These FOD have the potential of causing catastrophic damage to aircraft during critical phases of flight. Airports utilize a variety of methods to identify FOD including human 

visual means; radar detection; and video technology and image 

processing data. The Committee notes that the FAA issued an advisory circular (150/5220–24) in September 2009 which provides important information to airports about the requirements necessary 

for purchasing FOD detection equipment with airport improvement 

program funds. The Committee supports the use of AIP funds for 

this purpose in order to help mitigate a serious safety threat that 

FOD can pose to the traveling public. 

HIGH PRIORITY PROJECTS

Of the funds covered by the obligation limitation in this bill, the 

Committee directs FAA to provide not less than the following funding levels, out of available resources, for the following projects in 

the corresponding amounts. The Committee agrees that state apportionment funds may be construed as discretionary funds for the 

purposes of implementing this provision. To the maximum extent 

possible, the administrator should work to ensure that airport 

sponsors for these projects first use available entitlement funds to 

finance the projects. However, the FAA should not require sponsors 

to apply carryover entitlement to discretionary projects funded in 

the coming year, but only those entitlements applicable to the fiscal 

year 2010 obligation limitation. The Committee further directs that 

the specific funding allocated above shall not diminish or prejudice 

the application of a specific airport or geographic region to receive 

other AIP discretionary grants or multiyear letters of intent. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
45 

Project Amount 

Auburn-Lewiston Municipal Airport Phase 1 Runway 4/22 Safety Area Improvements/Extension, ME .............. $750,000 

Augusta Airport Runway Reconstruction and Safety Area Improvements, ME ................................................... 500,000 

Charlotte Monroe Executive Airport Ramp, Taxiway and Related Improvements, NC ......................................... 1,000,000

Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport (CHO) Extension of Runway 21, VA ................................................................ 500,000 

Denver International Airport F7 Taxiway Construction, CO ................................................................................. 700,000 

Grand Forks Regional Airport (GFK) Passenger Terminal—Phase III, ND .......................................................... 750,000 

Montrose Regional Airport Taxiway Bravo Extension, CO .................................................................................... 500,000 

Outagamie County Regional Airport Taxiway, Apron, and Signage Improvements, WI ....................................... 750,000 

Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport Taxiway Alpha, AZ .............................................................................. 1,000,000 

Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport Papa (P) and Related Improvements, AZ .......................................................... 1,000,000 

Sawyer County Airport Land Acquisition and Landing System Improvements, WI ............................................. 1,750,000 

Southwest Georgia Regional Airport Apron and Various Improvements, GA ....................................................... 1,000,000 

Stinson Municipal Airport Taxilane Extension, TX ............................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Virginia Highlands Airport Design and Land Acquisition, VA ............................................................................. 750,000 

BILL LANGUAGE

Runway incursion prevention systems and devices.—Consistent 

with the provisions of Public Law 106–181 and fiscal years 2004 

through 2010 Appropriations Acts, the bill allows funds under this 

limitation to be used for airports to procure and install runway incursion prevention systems and devices. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

Section 110. The Committee retains a provision limiting the 

number of technical workyears at the Center for Advanced Aviation 

Systems Development to 600 in fiscal year 2011. 

Section 111. The Committee retains a provision prohibiting FAA 

from requiring airport sponsors to provide the agency ‘‘without 

cost’’ building construction, maintenance, utilities and expenses, or 

space in sponsor-owned buildings, except in the case of certain 

specified exceptions. 

Section 112. The Committee continues a provision allowing reimbursement for fees collected and credited under 49 U.S.C. 45303. 

Section 113. The Committee retains a provision allowing reimbursement of funds for providing technical assistance to foreign 

aviation authorities to be credited to the operations account. 

Section 114. The Committee retains a provision prohibiting funds 

to change weight restrictions or prior permission rules at Teterboro 

Airport, Teterboro, New Jersey. The Committee understands that 

the authorizing committees of jurisdiction are exploring a longer 

term extension of this provision. The Committee will reevaluate the 

need for this provision as the legislative process moves forward. 

Section 115. The Committee retains a provision prohibiting 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 116. The Committee retains a provision prohibiting the 

FAA from paying Sunday premium pay except in those cases where 

the individual actually worked on a Sunday. 

Section 117. The Committee retains a provision prohibiting FAA 

from using funds to purchase store gift cards or gift certificates 

through a government-issued credit card. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
46 

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides both financial assistance to the states to construct and improve roads and 

highways, and technical assistance to other agencies and organizations involved in road building activities. Title 23 of the United 

States Code and other supporting legislation provide authority for 

the various activities of the FHWA. Funding is provided by contract authority, with program levels established by annual limitations on obligations set in appropriations Acts. 

SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2011 PROGRAM

The most recent long-term surface transportation authorization 

act, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity 

Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU), expired on September 30, 

2009. Since that time, Congress has passed several short-term extension bills that have continued to provide contract authority for 

the FHWA and the other surface transportation agencies. However, 

the current extension will expire on December 31, 2010. Because 

reauthorization actions have not yet been completed, the Committee has continued the fiscal year 2010 program structure for the 

highway program and has assumed that the funding levels provided for the first quarter of fiscal year 2011 will be extended and 

annualized for the remainder of the year. 

At the time the Committee began consideration of this bill to 

fund transportation programs for fiscal year 2011, the Administration was still developing its reauthorization proposal for surface 

transportation programs. Consequently, the President’s budget that 

was submitted to the Committee contained no policy recommendations for programs subject to reauthorization. The President’s budget instead provides only baseline funding levels for all highway, 

transit, motor carrier safety, and highway safety programs, including increases mostly for only pay raises and other non-pay inflation 

adjustments. 

For highways, the budget proposes a total program level of 

$41,838,644,337. Included within this level is an obligation limitation of $41,362,775,000, which is $255,775,000, or less than one 

percent, above the fiscal year 2010 level of $41,107,000,000. The 

budget also assumes $739,000,000 in contract authority exempt 

from the obligation limitation and proposes to cancel $263,130,663 

from old projects funded in prior surface transportation authorization acts. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total program level of 

$45,920,927,576 for the activities of the FHWA in fiscal year 2011. 

The recommendation is $4,082,283,239 above the budget request 

and $3,132,098,576 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. The 

following table summarizes the program levels within the FHWA 

for fiscal year 2010 enacted, the fiscal year 2011 budget request, 

and the Committee’s recommendation: 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
47 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Program Fiscal year 2010 enacted 

Fiscal year 2011 

request 

Recommended in the bill 

Federal-aid highways (limitation) .............................................................. 41,107,000 41,362,775 45,217,700

Exempt contract authority .......................................................................... 739,000 739,000 739,000 

Subtotal ......................................................................................... 41,846,000 42,101,775 45,956,700 

Rescission of contract authority ................................................................. – – – ¥263,131 ¥1,863 

Rescission of budget authority ................................................................... – – – – – – ¥33,909 

Additional highways investment (GF) ......................................................... 650,000 – – – – – – 

Surface transportation priorities ................................................................ 292,829 – – – – – – 

Total ............................................................................................... 42,788,829 41,838,644 45,920,928 

LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... (*$413,533,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... (420,843,000) 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... (428,843,000) 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. (+15,310,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ (+8,000,000) 

This limitation controls spending for the salaries and expenses of 

the FHWA required to conduct and administer the federal-aid highway program, highway-related research, and most other federal 

highway programs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation of $428,843,000 for fiscal year 2011, which is $8,000,000 above the budget request and 

$15,310,000 above the fiscal year 2010 level. The bill also includes 

language to make $3,300,000 in contract authority above this limitation available for the administrative expenses of the Appalachian 

Regional Commission in accordance with section 104 of title 23, 

United States Code, as requested. 

Office of Inspector General (OIG) audits and investigations.—The 

recommendation does not include bill language, as has previously 

been provided, to direct contract authority to the OIG to conduct 

audits and investigations related to the FHWA. In an effort to provide greater transparency, the Committee has provided these resources directly to the OIG. 

Fiscal management information system.—In House Report 110– 

238, which accompanied the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 

(Public Law 110–161), the Committee directed the FHWA to submit a report detailing how the agency reviews unobligated and/or 

unexpended project funds to determine whether or not those remaining funds are still needed to complete the project. The FHWA 

noted in its response to the Committee, which was dated May 26, 

2009, that, due to limitations of the agency’s fiscal management information system (FMIS), spreadsheets must be developed manually in a lengthy process. The compilation is complicated by the fact 

that most reports generated in FMIS are in a format (i.e., pdf) that 

does not allow data inputting and manipulation. More recently, 

during debate on the Federal Aviation Administration’s reauthorization bill in March 2010, an amendment was offered that required the FHWA to produce tables listing the highway projects 

that would be affected by the amendment. The FHWA was slow to 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
48 

produce these tables and the accuracy of the data was sometimes 

questioned, which was extremely frustrating for Congressional staff 

on multiple committees. The Committee is deeply concerned about 

the limited functionality of FMIS and its ability to communicate effectively and accurately with the Department’s accounting system. 

In response to inquiries made by the Committee, the FHWA has 

indicated that it could cost approximately $15,000,000 and take 

three years to renovate and upgrade FMIS to improve the system’s 

capabilities. The Committee believes that these improvements are 

critical to the FHWA’s daily operations and must be executed with 

all due haste. To that end, the Committee provides $8,000,000 

within the limitation on administrative expenses for the FHWA to 

begin the process of upgrading the capabilities of FMIS and expanding its limiting functions, including the ability to generate reports in spreadsheet format. However, the Committee has included 

bill language which prohibits the FHWA from obligating these 

funds until the agency has submitted a plan to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations which identifies the full cost of 

the upgrades and a timeline for completion. Furthermore, in developing this plan, the Committee directs the FHWA to launch an internal strategic review of FMIS and associated FHWA systems to 

define known and future grant management system requirements, 

including Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act 

and Recovery Act information needs; stakeholder data analysis objectives; and expanded query, reporting, and interface requirements. In addition, the Committee directs the FHWA, in consultation with the Department’s chief information officer, to consult with 

other DOT grant-making operating administrations to determine 

the feasibility of developing a multi-modal grant management system. 

LIMITATION ON TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... ($429,800,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... (429,800,000) 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... (429,800,000) 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. (– – –) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ (– – –) 

This limitation controls spending for the transportation research 

and technology contract programs of the FHWA. It includes a number of contract programs including surface transportation research, 

training and education, university transportation research, and intelligent transportation systems research. Funding for the Bureau 

of Transportation Statistics (BTS) is also included within this limitation even though BTS is organizationally placed within the Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA). Additional information regarding BTS is included in the RITA section 

of this report. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The recommendation includes an obligation limitation for trans- portation research of $429,800,000 in fiscal year 2011, equal to the 

budget request and the fiscal year 2010 level. However, because reauthorization actions have not yet been completed, the Committee 

has not provided a break out of the transportation research proVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:17 Jul 27, 2010 Jkt 057536 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR564.XXX HR564

pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
49 

gram by activities since this pending legislation is likely to change 

the structure of the existing program. Even so, the Committee provides a limitation on the research program as has been past practice. 

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ................................................. ($41,107,000,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ............................................... (41,362,775,000) 

Recommended in the bill ........................................................... (45,217,700,000) 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .......................................... (+4,110,700,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ........................................ (+3,854,925,000) 

The federal-aid highways program is designed to aid in the development, operations and management of an intermodal transportation system that is economically efficient, environmentally sound, 

provides the foundation for the nation to compete in the global 

economy, and moves people and goods safely. 

All programs included within the federal-aid highways program 

are financed from the highway trust fund and most are distributed 

via apportionments and allocations to states. The federal-aid highways program is funded by contract authority and liquidating cash 

appropriations are subsequently provided to fund outlays resulting 

from obligations incurred under contract authority. 

The Committee sets, through the annual appropriations process, 

an overall limitation on the total contract authority that can be obligated under the federal-aid highways program in a given year. 

The Committee also provides direction and other guidance regarding some of the programs that operate under this overall limitation. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

As stated previously, the Committee finds itself in a position 

where the most recent long-term surface transportation authorization act, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation 

Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU), expired on September 30, 2009, and there is no clear indication as to what the future holds for these programs. Congress has passed several shortterm extension bills in order to continue to provide contract authority for the FHWA and the other surface transportation agencies; 

however, the current extension will expire on December 31, 2010. 

Because the House and Senate authorizing committees have yet to 

complete their work on legislation to extend these programs beyond 

the end of the calendar year, the Committee has continued the fiscal year 2010 program structure for the highway program found in 

SAFETEA–LU and has assumed that the funding levels provided 

for the first quarter of fiscal year 2011 will be extended and 

annualized for the remainder of the year. 

The bill includes language limiting fiscal year 2011 federal-aid 

highways obligations to $45,217,700,000, an increase of 

$4,110,700,000 from the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and an increase of $3,854,925,000 above the budget request. The Committee’s recommendation represents a 10 percent increase as compared 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
50 

to last year’s funding level and supports infrastructure investment 

which is critical to the economy. This crucial investment not only 

creates and saves jobs of hard-working Americans, it lays a foundation for future economic growth by improving and fortifying our nation’s infrastructure. The increase in highway spending will build 

on the success realized in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) by investing in our nation’s highways while helping to build and repair the roads and bridges that serve as a vital 

component to America’s industry. The increased authority will spur 

hiring, strengthen the nation’s transportation system, and lead to 

economic benefits throughout communities across the country. 

The Committee has continued bill language that allows the Secretary to charge and collect fees from the applicant for a direct 

loan, guaranteed loan, or line of credit to cover the cost of the financial and legal analyses performed on behalf of the Department. 

These fees are not subject to any obligation limitation or the limitation on administrative expenses set for the transportation infrastructure finance and innovation program under section 608 of title 

23, United States Code. 

Federal-aid highways and bridges are managed through a federal-state partnership. States and localities maintain ownership 

and responsibility for maintenance, repair and new construction of 

roads. State highway departments have the authority to initiate 

federal-aid projects subject to FHWA approval of plans, specifications, and cost estimates. The federal government provides financial support for construction and repair through matching grants, 

the terms of which vary with the type of road. There are approximately four million miles of public roads in the United States and 

about 600,000 bridges. The federal government provides grants to 

states to assist in financing the construction and preservation of 

about 994,500 miles (24 percent) of these roads, which represents 

the National Highway System plus key feeder and collector routes. 

Highways eligible for federal aid carry about 85 percent of total 

U.S. highway traffic. 

For years, federal-aid highways funds have been made available 

to the states through a mix of apportioned programs, which are distributed using a formula provided in law, and allocated programs, 

which are distributed based on criteria set in law and allow for 

some discretion on the part of the Secretary in selecting recipients. 

As stated previously, the structure of the federal-aid highway program for fiscal year 2011 is unknown at this time due to the lack 

of authorizing legislation. However, many of the apportioned programs that currently exist are likely to continue and, therefore, the 

descriptions of major highway programs that follow are based on 

current law: 

Surface transportation program (STP).—STP is a flexible program that may be used by states and localities for projects on any 

federal-aid highway, bridge projects on any public road, transit capital projects, and intracity and intercity bus terminals and facilities. A portion of STP funds are set aside for transportation enhancements and state sub-allocations are provided. The federal 

share for STP is generally 80 percent, subject to the sliding scale 

adjustment, with a four-year availability period. 

National highway system (NHS).—The NHS program provides 

funding for a designated National Highway System consisting of 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
51 

roads that are of primary federal interest. The NHS consists of the 

current Interstate, other rural principal arterials, urban freeways 

and connecting urban principal arterials, and facilities on the Defense Department’s designated Strategic Highway Network, and 

roads connecting the NHS to intermodal facilities. Legislation designating the 161,000 mile system was enacted in 1995 and the 

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA–21) added to 

the system the highways and connections to transportation facilities identified in the May 24, 1996, report to Congress. The federal 

share for the NHS program is generally 80 percent, subject to the 

sliding scale adjustment, with an availability period of four years. 

Interstate maintenance (IM) program.—The IM program finances 

projects to rehabilitate, restore, resurface and reconstruct the 

Interstate system. Reconstruction that increases capacity, other 

than HOV lanes, is not eligible for IM funds. The federal share for 

the IM program is 90 percent, subject to the sliding scale adjustment, and funds are available for four years. 

Funds provided for the IM discretionary program in fiscal year 

2011 shall be available for the following activities in the corresponding amounts: 

Project Amount 

Augusta North Connections—Exit 113, ME ......................................................................................................... $1,000,000 

Avalon Boulevard Interchange Modification at the I–405, Carson, CA .............................................................. 1,000,000 

City of Moline I–74 Bridge Preconstruction and Construction, IL ...................................................................... 1,000,000 

Harrison County I–64 Interchange, IN ................................................................................................................. 1,000,000 

I–294 at I–57 Interchange, IL ............................................................................................................................. 1,000,000 

I–390 Interchange, NY ......................................................................................................................................... 1,250,000 

I–5 North Stockton Lane Widening and Improvements Project, CA .................................................................... 1,250,000 

I–5 Widening from I–605 North to I–710 Environmental Phase, CA ................................................................. 1,000,000 

I–5/Kuebler Boulevard Interchange Improvements, OR ....................................................................................... 1,000,000 

I–64/22nd Street Interchange Reconfiguration, MO ............................................................................................ 1,000,000 

I–71 Corridor Access, Cincinnati, OH .................................................................................................................. 1,000,000 

I–80/Gilman Street Interchange Improvement Project, Berkeley, CA .................................................................. 1,000,000 

I–805/La Jolla Village Drive Interchange Project, San Diego, CA ....................................................................... 1,000,000 

I–85 in Davidson and Rowan Counties, NC ........................................................................................................ 1,000,000 

I–94 from East Dickinson Interchange, East-Westbound Lanes Reconstruction, Dickinson, ND ....................... 1,000,000 

I–95 Interchange at Yamato Road and Spanish River Boulevard Project, City of Boca Raton, FL .................. 500,000 

I–95 Upgrades in Robeson County, NC ............................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

I–95/301 Interchange, SC .................................................................................................................................... 2,000,000 

Interstate 225 and Colfax Avenue Reconfiguration, Aurora, CO ......................................................................... 1,250,000 

Interstate 79/Mt. Morris Interchange Improvements, Greene County, PA ........................................................... 1,000,000 

North Stockton I–5 Interchanges and French Camp Interchange/Arch Sperry Road Extension, Stockton, CA .. 1,000,000 

Raton South I–25 Interchange Reconstruction, Raton, Colfax County, NM ........................................................ 750,000 

Rehabilitate I–84 Bridges over Delaware and Neversink Rivers, NY .................................................................. 1,000,000 

Widening of I–35, Waco, TX ................................................................................................................................. 2,000,000 

Bridge replacement and rehabilitation program.—The bridge program enables states to improve the condition of their bridges 

through replacement, rehabilitation, and systematic preventive 

maintenance. The funds are available for use on all bridges, including those on roads functionally classified as rural minor collectors 

and as local. Bridge program funds have a four-year period of availability with a federal share for all projects, except those on the 

Interstate System, of 80 percent, subject to the sliding scale adjustment. For those bridges on the Interstate System, the federal share 

is 90 percent, subject to the sliding scale adjustment. 

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 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
52 

air quality standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, and particulate 

matter. A minimum 1⁄2 percent of the apportionment is guaranteed 

to each state. 

Highway safety improvement program (HSIP).—The new HSIP 

(previously funded by a set-aside from STP) was established as a 

core program beginning in 2006. The program, which features strategic safety planning and performance, devotes additional resources 

and supports innovative approaches to reducing highway fatalities 

and injuries on all public roads. 

Appalachian development highway system.—This program makes 

funds available to construct highways and access roads under section 201 of the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965. 

Under current law, funding is available until expended and is 

distributed among the 13 eligible states based on the latest available cost-to-complete estimate prepared by the Appalachian Regional Commission. 

Equity bonus program.—The equity bonus (replaces TEA–21’s 

minimum guarantee) provides additional funds to states to ensure 

that each state’s total funding from apportioned programs and for 

high priority projects meets certain equity considerations. Each 

state is guaranteed a minimum rate of return on its share of contributions to the highway account of the highway trust fund, and 

a minimum increase relative to the average dollar amount of apportionments under TEA–21. Certain states maintain the share of 

total apportionments they each received during TEA–21. An openended authorization is provided, ensuring that there will be sufficient funds to meet the objectives of the equity bonus. 

Emergency relief (ER).—The ER program provides funds for the 

repair or reconstruction of federal-aid highways and bridges and 

federally-owned roads and bridges that have suffered serious damage as the result of natural disasters or catastrophic failures. The 

ER program supplements the commitment of resources by states, 

their political subdivisions, or federal agencies to help pay for unusually heavy expenses resulting from extraordinary conditions. 

In February 2007, GAO published a report (GAO–07–245) on the 

FHWA’s ER program that was prompted by the long-term fiscal 

imbalance between the funding provided for the program and the 

actual program needs. For the report, GAO evaluated the ER program to determine: (1) the total funding, distribution of funds 

among the states, and disaster events funded; (2) the sources of 

funding provided and the financial challenges facing the program; 

and (3) the scope of activities eligible for funding and how the scope 

of eligible activities had changed over time. As a result of the review, GAO recommended that the FHWA should, within its authority, tighten eligibility standards, recapture unused funds, and seek 

rescission of unneeded funds. The report also noted that ER program funds are not intended to replace other federal-aid, state, or 

local funds to increase capacity, correct non-disaster-related deficiencies, or make other improvements. Yet, despite this fact, GAO 

discovered that the scope of eligible activities funded by the ER 

program had expanded over the years with FHWA waivers of eligibility criteria or changes in definitions. As a result, some projects 

were funded that went beyond repairing or restoring highways to 

pre-disaster conditions, which contributed to concerns about the future financial sustainability of the program. The Committee still 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
53 

has some significant concerns about the FHWA’s management and 

oversight of the ER program and has specifically been troubled by 

recent requests for new ER funding that have been submitted by 

states 5, 10, or even 20 years after the disaster occurred. Therefore, 

the Committee directs GAO to conduct a follow-up review of the ER 

program to determine what progress the FHWA has made in addressing the recommendations made in the 2007 report. In addition, the Committee directs GAO to look at claims for ER funds 

made by states five or more years after a disaster occurred to determine if such claims are being administered and awarded in accordance with FHWA’s ER processes and published criteria and 

are, in fact, valid, as well as whether FHWA’s processes and criteria should be modified to prevent waste or abuse of ER funding. 

GAO is also directed to collect information it deems necessary from 

DOT or states in order to provide any needed context for ER 

claims. This review should cover fiscal years 2005 to 2010 and the 

report should be submitted to the House and Senate Committees 

on Appropriations not later than September 1, 2011. 

Federal lands.—This category funds improvement for forest highways; park roads and parkways; Indian reservation roads; and refuge roads. The federal lands highways program provides for transportation planning, research, engineering, and construction of highways, roads, parkways, and transit facilities that provide access to 

or within public lands, national parks, and Indian reservations. 

Funds provided for the federal lands program in fiscal year 2011 

shall be available for the following activities in the corresponding 

amounts: 

Project Amount 

Blackstone River Bikeway, RI ............................................................................................................................... $1,000,000 

BRAC-Related Improvements for Harford County, MD ......................................................................................... 1,500,000 

BRAC-Related Improvements, Anne Arundel County, MD .................................................................................... 1,500,000 

BRAC-Related Improvements, Montgomery County, MD ...................................................................................... 500,000 

Diaz Ordaz International Border Crossing, TX ..................................................................................................... 500,000 

Frederick Douglass Bridge Engineering, DC ........................................................................................................ 500,000 

Gila County Control Road Improvements, AZ ...................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Golden Gate National Parks-Park Access, Transit and Trails, CA ...................................................................... 1,000,000 

Great Highway Long-Term Solution Planning, CA ............................................................................................... 500,000 

Hoover Dam Bypass Bridge-Repayment of Debt Service Owed to Arizona, AZ ................................................... 1,000,000 

Low Divide and Rowdy Creek Road Improvement Project, County of Del Norte, CA .......................................... 750,000 

Miccosukee Road Resurfacing Project, FL ........................................................................................................... 1,100,000 

New Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge Design and Construction Project, DC ............................................... 2,000,000 

Pedestrian Access Bridge over Dulles Airport Access and Toll Road, VA ........................................................... 1,000,000 

Road Improvements, Wrangell Borough, AK ........................................................................................................ 250,000 

Saddle Road Improvements, Island of Hawaii, HI ............................................................................................... 750,000 

SH 125: Michigan River Bridge, Jackson, CO ...................................................................................................... 750,000 

Southern Nevada Beltway Interchanges, NV ........................................................................................................ 1,000,000 

State Route 347 Grade Separation, Maricopa, AZ .............................................................................................. 1,000,000 

Stones River National Battlefield Auto Tour Road Expansion and Rehabilitation, Murfreesboro, TN ................ 500,000 

Swan Mountain Shared Use Pathway, Breckenridge, CO .................................................................................... 750,000 

Travis Air Force Base North Gate Access Improvements, CA .............................................................................. 750,000 

U.S. 199 Safety Improvements, Cave Junction, OR ............................................................................................. 300,000 

The Committee directs that the funds allocated above are to be 

derived from the FHWA’s public lands highways discretionary program and not from funds allocated to the National Park Service’s 

or the Fish and Wildlife Service’s regions. 

Ferry boats and ferry terminal facilities.—This program provides 

funding for the construction of ferry boats and ferry terminal facilities and requires that $20,000,000 from each fiscal year be set 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
54 

aside for marine highway systems that are part of the National 

Highway System for use by the states of Alaska, New Jersey and 

Washington. 

Funds provided for the ferry boats and ferry terminal facilities 

program in fiscal year 2011 shall be available for the following activities in the corresponding amounts: 

Project Amount 

Berkeley Ferry Service, CA .................................................................................................................................... $500,000 

Commuter Ferry, MA ............................................................................................................................................. 1,000,000 

Ferry Landing in Pt. Mackenzie, AK ..................................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Ferry Terminal Dock for Statue of Liberty/Ellis Island, NY .................................................................................. 600,000 

Friday Harbor Ferry Terminal Pedestrian Access and Safety Improvements, WA ............................................... 230,000 

Golden Gate Ferry-Sausalito Ferry Facility Ramps and Gangways, CA ............................................................... 500,000 

Long Branch Pier and Ferry Terminal Design, Engineering, and Project Management, NJ ................................ 1,000,000 

Port of Port Angeles Ferry Terminal Repairs, WA ................................................................................................ 1,000,000 

Refurbishing, Enhancing, and Improving the Safety of the North and South Lynchburg Ferry Landings, TX .. 700,000 

Salem Wharf Pier Project, MA .............................................................................................................................. 1,000,000 

Vallejo Ferry Maintenance Facility, Vallejo, CA .................................................................................................... 750,000 

Vessel and Terminal Sewage Pump-out Systems Installation, Cape Cod, MA ................................................... 1,000,000 

National scenic byways program.—This program provides funding for roads that are designated by the Secretary of Transportation as All American Roads or National Scenic Byways. These 

roads have outstanding scenic, historic, cultural, natural, recreational, or archaeological qualities. 

Transportation, community, and system preservation (TCSP) program.—This program provides grants to states and local governments for planning, developing, and implementing strategies to integrate transportation, community and system preservation plans 

and practices. These grants may be used to improve the efficiency 

of the transportation system; reduce the impacts of transportation 

on the environment; reduce the need for costly future investments 

in public infrastructure; and provide efficient access to jobs, services, and centers of trade. 

Funds provided for the TCSP program in fiscal year 2011 shall 

be available for the following activities in the corresponding 

amounts: 

Project Amount 

2nd Avenue Bridge Reconstruction, City of Cambridge, MN ............................................................................... $750,000 

705 Connector, Morgantown, WV ......................................................................................................................... 450,000 

7th (a) Road Project, IN ....................................................................................................................................... 650,000 

Alabama 210/Ross Clark Circle Safety Lighting Project, AL ............................................................................... 450,000 

Ansonia Riverwalk, CT .......................................................................................................................................... 400,000 

Barre Commons Road Reconstruction and Drainage Improvements, MA ........................................................... 1,050,000 

Bayamon Circulation Arteries, PR ........................................................................................................................ 450,000 

Berry Hill Road Connector Road Engineering and Right of Way Acquisitions, Pittsylvania County, VA ............ 400,000 

Bethany Road Reconstruction and Improvements, Sycamore, IL ........................................................................ 650,000 

Boulder Bikes to Business Project, Boulder, CO ................................................................................................. 250,000 

Branford Street and Laurel Canyon Boulevard Flood Improvements, CA ............................................................ 250,000 

Broad/Main/Front/Hellertown Transportation Enhancements, Phase II, Quakertown, PA .................................... 450,000 

Brooklyn Waterfront Transportation Study, Brooklyn, NY ..................................................................................... 450,000 

Byberry Road and Bustleton Avenue Intersection Improvements, Philadelphia, PA ........................................... 700,000

Capitol Expressway Pedestrian Improvements, CA .............................................................................................. 240,000 

Carbon County Covered Bridge Repair Project, PA .............................................................................................. 250,000 

Carlton Avenue Bridge, Brooklyn, NY ................................................................................................................... 900,000 

Chippewa Falls Downtown Reconstruction, WI .................................................................................................... 730,000 

Columbus Bicentennial Bikeways-West Side Improvement, Columbus, OH ........................................................ 450,000 

Construct Roadway and Bridges at the Intersection of Coalfields Expressway and King Coal Highway and 

from Dock Creek to Cedar Run, WV ................................................................................................................ 900,000 

Conway Village Main Street Streetscape and Pedestrian Improvements, NH ..................................................... 450,000 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
55 

Project Amount 

Cooley Landing/San Francisco Bay Trail Construction, CA ................................................................................. 600,000 

Coolidge Highway Resurfacing Project, MI .......................................................................................................... 750,000 

CSAH 12 Extension/TH 14 Interchange, MN ........................................................................................................ 650,000 

Design and Implementation of Transit Improvements at 83rd Street and Roosevelt Avenue, Jackson Heights, 

Queens, NY ....................................................................................................................................................... 700,000 

Downtown Tacoma Streetscapes Improvement Project, WA ................................................................................ 1,000,000 

E. Stadium Bridges Replacement Project, City of Ann Arbor, MI ....................................................................... 450,000 

Eastern Gateway, MA ........................................................................................................................................... 900,000 

Edison Road Extension, CT .................................................................................................................................. 1,000,000 

Emergency Road Access and Improvement Project, PA ...................................................................................... 650,000 

Empire Corridor West High Speed Rail Improvements, Town of Tonawanda, Erie County, NY .......................... 270,000 

First Avenue Bridge Replacement, NJ .................................................................................................................. 360,000 

Glenwood Road Pedestrian Safety Improvements, GA ......................................................................................... 450,000 

Harbor Brook Flood Control, CT ............................................................................................................................ 650,000 

Hays-Travis Trail System, TX ............................................................................................................................... 650,000 

Holbrook—Traffic Safety Signalization—Kings Road and S. Franklin, MA ........................................................ 300,000 

I–75 Walking Bridge, St. Ignace, MI ................................................................................................................... 450,000 

Improvements to U.S. Route 15, State Route 45, and St. Mary’s Street in E. Buffalo Township, PA ............... 450,000 

Intersection Improvements around State Center, Baltimore, MD ........................................................................ 650,000 

Jefferson Avenue Improvements, City of Detroit, MI ............................................................................................ 650,000 

Lake Champlain Bridge, NY ................................................................................................................................. 400,000 

Leesburg North Bypass, GA .................................................................................................................................. 450,000 

Legacy Farm Roadway and Main Street Improvements, Hopkinton, MA ............................................................. 1,000,000 

Locust Avenue Bridge Replacement, City of Rye, NY .......................................................................................... 600,000 

Los Banos Bypass Segment One, Los Banos, Merced County, CA ...................................................................... 400,000 

Lowry Avenue Bridge Replacement Phase II, Minneapolis, MN ........................................................................... 900,000 

Lyons Road Improvements Section IV, Coconut Creek, FL .................................................................................. 650,000 

Marin-Sonoma Narrows, CA ................................................................................................................................. 450,000 

MD5/MD373/Brandywine Interchange Project, Prince George, MD ...................................................................... 1,400,000 

Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Phase 2B, CA ............................................................................................... 650,000 

Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail Project, CA ................................................................................................ 450,000 

Nassau County Street and Sidewalk Improvements, NY ..................................................................................... 450,000 

Nelson Hill Bridge Replacement, NY .................................................................................................................... 100,000 

New York Avenue Improvement Project–32nd Street to 48th Street, Union City, NJ .......................................... 450,000

Nogales Highway Railroad Bridge Overpass, AZ ................................................................................................. 900,000 

North Main Street Reconstruction, Columbia, SC ................................................................................................ 900,000 

North Rhett Extension Project, SC ....................................................................................................................... 500,000 

Norwood Drive Reconstruction, PA ....................................................................................................................... 700,000 

NW 66th Avenue Reconstruction and Kempton Bridge Replacement, Polk County, IA ....................................... 450,000 

Ogdensburg-Prescott International Bridge Rehabilitation Project, Ogdensburg, NY .......................................... 700,000 

Pratt Trail in Salt Lake City, UT .......................................................................................................................... 650,000 

Raleigh Outer Loop, Wake County, NC ................................................................................................................. 1,500,000 

Rand Avenue Reconstruction, IL .......................................................................................................................... 600,000 

Reconstruction of Congress Street Bridge, Bridgeport, CT ................................................................................. 450,000 

Rehabilitation of Beacham Street, MA ................................................................................................................ 550,000 

Repair and Resurfacing of Critical Streets, Belle Glade, Palm Beach County, FL ............................................ 900,000 

Roadway Improvements-Route 70, Medford, NJ .................................................................................................. 450,000 

Roadway Restoration, Village of Ardsley, NY ....................................................................................................... 500,000 

Rosemead Boulevard Underpass Repair Project, Pico Rivera, CA ...................................................................... 450,000 

Route 1 Corridor Improvements Capital Project, MD .......................................................................................... 650,000 

Route 1/Route 123 Interchange (Phase I), VA .................................................................................................... 500,000 

Route 29/250 Bypass Interchange Improvements, Engineering, Design, and Construction, Albemarle County, 

VA ..................................................................................................................................................................... 500,000 

Route 35/202 at Pine Grove Court and Stony Street, NY ................................................................................... 250,000 

Route 6 and Silver Cross Boulevard Intersection Widening and Roadway Improvement, New Lenox, IL .......... 450,000 

Route 82 Reconstruction and Widening, North Royalton, OH ............................................................................. 650,000 

Rutland Creek Path, VT ........................................................................................................................................ 650,000 

Sacramento Intermodal Transportation Facility, CA ............................................................................................ 500,000 

Safety Improvements on South Meadow Road, Clinton, MA ............................................................................... 250,000 

Scott Ranch Road Extension, AZ ......................................................................................................................... 250,000 

SE Main Avenue, 20th, 21st Street Underpass and Ancillary Improvements, City of Moorhead, MN ................ 450,000 

Seiberling Way Bridge Replacement, OH ............................................................................................................. 450,000 

Sellwood Bridge Replacement Project, Multnomah County, OR .......................................................................... 650,000 

Sharpes Ferry Bridge, FL ...................................................................................................................................... 900,000 

Shot Pouch Creek Trail, SC .................................................................................................................................. 650,000 

Sidewalk Construction in Ashland, Cherryland and Castro Valley Communities, Alameda County, CA ............ 200,000 

Southeast Connector Final Design, Des Moines, IA ............................................................................................. 650,000 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
56 

Project Amount 

SR 510 Yelm Loop Project, WA ............................................................................................................................ 250,000 

SR 54, McDonough Road to U.S. 19/41 in Clayton County, GA .......................................................................... 650,000 

Stansbury Transportation Improvements, KY ....................................................................................................... 650,000 

Structural Bridge Repairs, Fort Lauderdale, FL ................................................................................................... 250,000 

Telegraph Road Realignment, CA ........................................................................................................................ 450,000 

Transportation Corridor Study, Greencastle/Putnam County, IN .......................................................................... 450,000 

U.S. 34 Akron East Chip Seal, CO ....................................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

U.S. 50/Watt Avenue Interchange Modification, CA ............................................................................................ 400,000 

U.S. Highway 101 High Occupancy Vehicle Widening Project, Carpinteria Creek Bridge, Carpinteria, Santa 

Barbara County, CA ......................................................................................................................................... 650,000 

Unser Boulevard Extension, NM ........................................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

U.S. 401 in Cumberland, Harnett and Wake Counties, NC ................................................................................. 650,000 

U.S. 281/FM493 Overpass, Hidalgo County, TX ................................................................................................... 450,000 

Vesta Street Overpass, San Diego, CA ................................................................................................................ 450,000 

Veterans Medical City Connector, FL ................................................................................................................... 650,000 

Village of Barrington Route 14 Underpass, IL .................................................................................................... 550,000 

Walk Winthrop and the HarborWalk, MA .............................................................................................................. 750,000 

Warrensville/Van Aken Transit Oriented, OH ........................................................................................................ 450,000 

Washington Boulevard Traffic Signal Modernization, Commerce, CA ................................................................. 650,000 

Westchase District Intermodal Transit and Pedestrian Access Improvements, TX ............................................. 450,000 

Widening of Route 50 in Chillicothe, Ross County, OH ...................................................................................... 450,000 

Delta region transportation development program.—This program 

encourages multistate transportation planning and supports the 

development of transportation infrastructure in the eight states 

that comprise the region of the Mississippi Delta: Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee. 

Funds provided for the delta region transportation development 

program in fiscal year 2011 shall be available for the following activities in the corresponding amounts: 

Project Amount 

Arkansas River Trail, AR ...................................................................................................................................... $500,000 

Blytheville Overpass, AR ...................................................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Higdon Ferry Road Widening, Hot Springs, AR .................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Holly Springs Road Project, DeSoto County, MS .................................................................................................. 1,250,000 

I–555 Floodway Access Road, Poinsett County, AR ............................................................................................ 1,500,000 

Northwest Tennessee Regional Port Authority, TN ............................................................................................... 500,000 

Old Taylor Road Roundabouts, MS ...................................................................................................................... 500,000 

Reconstruction and Widening of U.S. 627 Bridge over Interstate 75, Madison County, KY .............................. 750,000 

Ridge Road Extension, Pearl River County, MS ................................................................................................... 750,000 

South Three Notch Street Improvement Project, AL ............................................................................................. 750,000 

Washington Street Bridge Replacement, Vicksburg, MS ..................................................................................... 1,500,000 

Transportation infrastructure finance and innovation (TIFIA) 

program.—The TIFIA credit program provides funds to assist in 

the development of surface transportation projects of regional and 

national significance. The goal is to develop major infrastructure 

facilities through greater non-federal and private sector participation, building on public willingness to dedicate future revenues or 

user fees in order to receive transportation benefits earlier than 

would be possible under traditional funding techniques. The TIFIA 

program provides secured loans, loan guarantees, and standby 

lines of credit that may be drawn upon to supplement project revenues, if needed, during the first 10 years of project operations. As 

required by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, this account 

records, for this program, the subsidy costs associated with the direct loans, loan guarantees, and lines of credit obligated in 1992 

and beyond (including modifications of direct loans or loan guaranVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:17 Jul 27, 2010 Jkt 057536 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR564.XXX HR564

pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
57 

tees that resulted from obligations or commitments in any year), as 

well as administrative expenses of this program. The subsidy 

amounts are estimated on a present value basis; the administrative 

expenses are estimated on a cash basis. 

Federal highway research, technology and education.—Research, 

technology, and education programs develop new transportation 

technology that can be applied nationwide. Activities include surface transportation research, including intelligent transportation 

systems; development and deployment, training and education; university transportation research. 

Congestion pricing.—Roadway tolls that vary with the level of 

congestion and time of day have the potential to reduce traffic congestion and the demand for roads. The Government Accountability 

Office (GAO) has reported that such tolls create incentives for drivers to avoid driving alone in congested conditions and can encourage drivers to share rides, use public transportation, or travel at 

less congested times. There are also potential challenges as higher 

tolls can divert traffic on to local and other roadways less able to 

handle traffic and adversely impact low-income drivers and working people with few if any travel alternatives. Numerous studies 

have explored the potential benefits and challenges of congestion 

pricing, but actual results from pricing projects in the U.S. is more 

limited. This may be changing. When GAO last reported on this 

issue in 2003, there were nine congestion pricing projects operating 

in the U.S. Yet, by early 2009 there were, according to CBO, seventeen projects operating in ten states, and four additional projects 

under construction. Many of these projects have a substantial federal financial investment. The Committee directs GAO to review 

congestion pricing road projects in the U.S. and to report on: (1) 

what research has been conducted on the benefits and results of 

congestion pricing road projects in the U.S.; (2) what conclusions 

this research has reached; and (3) how these congestion pricing 

projects have dealt with and overcome challenges, including traffic 

diversion and equity issues. 

I–80 Exit at Stoney Hollow Road, PA.—The statement of managers accompanying the fiscal year 2002 appropriations Act includes $3,000,000 in Interstate maintenance discretionary funding 

for ‘‘I–80 Exit at Stoney Hollow Road, Pennsylvania.’’ It is the intent of the Committee that these funds be made available for ‘‘I– 

80 Exits 298/299 Improvements, Monroe County, Pennsylvania.’’ 

Highway 53 Chetek, WI.—The statement of managers accompanying the fiscal year 2004 appropriations Act includes $2,000,000 

in section 115 funding for ‘‘WI Highway 53 Chetek, Wisconsin.’’ It 

is the intent of the Committee that these funds be made available 

for ‘‘Chetek-area Transportation System Improvements, Chetek, 

Wisconsin.’’ 

Marin Parklands/Muir Woods Visitor Access, CA.—The statement of managers accompanying the fiscal year 2004 appropriations Act includes $1,100,000 in federal lands funding for ‘‘Marin 

Parklands/Muir Woods Visitor Access, California.’’ It is the intent 

of the Committee that $220,000 of these funds be made available 

for ‘‘Pacific Way Bridge, County of Marin, CA’’ and $180,000 of 

these funds be made available for ‘‘Signal at Flamingo/Highway 1, 

County of Marin, CA.’’ 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
58 

Feasibility Study for Routes 495/195 Interchange, Wareham, 

MA.—The statement of managers accompanying the fiscal year 2004 appropriations Act includes $500,000 in section 115 funding 

for ‘‘Feasibility study for Routes 495/195 Interchange, Wareham, 

Massachusetts.’’ It is the intent of the Committee that these funds 

be made available for ‘‘Design and construction of improvements to 

Route 28 corridor adjacent to the I–495/Route 28 interchange in 

Wareham, MA.’’ 

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ............................................. $41,846,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ........................................... 42,102,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ....................................................... 45,956,700,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ...................................... +4,110,700,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 .................................... +3,854,700,000 

The Committee recommends a liquidating cash appropriation of $45,956,700,000. This is the amount required to pay the outstanding obligations of the highway program at levels provided in 

this Act and prior appropriations Acts. 

(CANCELLATION OF UNOBLIGATED BALANCES)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $ – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... ¥263,130,663 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... – – – 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ +263,130,663 

The FHWA’s budget for fiscal year 2011 proposes to cancel, or re- scind, a total of $263,130,663 in unobligated balances from Congressionally designated highway projects funded in prior surface 

transportation authorization Acts. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends not including the proposed rescission. Although the Committee believes that efforts to reduce federal 

spending are a worthwhile objective, the Committee cannot support 

this rescission as proposed by the Administration. First, the Administration did not conduct any analysis to determine whether the 

funding was still needed by these projects to complete their intended purpose. In addition, all of the projects affected by the proposed rescission were originally funded in surface transportation 

authorization legislation and are, therefore, under the jurisdiction 

of those House and Senate committees. The Committee fully expects the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to 

address the balances that remain with these projects in the context 

of a long-term surface transportation reauthorization bill. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

(INCLUDING RESCISSIONS)

Section 120. The Committee includes a provision that distributes 

obligation authority among federal-aid highways programs. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
59 

Section 121. The Committee continues a provision that credits 

funds received by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics to the 

federal-aid highways account. 

Section 122. The Committee continues a provision that provides 

requirements for any waiver of Buy American requirements. 

Section 123. The Committee continues a provision prohibiting 

tolling in Texas, with exceptions. 

Section 124. The Committee includes a provision, as requested, 

which reallocates $200,000,000 from other programs to support the 

FHWA’s livable communities program. Under the Administration’s 

proposal, this funding will be used for a competitive livability grant 

program to assist states, local governments, and tribal government 

partners in integrating project and development planning processes 

within transportation, land use, and natural resource conservation. 

The Committee has for years advocated for promoting multi-modal 

choices in urban and rural communities in order to create safer, 

healthier communities to support American families. The FHWA 

will, within its current statutory authority, work with transportation agencies to plan, assess and implement transportation 

projects that are consistent with livability principles and investment performance objectives, which include promoting more sustainable and more integrated land use patterns, coordinating transportation and housing investments, reducing public infrastructure 

costs per capita and conserving natural resources. The Committee 

strongly supports this initiative. Bill language is included that 

specifies that the federal share payable on account of any livable 

communities program project or activity shall be determined in accordance with section 120 of title 23, United States Code, and that 

the funds set aside for the program shall remain available until expended. In addition, a provision is included that allows the FHWA 

to retain up to one percent of the funds provided for administration 

expenses associated with the operation of the program. 

Section 125. The Committee includes a provision that clarifies 

funding for various projects which were included in previous appropriations Acts. 

Section 126. The Committee includes a provision that clarifies 

funding for various projects which were included in section 1702 of 

Public Law 109–59. 

Section 127. The Committee includes a provision that clarifies 

funding for various projects which were included in section 1602 of 

Public Law 105–178. 

Section 128. The Committee includes a provision that rescinds 

unobligated balances associated with demonstration or high priority projects which were funded in previous appropriations Acts. 

In administering the rescission, the Secretary of Transportation is 

directed to look at projects that have been completed and where the 

remaining funding is no longer needed to accomplish the original 

purpose designated by Congress. The Committee also directs the 

Secretary to look at those projects that are 10 years old or older 

with more than 90 percent of the appropriated amount remaining 

available for obligation. In addition, the Secretary should also consider closing out projects with small balances, such as less than 

$2,000, in order to achieve the amount rescinded in the bill. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
60 

Section 129. The Committee includes a provision that rescinds 

unobligated balances made available for highway related safety 

grants in prior appropriations Acts. 

Section 130. The Committee includes a provision that permanently rescinds unobligated contract authority authorized for administrative expenses of the FHWA that will not be available for 

obligation because of the limitation on administrative expenses imposed in this Act and prior Acts. 

FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

In 1999, Congress passed the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement 

Act establishing the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 

(FMCSA) within the Department of Transportation (DOT). FMCSA 

focuses on reducing the number and severity of large truck and 

commercial bus accidents. Agency resources and activities prevent 

and mitigate commercial vehicle accidents through regulation, law 

enforcement, stakeholder training, technological innovation, and 

improved information systems. FMCSA works with Federal, state, 

and local entities, the motor carrier industry, highway safety organizations, and the public. Additionally, FMCSA has the responsibility to ensure that commercial vehicles entering the U.S. meet all 

U.S. hazardous material and safety regulations. 

The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity 

Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU), reauthorized the motor 

carrier safety activities of FMCSA through fiscal year 2009. As the 

current authorization extension expires at the end of December 

2010, the Committee recommendation is contingent on a full year 

authorization. 

Motor coaches carry the highest volume of passengers of all commercial modes of transportation and have the lowest fatality and 

injury rates. However, they have a disproportionate effect on occupants of other vehicles. In 2007 of the 41,059 people killed in motor 

vehicle crashes, 4,808 or 12 percent died in crashes that involved 

a large truck, another 101,000 people were injured. Only 17 percent of people killed and 22 percent of those injured were occupants 

of large trucks. 

MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY OPERATIONS AND PROGRAMS

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Liquidation of contract authorization Limitation on 

obligations 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ................................................................................... $239,828,000 ($239,828,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ............................................................................... 259,878,000 (259,878,000) 

Recommended in the bill ............................................................................................ 259,878,000 (259,878,000) 

Bill compared to: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ................................................................. +20,050,000 (+20,050,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ............................................................. – – – – – – 

This limitation controls FMCSA spending for salaries, operating 

expenses, and research. It is intended to provide the necessary resources to support motor carrier safety program activities and 

maintain the agency’s administrative infrastructure. The funding 

supports nationwide motor carrier safety and consumer enforceVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:17 Jul 27, 2010 Jkt 057536 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR564.XXX HR564

pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
61 

ment efforts, including federal safety enforcement activities at the 

U.S. borders. Resources are also provided to fund motor carrier regulatory development and implementation, information management, research and technology, safety education and outreach, and 

the safety and consumer telephone hotline. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $259,878,000 for motor carrier safety operations and programs, which is $20,050,000 above the fiscal 

year 2010 enacted level and equal to the fiscal year 2011 budget 

request. As the current authorization extension expires at the end 

of December 2010, the Committee recommendation is contingent on 

a full year authorization. 

LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS

The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of $259,878,000 for the implementation, execution, and administration of the motor carrier safety operations and programs, which is 

$20,050,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and equal to 

the fiscal year 2011 budget request. The Committee provides these 

funds contingent on a full year authorization that supports this 

level of funding. The Committee directs FMCSA to work with the 

Committees of jurisdiction to justify the appropriate level of contract authority for this account. 

Operating expenses.—The Committee recommends $195,669,000 

for FMCSA’s general operating expenses, which is $12,619,000 

above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and the same as the level 

in the 2011 fiscal year budget request. These funds are used to 

support FMCSA’s core mission requirements of commercial motor 

vehicle safety enforcement and compliance; hazardous material enforcement and compliance; emergency preparedness; and, household goods enforcement and compliance. The Committee recognizes 

that as traffic dropped in the economic downturn, safety statistics 

have improved significantly. As the economy rebounds, the Committee expects FMCSA to remain vigilant in keeping our roads 

safe. 

Staffing justification.—The Committee directs FMCSA to provide 

in its fiscal year 2012 budget request, and all future budget requests, additional detailed staffing justifications for each office 

within the Agency. The budget submitted by the Department must 

include a detailed justification for the incremental funding increases, decreases and additional FTEs being requested above the 

enacted level, by program, activity, or program element. The Committee encourages the Department to format the discussion of these 

changes in a similar format to the Department of Transportation 

Office of the Secretary Salaries and Expenses justification for each 

of its offices. Further, the Department is directed to include in the 

budget justification funding levels for the prior year, current year, 

and budget year for all offices. 

Research and technology.—The Committee recommendation includes $8,586,000 for FMCSA’s research and technology programs, 

which is $43,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and equal 

to the fiscal year 2011 budget request. The Committee continues to 

include bill language making the funds for the research and technology programs available until September 30, 2013. The ComVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:17 Jul 27, 2010 Jkt 057536 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR564.XXX HR564

pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
62 

mittee directs FMCSA to include in all future budget justifications 

a list of each research initiative being proposed for funding and its 

cost. 

Information management.—The Committee recommendation includes $41,943,000 for FMCSA’s information management program, 

which is $7,325,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and 

the same as the fiscal year 2011 budget request. This increase is 

provided for upgrades to FMCSA’s IT systems associated with the 

implementation of Comprehensive Safety Analysis 2010 (CSA 

2010). 

Regulatory development.—The Committee includes $9,777,000 for 

FMCSA’s regulatory development program, which is $49,000 above 

the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and the same as the level assumed in the fiscal year 2011 budget request. The Committee is 

concerned that FMCSA is the only mode at the Department of 

Transportation that is still working on rulemakings required in 

SAFETEA–LU. The Committee directs FMCSA to submit a list of 

all outstanding rulemakings and a plan including a timeline for the 

Agency to complete the rulemaking process. 

Outreach and education.—The Committee recommends 

$2,903,000 for FMCSA’s outreach and education programs, which 

is $14,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and equal to the 

level in the fiscal year 2011 budget request. The Committee notes 

that the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Grants and the High Priority Grants can supplement the agency’s public awareness and 

outreach efforts. The Committee continues bill language that prohibits any funds relating to outreach and education from being 

transferred to another agency. 

Commercial motor vehicles (CMV) operating grants.—The Committee recommends $1,000,000 for commercial motor vehicle operator’s grants, which is the same as the fiscal year 2010 enacted level 

and the same as the level assumed for fiscal year 2011. The grants 

are designed to provide operators with training on the safe use of 

commercial motor vehicles. 

MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY GRANTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Liquidation of contract authorization Limitation on 

obligations 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ................................................................................... $310,070,000 ($310,070,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ............................................................................... 310,070,000 (310,070,000) 

Recommended in the bill ............................................................................................ 310,070,000 (310,070,000) 

Bill compared to: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ................................................................. – – – (– – –) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ............................................................. – – – (– – –) 

FMCSA’s motor carrier safety grants program was authorized by 

the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century and continued 

through fiscal year 2009 by SAFETEA–LU. As the current authorization extension expires at the end of December 2010, the Committee recommendation is contingent on a full year authorization. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
63 

Grants are used to support compliance reviews in the states; 

identify and apprehend traffic violators; conduct roadside inspections; and, support new entrant carriers’ safety audits. Additionally, grants are provided to states for safety enforcement at both 

the northern and southern borders; for improvement of state commercial driver’s license oversight activities; and for improving the 

linkage between state motor vehicle registration systems and carrier safety data. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $310,070,000 in liquidating cash for 

this program. This is equal to both the fiscal year 2010 enacted 

level and the level in the fiscal year 2011 budget request. 

LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS

The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of 

$310,070,000 for the FMCSA grant programs, which is equal to 

both the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and the fiscal year 2011 

budget request. As the current authorization extension expires at 

the end of December 2010, the Committee recommendation is contingent on a full year authorization. 

The Committee recommends separate obligation limitations for 

the following funding allocations: 

Motor carrier safety assistance program .......................................... ($215,070,000) 

Commercial driver’s license improvements program ....................... (30,000,000) 

Border enforcement grants ................................................................ (32,000,000) 

Performance and registration information system management 

program ........................................................................................... (5,000,000) 

Commercial vehicle information systems and networks deployment ................................................................................................. (25,000,000) 

Safety data improvement grants ....................................................... (3,000,000) 

New entrant audits.—The Committee directs that of the funds 

made available for the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Grants the 

Secretary shall deduct $35,000,000 for audits of new entrant motor 

carriers. The FMCSA requires all new entrants to pass a safety 

audit within the first 18 months of operations in order to receive 

permanent DOT registration. 

Chameleon carriers.—The Committee is acutely aware of the 

need to provide strong oversight of the Department’s safety responsibilities. A recent National Transportation Surface Board (NTSB) 

investigation of the fatal 2007 bus accident in Texas and the ongoing investigation into a fatal accident in Arizona this past March 

have raised significant concerns regarding FMCSA’s implementation and enforcement of bus safety regulations. In both cases, the 

vehicles in question did not meet federal safety requirements but 

were able to operate under another company’s charter or simply 

undetected with only a state vehicle registration. The Committee is 

concerned that these operators are not exceptions, but are indicative of a pervasive pattern of unsafe or previously de-certified operators exploiting FMCSA’s new entrant safety assurance process 

to reincarnate themselves under new names. Accordingly, the Committee directs the General Accountability Office (GAO) to perform 

a study to quantify the prevalence of motor coach operators that 

are reincarnations of operators with poor safety records. In addition, the Committee instructs the Inspector General to audit 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
64 

FMCSA’s implementation of the new entrant safety assurance process and its response to the NTSB’s recommendations H–09–33 

through H–09–41. The Committee directs the Inspector General to 

report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by 

July 1, 2011, with the results of that review. 

Irregularities in the grant programs.—The Committee appreciates the Administrator’s immediate notification of the House and 

Senate Committees on Appropriations about irregularities discovered in the commercial vehicle information systems and networks 

(CVISN) grant program. The Committee believes FMCSA is taking 

prudent steps to address this issue. Upon notification of these 

irregularities, the Committee sent a letter instructing GAO to assist with addressing these issues. The Committee directs GAO to 

examine the management of each of the FMCSA grant programs. 

MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

(RESCISSION)

The bill rescinds $7,330,000 in unobligated balances from 

amounts made available under this heading in prior appropriations 

acts. 

MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY PROGRAM

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

(RESCISSION)

The bill rescinds $15,076,000 in unobligated balances from 

amounts made available under this heading in prior appropriations 

acts. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION—FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY

ADMINISTRATION

Section 135. The Committee continues a provision subjecting the 

funds appropriated in this Act to the terms and conditions of section 350 of The Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2002, including a requirement that the 

Secretary annually submit a report to the Commitee on Appropriations on the safety and security of transportation into the United 

States of Mexico-domiciled motor carriers. 

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 

was established as a separate organizational entity in the Department of Transportation in March of 1970. It succeeded the National 

Highway Safety Bureau, which previously had administered traffic 

and highway safety functions as an organizational unit of the Federal Highway Administration. 

NHTSA’s current programs are authorized in five major laws: (1) 

the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (chapter 301 of 

title 49, United States Code (U.S.C.); (2) the Highway Safety Act 

(chapter 4 of title 23, U.S.C.); (3) the Motor Vehicle Information 

and Cost Savings Act (MVICSA) (Part C of subtitle VI of title 49, 

U.S.C.); (4) the Transportation Recall Enhancement, AccountVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:17 Jul 27, 2010 Jkt 057536 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR564.XXX HR564

pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
65 

ability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act; and (5) the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy 

for Users (SAFETEA–LU). 

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides for 

the establishment and enforcement of safety standards for vehicles 

and associated equipment and the conduct of supporting research, 

including the acquisition of required testing facilities and the operation of the national driver register, which was reauthorized by the 

National Driver Register Act of 1982. 

The Highway Safety Act provides for coordinated national highway safety programs (section 402 of title 23, U.S.C.) to be carried 

out by the states and for highway safety research, development, 

and demonstration programs (section 403 of title 23, U.S.C.). The 

Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (Public Law 100–690) authorized a 

new drunk driving prevention program (section 410 of title 23, 

U.S.C.) to make grants to states to implement and enforce drunk 

driving prevention programs. 

MVICSA provides for the establishment of low-speed collision 

bumper standards, consumer information activities and odometer 

regulations. Amendments to this law established the responsibility 

for the administration of mandatory automotive fuel economy 

standards, theft prevention standards for high theft lines of passenger motor vehicles, and automobile content labeling requirements. In 2000, the TREAD Act amended the National Traffic and 

Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Changes included numerous new motor 

vehicle safety and information provisions, including a requirement 

that manufacturers give NHTSA notice of safety recalls or safety 

campaigns in foreign countries involving motor vehicles or items of 

motor vehicle equipment that are identical or substantially similar 

to vehicles or equipment in the United States; higher civil penalties 

for violations of the law; a criminal penalty for violations of reporting requirements; and a number of rulemaking directions that include developing a dynamic rollover test for light duty vehicles, updating the tire safety and labeling standards, improving the safety 

of child restraints, and establishing a child restraint safety rating 

consumer information program. 

SAFETEA–LU, which was enacted on August 10, 2005, either reauthorized or added new authorizations for the full range of 

NHTSA programs for fiscal years 2005 through 2009. These include 

highway safety programs (section 402 of title 23, U.S.C.), highway 

safety research and development (section 403 of title 23, U.S.C.), 

occupant protection incentive grants (section 405 of title 23, 

U.S.C.), alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures incentive grants 

(section 410 of title 23, U.S.C.), and the national driver register 

(chapter 303 of title 49, U.S.C.). SAFETEA–LU also enacted new 

initiatives, such as the high visibility enforcement program (section 

2009 of SAFETEA–LU), motorcyclist safety grants (section 2010 of 

SAFETEA–LU), and child safety and child booster seat safety incentive grants (section 2011 of SAFETEA–LU). Finally, SAFETEA– 

LU adopted a number of new motor vehicle safety and information 

provisions, including rulemaking directions to reduce vehicle rollover crashes, reduce complete and partial ejections of vehicle occupants, and enhance passenger motor vehicle occupant protection in 

side impact crashes. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
66 

SAFETEA–LU expired on September 30, 2009, and Congress has 

not yet completed work on long-term reauthorization legislation for 

the Nation’s surface transportation programs. In the meantime, 

Congress has passed several short-term extension bills that continue the highway safety programs of NHTSA and provide contract 

authority for these programs until December 31, 2010. In the absence of a long-term surface transportation reauthorization, the 

Committee has generally assumed the continuation of the program 

structure in current law and that the funding levels provided for 

the first quarter of fiscal year 2011 will be extended and 

annualized for the remainder of the year. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee provides $891,228,000 for NHTSA to maintain 

current programs and continue its mission to save lives, prevent injuries, and reduce vehicle-related crashes. 

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendations: 

2010 enacted 2011 request Committee 

recommendation 

Operations and research ............................................................................ $245,927,000 $250,213,000 $258,200,000 

National driver register ............................................................................... 7,350,000 6,700,000 6,700,000 

Highway traffic safety grants ..................................................................... 619,500,000 620,697,000 626,328,000 

Total ................................................................................................... 872,777,000 877,610,000 891,228,000 

The Committee’s recommendation of $891,228,000 is $13,618,000 

above the budget request and $18,451,000 above the fiscal year 

2010 enacted level. 

At the time the Committee began consideration of this bill to 

fund transportation programs for fiscal year 2011, the Administration was still developing its reauthorization proposal for all of the 

various surface transportation programs and, consequently, the 

President’s budget submission to the Committee contained no policy recommendations for any of the programs subject to reauthorization. Given the absence of specific recommendations from the 

Administration and the lack of an authorization beyond December 

31, 2010, the Committee has little choice but to assume the continuation of the program structure under current law and 

annualized funding levels consistent with what has been provided 

by extension Acts for the first quarter of fiscal year 2011. 

At its core, NHTSA is tasked with improving the safety of passenger travel on the nation’s highway system and the agency has 

played a role in the steady reduction in fatalities per vehicle mile 

traveled that the nation has seen over the past few years. In fact, 

NHTSA’s estimates show that highway fatalities in 2009 dropped 

to under 34,000, the lowest on record since 1954. Although the 

Committee commends NHTSA for this achievement, it must also 

caution the agency, as well as the rest of the Department of Transportation, to remain vigilant in order to sustain these safety gains. 

The last time highway fatalities dropped below 40,000 was in 1992, 

which coincides with the last time the country faced a significant 

economic crisis. However, as the country’s economy started to recover in the mid- to late 1990s, Americans returned to their vehicles and there was significant growth in vehicle miles traveled and, 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
67 

unfortunately, a steady, year-by-year increase in the number of 

highway fatalities. Although fatalities have reached a record low 

level, the bad news is that a significant portion of this improvement may be because Americans were driving less during the current economic downturn. As the economy recovers and people begin 

to travel again, the Department will need to remain focused on continuing safety improvements across our entire transportation network. The Committee believes that the funding recommendations 

provided in this bill for NHTSA are a step in that direction. 

In addition, over the past several months, increasing public attention has been paid to NHTSA’s enforcement role following several vehicle recalls due to concerns about unintended acceleration. 

Similar technology-related problems in vehicles by other manufacturers have raised concerns about electronic vehicle controls across 

the entire industry and have led to numerous Congressional hearings, including one by this Committee. During these hearings, 

members have raised concerns about whether NHTSA has the resources and the capability to conduct in-depth investigations into 

new and complex systems in vehicles and to evaluate manufacturers’ claims about the operations of their vehicles. NHTSA has addressed some of these concerns by enlisting the aid of engineers at 

the National Academy of Sciences and the National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration with expertise in areas such as computer 

controlled electronic systems, electromagnetic interference and software integrity. The Committee has made a number of recommendations in this bill, including increased funding above the 

President’s request, to address these and other concerns about 

NHTSA’s ability to ensure the safety of vehicles on the road. The 

Committee believes that NHTSA’s oversight of the safety, reliability and effectiveness of electronic vehicle controls is a critical 

management issue for the agency. The Committee directs NHTSA 

to provide quarterly briefings to the House and Senate Committees 

on Appropriations on the agency’s oversight and enforcement activities. 

OPERATIONS AND RESEARCH

(General fund) (Highway trust fund) Total 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ................................................ $140,427,000 $105,500,000 $245,927,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ............................................. 132,837,000 117,376,000 250,213,000 

Recommended in the bill ......................................................... 148,127,000 110,073,000 258,200,000 

Bill compared to: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ....................................... +7,700,000 +4,573,000 +12,273,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 .................................... +15,290,000 ¥7,303,000 +7,987,000 

The operations and research appropriations support research, 

demonstrations, technical assistance, and national leadership for 

highway safety programs conducted by state and local government, 

the private sector, universities, research units, and various safety 

associations and organizations. These programs emphasize alcohol 

and drug countermeasures, vehicle occupant protection, traffic law 

enforcement, emergency medical and trauma care systems, traffic 

records and licensing, state and community traffic safety evaluations, motorcycle riders, pedestrian and bicycle safety, pupil transportation, distracted and drowsy driving, young and older driver 

safety programs, and development of improved accident investigation procedures. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
68 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends new budget authority and obligation 

limitations for a total program level of $258,200,000, which is 

$7,987,000 above the request and $12,273,000 above the fiscal year 

2010 enacted level. Of this total, $148,127,000 is for vehicle safety 

programs from the general fund and $110,073,000 is for section 403 

of title 23, U.S.C., activities from the highway trust fund. These 

amounts do not include any resources provided for the national 

driver register or for grants administration as those items are detailed later in this report. The funding shall be distributed as follows: 

Salaries and benefits .......................................................................... $78,125,000 

Travel .................................................................................................. 1,028,000 

Operating expenses ............................................................................ 25,567,000 

Contract programs: 

Safety performance (rulemaking) .............................................. 26,738,000 

Safety assurance (enforcement) ................................................. 19,125,000 

Highway traffic safety programs ............................................... 45,935,000 

Research and analysis ................................................................ 61,682,000 

Total ............................................................................................. $258,200,000 

Highlights of, and adjustments to, the budget request by the 

Committee’s recommendation are described in the following paragraphs. 

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

The Committee recommends $104,720,000 for salaries and benefits, travel, rent, and other operating expenses of NHTSA. 

Full-time equivalent staff years (FTE).—NHTSA’s administrative 

budget has historically not kept pace with inflation, causing the authorized level of 635 FTE to erode to 617 FTE that could actually 

be funded in fiscal year 2010. NHTSA’s budget requests funding to 

restore the agency to the authorized FTE level, plus an additional 

15 FTE for high priority program areas for a total requested increase of 33 FTE above the fiscal year 2010 level. The Committee’s 

recommended funding level, when combined with the additional resources, and the associated FTE, provided directly to the national 

driver register and for the administration of the safety grant programs, provides NHTSA with the resources sufficient to fund 650 

FTE, as requested. The Committee directs NHTSA to give priority 

consideration to the needs of the Office of Defects Investigations 

and other safety focused activities when allocating these additional 

resources. 

SAFETY PERFORMANCE (RULEMAKING)

NHTSA’s safety performance standards (rulemaking) programs 

support the promulgation of federal motor vehicle safety standards 

for motor vehicles and safety-related equipment; automotive fuel 

economy standards required by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act; international harmonization of vehicle standards; and consumer information on motor vehicle safety, including the new car 

assessment program. The Committee provides $26,738,000 for 

these activities. 

New car assessment program (NCAP).—Within the funds pro- vided, the Committee recommends $16,443,000 for NCAP, 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
69 

$4,400,000 above the request and $6,050,000 above the fiscal year 

2010 enacted level. In fiscal year 2011, NHTSA will complete the 

transitioning of the new government 5-star safety ratings program 

from the current longstanding crash testing and safety rating criteria to a program that incorporates new tests, new rating criteria, 

new test dummies, advanced crash avoidance technologies, and a 

new overall vehicle safety rating. The NCAP historically relies 

heavily on carryover scores—ratings that remain unchanged from 

year to year—to provide consumers with safety ratings information 

on a substantial portion of the vehicle fleet. Due to the program enhancements being implemented in fiscal year 2010 on model year 

2011 vehicles, frontal and side crash ratings from the current 

NCAP crash programs will not carry over from model year 2010 vehicles to model year 2011 vehicles. Consequently, the percentage of 

the vehicle fleet rated will be reduced from the anticipated model 

year 2010 level of approximately 86 percent to zero at the beginning of the model year 2011 program. NHTSA’s budget request of 

$12,043,000 would allow the agency to conduct more tests on model 

year 2012 vehicles and achieve approximately 72 percent of vehicle 

fleet coverage. The Committee instead recommends increasing the 

funding for NCAP by $4,400,000 above the request, to a total funding level of $16,443,000, to ensure that NHTSA will be able to test 

80 percent of the model year 2012 vehicle fleet. 

Corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards.—The overall 

purpose of CAFE standards is to reduce energy consumption by increasing the fuel economy of cars and light trucks. The responsibility for regulating these standards rests with NHTSA and the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as NHTSA sets fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks sold in the U.S. and EPA 

calculates the average fuel economy for each manufacturer. In 

order to ensure that NHTSA has sufficient funding to continue implementing the requirements of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, the Committee recommends $7,900,000 in fiscal 

year 2011, as requested. This funding is to be used to: provide support for the required rulemakings establishing fuel economy standards for passenger cars and light trucks for model years 2017 and 

beyond; allow the agency to propose fuel economy standards for 

commercial medium- and heavy-duty truck fuel economy standards 

for the first time; help the agency implement a rule requiring manufacturers to label additional fuel economy information on new vehicles; and implement a new tire efficiency rating system, including 

information dissemination and a consumer education program. 

SAFETY ASSURANCE (ENFORCEMENT)

The Committee recommends $19,125,000 for safety assurance 

(enforcement) programs to provide support to ensure compliance 

with motor vehicle safety and automotive fuel economy standards, 

investigate safety-related motor vehicle defects, enforce federal 

odometer law, encourage enforcement of state odometer law, and 

conduct safety recalls when warranted. 

Safety defects investigation.—Within the funds provided, the 

Committee recommends $10,829,000 for safety defects investigation 

activities, $1,000,000 above the budget request and the fiscal year 

2010 enacted level. NHTSA’s safety defects investigation program 

investigates possible defect trends, and where appropriate, seeks 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
70 

recalls of vehicles and vehicle equipment that pose an unreasonable 

safety risk. NHTSA maintains a data system, called ARTEMIS, to 

access a voluminous amount of early warning reporting data submitted by manufacturers pursuant to the requirements of the 

TREAD Act, as well as complaints from vehicle owners, recalls and 

investigations. The agency analyzes the early warning reporting 

data to determine whether anomalies or trends exist that potentially indicate the presence of a safety-related problem. NHTSA 

uses this information to supplement its complaint database and assist the agency in deciding whether to open a defect investigation. 

Since 2000, NHTSA has influenced, on average, the recall of nearly 

10 million vehicles annually as well as the recall of millions of 

equipment items for safety-related defects. With the funds provided, NHTSA will be able to: improve the quality of the screening 

and investigation process; enhance recall completion rates; take 

steps to ensure that manufacturers conduct recalls of defective 

products; and continue to monitor recalls for adequacy of scope and 

remedy. In addition, NHTSA will be able to upgrade ARTEMIS to 

enhance the usability of the system by agency investigators and by 

the public and expand outreach to foreign governments and manufacturers to ensure that foreign entities are aware of the U.S. requirements related to identifying and recalling products with safety-related defects, including increased enforcement actions related 

to defective goods to serve as a deterrent. 

The Committee is concerned about the effectiveness of NHTSA’s 

office of defects investigations (ODI). In 2002, the Department’s Inspector General (IG) conducted a comprehensive review of ODI’s 

work, focusing specifically on the progress made under the TREAD 

Act that required NHTSA to establish early warning requirements 

for manufacturers in order to be aware of potential defects as soon 

as possible, thus avoiding the tragedies surrounding the Firestone 

tire recall which prompted the passage of the TREAD Act. The IG 

offered recommendations at the time of this comprehensive review 

regarding implementation of the TREAD Act. 

In 2004, the IG issued a follow-up report addressing the status 

of the recommendations from 2002. Specifically, the IG examined 

the status of ODI’s effort to: (1) implement the TREAD Act 

rulemakings; (2) ensure ODI had the appropriate information system infrastructure and processes in place to promptly identify potential defects as intended by the TREAD Act; and (3) establish 

processes to ensure consistency in recommending and opening defect investigations in order to ensure the highest priority cases are 

investigated. The audit found that most of the TREAD Act 

rulemakings were completed. However, the IG report showed that 

the new information system—the Advanced Retrieval (Tire, Equipment, Motor Vehicle) Information System, or ARTEMIS—had significant cost increases and delays; did capture manufacturer information, but only provided limited analytical capability for early 

warning analysis; and noted that while safety defect screening and 

investigation processes had improved, more needed to be done. Ultimately, the report concluded with three additional recommendations that ODI: (1) ensure cost estimates are adequately supported; 

(2) move forward in creating the advanced analytical information 

system originally envisioned; and (3) establish milestones for improving the defects screening process and training defect analysts. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
71 

The Committee understands that the IG has initiated another 

audit of ODI to follow up on the issues represented in the 2004 report. In light of the recent tragedies surrounding sudden acceleration in Toyota vehicles, the Committee believes it is imperative 

that NHTSA address any deficiencies and create an effective system which will prevent such tragedies in the future. Accordingly, 

the Committee directs the IG, as a part of this follow-up audit, to 

thoroughly examine any and all policies and processes involved in 

the detection of safety defects and the actions in place to address 

these defects. Specifically, the Committee agrees with the audit objectives laid out which are to: (1) ensure ODI has the appropriate 

information system to promptly identify and address potential safety defects as intended by the TREAD Act; (2) assess NHTSA’s procedures and processes for ensuring that companies provide timely 

notification of potential defects; and (3) examine the lessons 

learned from the Toyota recalls to identify potential improvements. 

Additionally, the Committee directs the IG, as a part of this review, to evaluate ODI’s staffing needs given the level of defects 

being reported to the agency. The Committee also expects NHTSA 

to establish a schedule for completing any identified corrective actions and for the IG to monitor the agency’s progress in meeting 

this schedule in order to ensure that any and all deficiencies that 

are discovered through the course of this audit are addressed with 

all due haste. 

HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAMS

NHTSA provides research, demonstrations, technical assistance, 

and national leadership for highway safety programs conducted by 

state and local governments, the private sector, universities, research units, and various safety associations and organizations. 

These programs emphasize alcohol and drug countermeasures, vehicle occupant protection, traffic law enforcement, emergency medical and trauma care systems, traffic records and licensing, state 

and community evaluation, motorcycle riders, pedestrian and bicycle safety, pupil transportation, young and older driver safety programs, and development of improved accident investigation procedures. 

The Committee recommends $45,935,000 for these highway safety programs in the following amounts: 

Impaired driving ................................................................................. $11,456,000 

Drug impaired driving ....................................................................... 1,488,000 

Safety countermeasures ..................................................................... 4,345,000 

National occupant protection ............................................................. 10,358,000 

Enforcement and justice services ...................................................... 3,501,000 

Emergency medical services .............................................................. 2,174,000 

Enhance 9–1–1 Act implementation ................................................. 1,250,000 

NEMSIS implementation ................................................................... 2,500,000 

Driver licensing .................................................................................. 1,016,000 

Highway safety research .................................................................... 7,747,000 

International activities in behavioral traffic safety ......................... 100,000 

Total ............................................................................................. $45,935,000 

National emergency medical services information system.—The 

Committee recommends $2,500,000 for the continued implementation of the national emergency medical services information system 

(NEMSIS), which is $687,000 above the request and $1,000,000 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
72 

above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. Currently, 23 states are 

submitting information to the national emergency medical services 

(EMS) database and the remaining states are in various stages of 

development toward participating. The Committee believes that 

there is a pressing need to collect more standardized data elements 

from every state in the nation that can be submitted to and collected in the database. Such information can be used to improve 

prehospital injury information, promote better crash records linkage at the state and local level, improve national EMS education 

standards, and enhance EMS research. The Committee strongly 

supports this initiative as it believes that one of the ultimate goals 

of the NEMSIS is to reduce post-crash death and disability by developing a better understanding of current EMS response and performance so that scarce resources can be best directed towards critical training, equipment, planning and other needs that can improve patient outcomes. The increased funds are provided to support further expansion of the program, in particular, for improvements in the NEMSIS technical assistance center, which provides 

support to state and local EMS organizations, for enhancement of 

the national EMS database, and to facilitate utilization of EMS 

data for national EMS planning and priority setting purposes. 

Bicycle safety.—Annually, over 500,000 Americans are treated in 

emergency rooms for bicycle-related accidents, and more than 700 

people die each year as a result of bicycle-related injuries. While 

much focus has been put on encouraging bike riders to wear helmets, accidents involving bikes can still be fatal, even if the rider 

was wearing a helmet. As road congestion, environmental concerns 

and bike-to-work programs encourage more bike ridership, efforts 

are needed to ensure bicyclists and motorists are aware of their 

legal responsibilities and safe practices for sharing roadways. The 

Committee directs the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to 

examine: (1) efforts that exist at the federal, state and local levels 

to develop infrastructure that provides effective mobility for both 

cars and bicycles, (2) the extent to which efforts exist at the federal, state and local levels to educate bicyclists and drivers about 

bicycle safety, (3) leading practices for developing infrastructure or 

awareness that promote safe bicycling. 

International traffic safety practices.—Each year approximately 

one million people are killed and another 50 million are injured on 

roads around the world. Many countries have achieved significant 

improvements in road safety over the years, but many—including 

the U.S.—are finding further improvements progressively more difficult to achieve. Some traditional safety measures such as enforcing speed limits, reducing drunk driving, and encouraging safetybelt use are likely to show a diminishing rate of return in countries 

that have pursued them most effectively. Other countries may have 

implemented traffic safety practices that could help the U.S. further reduce traffic fatalities and injuries. The Committee directs 

GAO to examine: (1) how traffic fatality rates in the U.S. over the 

last 5 years differ from rates in comparable countries, (2) traffic 

safety practices that are used more extensively in selected countries with a better traffic safety record than the U.S., (3) limitations, if any, that exist in implementing some of these practices in 

the U.S., and (4) successful practices implemented in other counVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:17 Jul 27, 2010 Jkt 057536 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR564.XXX HR564

pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
73 

tries that the U.S. Department of Transportation plans to adopt or 

encourage, if any. 

Ignition interlock program.—The Committee directs NHTSA to 

use $400,000 of the amount provided to fund the development of 

a model ignition interlock program to examine best practices and 

draft guidelines to assist the states in implementing such programs 

to combat impaired driving. The Committee further directs NHTSA 

to work collaboratively with state motor vehicle administrators and 

the transportation safety community to develop this model program. The Committee believes that impaired driving continues to 

be a grave safety concern on our roadways and ignition interlock 

programs have great potential to reduce impaired driving and save 

lives. A model program to guide states on minimum standards will 

help establish consistent and effective state programs across the 

nation. 

RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS

The Committee recommends $61,682,000 for research and analysis activities to provide motor vehicle safety research and development in support of all NHTSA programs, including the collection 

and analysis of crash data to identify safety problems, develop alternative solutions, and assess costs, benefits, and effectiveness. 

Research will continue to concentrate on improving vehicle crashworthiness and crash avoidance, with emphasis on increasing safety belt use, decreasing alcohol involvement in crashes, decreasing 

the number of rollover crashes, improving vehicle-to-vehicle crash 

compatibility, and improved data systems. 

The Committee provides the following amounts for research and 

analysis: 

Safety systems .................................................................................... $8,226,000 

Biomechanics ...................................................................................... 11,000,000 

Heavy vehicles .................................................................................... 2,115,000 

Crash avoidance and pneumatic tire research ................................. 8,104,000 

Hydrogen fuel cell and alternative fuel vehicle system .................. 1,000,000 

National Center for Statistics and Analysis: 

Traffic records .............................................................................. 1,650,000 

Fatality analysis reporting system ............................................ 8,725,000 

National automotive sampling system ...................................... 14,406,000 

Data analysis program ................................................................ 2,166,000 

State data systems ...................................................................... 2,490,000 

Special crash investigations ....................................................... 1,800,000 

Total ............................................................................................. $61,682,000 

Fatality analysis reporting system.—The fatality analysis reporting system (FARS) is the sole source for standardized, state-documented, information on police-reported traffic crashes in which at 

least one fatality occurred. The FARS system relies on individual 

cooperative agreements between NHTSA and state offices to utilize 

their staff, police accident reports, and data infrastructure (e.g. 

driver records, death certificates, etc.) efforts to collect fatal highway crash data in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto 

Rico, and the Virgin Islands. The Committee continues to believe 

that good crash data about the human victim, the environment in 

which events occur, and the vehicle are necessary to identifying 

possible interventions that might be effective for improving motor 

vehicle safety. Therefore, the Committee recommends $8,725,000, 

as requested, to support NHTSA’s policy development, priority setVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:17 Jul 27, 2010 Jkt 057536 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR564.XXX HR564

pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
74 

ting, and evaluation of the agency’s traffic and highway safety 

countermeasures that are implemented to reduce the number of fatalities and injuries on U.S. highways. 

National automotive sampling system.—The Committee notes 

that NHTSA’s vehicle collision database has notably contracted 

over time. The national automotive sampling system (NASS) was 

established in 1979 to further NHTSA’s mission of reducing motor 

vehicle crashes, injuries, and deaths on U.S. highways by collecting 

motor vehicle crash and injury causation data. NASS consists of 

the crashworthiness data system (CDS) and the general estimates 

system (GES). When implemented, the CDS was designed to collect 

detailed data on 15,000 to 20,000 collisions annually in the United 

States. 

The Committee is concerned that, at present, NASS/CDS collects 

collision data for approximately 5,000 collisions annually and garners a limited set of data from each crash. The Committee believes 

that NASS/CDS is a fundamental underpinning of the agency’s activities relative to the identification of emerging safety risks, the 

setting of priorities for rulemaking, the evaluation of ways to improve vehicle crashworthiness, and the assessment of the success 

and potential benefit of advanced safety technologies. The Committee supports the restoration and enhancement of NASS/CDS in 

order to ensure that the agency has a robust database upon which 

to base its efforts. 

The Committee, therefore, recommends $14,406,000 for NASS/ 

CDS in fiscal year 2011, $1,500,000 above the request and 

$1,876,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level, to allow the 

agency to investigate additional motor vehicle crashes and to expand the scope of data collection so that additional crash causation 

data elements can be captured. 

In addition, the Committee directs NHTSA to submit a report to 

the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, by not later 

than August 1, 2011, that evaluates the deficiencies of the NASS/ 

CDS data collection program based on current levels of case investigations and analyzes the improvements in the program that could 

be achieved through increased levels of case investigation and data 

collection. The report should make recommendations regarding the 

types of data collection that are needed to improve NHTSA’s ability 

to develop safety countermeasures, the level of NASS/CDS case investigations that are needed to obtain a sufficiently robust database to identify emerging crash and occupant injury trends, as well 

as the types of crashes that should be analyzed and methods that 

can be used to enhance NASS/CDS data collection. 

OPERATIONS AND RESEARCH

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $140,427,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... 132,837,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 148,127,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. +7,700,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ +15,290,000 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total of $148,127,000 for operations and research funding as an appropriation from the general 

fund. Of this amount, $10,000,000 is available until September 30, 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
75 

2012, to be used by the Administrator for programs under this account. 

OPERATIONS AND RESEARCH

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Liquidation of contract authorization Limitation on 

obligations 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ................................................................................... $105,500,000 ($105,500,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ............................................................................... 117,376,000 (117,376,000) 

Recommended in the bill ............................................................................................ 110,073,000 (110,073,000) 

Bill compared to: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .......................................................................... +4,573,000 (+4,573,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ...................................................................... ¥7,303,000 (¥7,303,000) 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation for liquidation of contract authorization of $110,073,000 for payment on obligations 

incurred in carrying out the provisions of the operations and research program. 

The Committee recommends limiting obligations from the high- way trust fund to $110,073,000 for authorized activities associated 

with operations and research. Of this limitation, $10,000,000 is 

available until September 30, 2012, to be used by the Administrator for programs under this account. 

NATIONAL DRIVER REGISTER

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Liquidation of 

contract author- ization 

Limitation on 

obligations 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ............................................................................................... $4,000,000 ($4,000,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ........................................................................................... 4,170,000 (4,170,000) 

Recommended in the bill ........................................................................................................ 4,170,000 (4,170,000) 

Bill compared to: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ...................................................................................... +170,000 (+170,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 .................................................................................. – – – – – – 

This account provides funding to implement and operate the national driver register’s problem driver pointer system and improve 

traffic safety by assisting state motor vehicle administrators in 

communicating effectively and efficiently with other states to identify drivers whose licenses have been suspended or revoked for serious traffic offenses such as driving under the influence of alcohol 

or other drugs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a liquidation cash appropriation of 

$4,170,000 from the highway trust fund to pay obligations incurred 

in carrying out the national driver register program. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
76 

The Committee also recommends limiting obligations from the 

highway trust fund to $4,170,000 for operations and research activities associated with the national driver register, of which 

$2,531,000 is for program activities and $1,639,000 is for salaries 

and benefits, as requested in the budget. 

NATIONAL DRIVER REGISTER MODERNIZATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $3,350,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... 2,530,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 2,530,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. ¥820,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ – – – 

The President’s budget requests funding to continue the modernization of national driver register. The national driver register 

provides a critical service to states in the process of determining 

whether to issue a driver license to applicants, as there is no other 

national database that provides this information as the result of a 

single inquiry. The modernization of the national driver register 

was necessary since the national driver register has been functioning on a legacy mainframe computer since 1990 using an outdated computer language while use of the national driver register 

has been increasing significantly. In calendar year 2009, the national driver register processed 95 million inquiries compared to 

about 48 million in 2003. Consequently, the national driver register 

has experienced several disruptions in service as state usage exceeded the system’s processing capacity. NHTSA expects use by 

states to continue increasing, exceeding 110 million inquiries in 

2011, as states complete implementing the requirements of the 

Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act and implement the requirements of the Real ID Act. To address the increased system use, in 

2008 NHTSA initiated a project to modernize the NDR to utilize 

up-to-date hardware, database structures and programming languages. The funding requested for fiscal year 2011 will allow 

NHTSA to: complete development and testing of the modernized 

national driver register software and hardware; bring the modernized national driver register into full production operation; and operate the national driver register’s legacy mainframe system parallel with the new system for a minimum of six months to ensure 

the modernized national driver register system exceeds the performance levels of the legacy system. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $2,530,000 to continue the modernization of the national driver register, which is equal to the 

budget request and $820,000 below the fiscal year 2010 enacted 

level. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
77 

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Liquidation of 

contract authorization 

Limitation on 

obligations 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ................................................................................... $619,500,000 ($619,500,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ............................................................................... 620,697,000 (620,697,000) 

Recommended in the bill ............................................................................................ 626,328,000 (626,328,000) 

Bill compared to: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .......................................................................... +6,828,000 (+6,828,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ...................................................................... +5,631,000 (+5,631,000) 

Funds are provided for currently authorized state grant programs: highway safety programs, occupant protection incentive 

grants, alcohol impaired driving countermeasures incentive grants, 

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. These highway safety grant programs provide resources to support data-driven, state highway safety programs focusing on the states’ most pressing highway safety problems and are a critical asset in meeting the goal of reducing fatalities and injuries. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $626,328,000 in liquidating cash 

from the highway trust fund to pay the outstanding obligations of 

the various highway safety grant programs at the levels provided 

in this Act and prior appropriations Acts. 

The Committee also recommends limiting obligations from the 

highway trust fund to be incurred in fiscal year 2011 under the 

various highway traffic safety grants programs to $626,328,000, 

which is $5,631,000 above the budget request and $6,828,000 above 

the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. 

Because reauthorization actions have not yet been completed, the 

Committee has assumed that the funding levels provided for the 

first quarter of fiscal year 2011 will be extended and annualized for 

the remainder of the year and, therefore, recommends the following 

funding allocations: 

Highway safety programs .................................................................. ($235,000,000) 

Occupant protection incentive grants ............................................... (25,000,000) 

Safety belt performance grants ......................................................... (124,500,000) 

State traffic safety information systems improvements .................. (34,500,000) 

Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures incentive grants .......... (139,000,000) 

High visibility enforcement program ................................................ (29,000,000) 

Motorcyclist safety .............................................................................. (7,000,000) 

Child safety and child booster seat safety incentive grants ........... (7,000,000) 

Grant administration ......................................................................... (25,328,000) 

Total ............................................................................................. ($626,328,000) 

Bill language.—The bill maintains language that prohibits the 

use of funds for construction, rehabilitation, and remodeling costs 

or for office furnishings or fixtures for state, local, or private buildings or structures. Language is also continued that limits the 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
78 

amount available for technical assistance to $500,000 under section 

410 of title 23, U.S.C. The Committee continues bill language limiting the amount that can be used to conduct the evaluation of the 

high visibility enforcement program to $750,000 in fiscal year 2011. 

As stated previously, the current structure of the highway safety 

grant programs has been extended until the end of the first quarter 

of fiscal year 2011 and, therefore, the descriptions of the major 

grant programs that follow are based on current law: 

Highway safety grants.—The state and community highway safety formula grant program under section 402 of title 23, U.S.C., supports state highway safety programs designed to reduce traffic 

crashes and resulting deaths, injuries, and property damage. A 

state may use these grants only for highway safety purposes and 

at least 40 percent of these funds are to be expended by political 

subdivisions of the state. 

Occupant protection incentive grants.—Section 405(a) of chapter 

4 of title 23, U.S.C., encourages states to adopt and implement effective programs to reduce deaths and injuries from riding unrestrained or improperly restrained in motor vehicles. A state may 

use these grant funds only to implement and enforce occupant protection programs. 

Safety belt performance grants.—Section 406 of title 23, U.S.C., 

provides incentive grants to encourage the enactment and enforcement of laws requiring the use of safety belts in passenger motor 

vehicles. To date, a total of fourteen states have passed primary 

seat belt laws in response to this incentive program. A state may 

use these grant funds for any safety purpose under title 23, U.S.C., 

or for any project that corrects or improves a hazardous roadway 

location or feature or proactively addresses highway safety problems. However, at least $1,000,000 of amounts received by states 

must be obligated for behavioral highway safety activities. 

State traffic safety information systems improvements.—Section 

408 of title 23, U.S.C., provides incentive grants to encourage 

states to adopt and implement effective programs to improve the 

timeliness, accuracy, completeness, uniformity, integration, and accessibility of state data that is needed to identify priorities for national, state, and local highway and traffic safety programs; to 

evaluate the effectiveness of efforts to make such improvements; to 

link these state data systems, including traffic records, with other 

data systems within the state; and to improve the compatibility of 

the state data system with national data systems and data systems 

of other states to enhance the ability to observe and analyze national trends in crash occurrences, rates, outcomes, and circumstances. A state may use these grant funds only to implement 

such data improvement programs. 

Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures incentive grants.—The 

alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures incentive grant program 

authorized by section 410 of title 23, U.S.C., encourages states to 

adopt and implement effective programs to reduce traffic safety 

problems resulting from individuals driving while under the influence of alcohol. A state may use these grant funds to implement 

the impaired driving activities described in the programmatic criteria, as well as costs for high visibility enforcement; the costs of 

training and equipment for law enforcement; the costs of advertising and educational campaigns that publicize checkpoints, inVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:17 Jul 27, 2010 Jkt 057536 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR564.XXX HR564

pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
79 

crease law enforcement efforts and target impaired drivers under 

34 years of age; the costs of a state impaired operator information 

system; and the costs of vehicle or license plate impoundment. 

High visibility enforcement program.—Section 2009 of 

SAFETEA–LU directs NHTSA to administer at least two high-visibility traffic safety law enforcement campaigns each year to achieve 

one or both of the following objectives: (1) reduce alcohol-impaired 

or drug-impaired operation of motor vehicles and/or (2) increase the 

use of safety belts by occupants of motor vehicles. These funds may 

be used to pay for the development, production, and use of broadcast and print media in carrying out traffic safety law enforcement 

campaigns. The Committee continues to believe that the high visibility enforcement program has been effective in encouraging seat 

belt use and in discouraging impaired driving. The Committee directs NHTSA to continue to provide updates to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on the agency’s paid media 

strategy and its implementation. 

Motorcyclist safety.—Section 2010 of SAFETEA–LU authorizes a 

program of incentive grants to encourage states to adopt and implement effective programs to reduce the number of single and multivehicle crashes involving motorcyclists. A state may use these 

grants funds only for motorcyclist safety training and motorcyclist 

awareness programs, including improvement of training curricula, 

delivery of training, recruitment or retention of motorcyclist safety 

instructors, and public awareness and outreach programs. 

Although motor vehicle traffic fatalities for all other motor vehicles have decreased in recent years, motorcyclist fatalities have 

steadily increased. From 1997 to 2006, motorcyclist fatalities more 

than doubled, from 2,116 in 1997 to 4,810 in 2006. This translates 

into an increase in the rate of fatalities from 55.3 fatalities per 

100,000 motorcycle registrations in 1997 to 71.94 fatalities per 

100,000 registrations in 2006. Since 2006, motorcycle fatalities 

have continued to increase, with 5,174 fatalities in 2007 and 5,290 

fatalities in 2008. The Committee directs GAO to evaluate: (1) factors that have led to the increase in motorcyclist fatalities; (2) actions NHTSA and states have taken to address the increase in motorcyclist fatalities; (3) the extent to which states’ use of 

SAFETEA–LU’s motorcyclist safety grants affected motorcyclist 

safety; and (4) challenges faced by NHTSA and states in attempting to improve motorcyclist safety. 

Child safety and child booster seat safety incentive grants.—Section 2011 of SAFETEA–LU authorizes an incentive grant program 

to make grants available to states that are enforcing a law requiring any child riding in a passenger vehicle who is too large to be 

secured in a child safety seat to be secured in a child restraint that 

meets the requirements prescribed under section 3 of Anton’s Law 

(49 U.S.C. § 30127 note; 116 Stat. 2772). These grants may be used 

only for child safety seat and child restraint programs. 

NHTSA issued a report in 2006 regarding the misuse of the 

Lower Anchors and Tethers for Children, or LATCH system, which 

documented that only 35 percent of parents or other caregivers install LATCH-equipped child restraints properly. The LATCH system was developed because installation of child restraints using vehicle seat belt was confusing and posed numerous practical difficulties leading to high rates of child restraint misinstallation. LATCH 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
80 

was intended to increase the rate of proper installation by providing a uniform, dedicated and simple means of restraint installation that is clearly marked, easy to use and employs the same 

method of attachment for nearly all child restraints. The fact that 

the LATCH system is not more effective is cause for great concern. 

The Committee directs NHTSA to report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, not later than June 1, 2011, on 

the progress that has been made, since the Child Restraint Use 

Survey—LATCH Use and Misuse report was issued, on improving 

LATCH systems and increasing the rate of proper LATCH system 

installation. The report should include information on the effectiveness of the agency educational message to improve child restraint 

systems, a discussion of technical improvements that can be made 

to make the LATCH system easier to recognize and use, and a follow-up survey to gauge current rates of LATCH system use and 

misuse. 

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. 

Distracted driving prevention.—Driver distraction is a significant 

safety problem and the Committee commends the Department on 

its efforts to address this growing epidemic. As reported by 

NHTSA, an estimated 6,000 deaths and half-a-million injuries were 

attributed to distracted driving in 2008 alone. With approximately 

600 million passenger cars on the road today and 4.6 billion cell 

phone subscriptions worldwide, it is easy to see why the frequency 

of distracted driving is on the rise but the Committee is encouraged 

by the progress that has been made by the Department in this 

area. According to the Department, last year more than 200 distracted driving bills were under consideration by state legislatures, 

and the pace has increased this year. In early June, Georgia became the 28th state to pass a texting ban, meaning the country is 

past the halfway mark toward a nationwide prohibition of texting 

while driving. The Department has also launched pilot programs in 

New York and Connecticut as part of a Phone in One Hand, Ticket 

in the Other campaign to study whether increased enforcement and 

public awareness can reduce distracted driving behavior. In order 

to continue building upon these efforts, the Committee approves 

the Administration’s request to reallocate $50,000,000 in fiscal year 

2011 from the seat belt performance grants program to fund a new 

distracted driving grant program for states that enact and enforce 

laws to prevent distracted driving with a focus on texting bans. Although fourteen states have yet to qualify for funding under the 

seat belt incentive grants program, it is unlikely that many will do 

so in fiscal year 2011. Therefore, the Committee supports re-designating these funds for a purpose that will encourage states to 

change driver behavior with the goal of reducing highway injuries 

and fatalities. The Committee has also included bill language to set 

aside $5,000,000 of the $50,000,000 for the development, production, and use of broadcast and print media advertising to support 

enforcement of state laws to prevent distracted driving which is focused on reaching those segments of the population most likely to 

engage in distracted driving behavior. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
81 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY

ADMINISTRATION

(INCLUDING RESCISSION)

Section 140. The Committee continues a provision that provides 

funding for travel and related expenses for state management reviews and highway safety core competency development training. 

Section 141. The Committee continues a provision that exempts 

obligation authority that was made available in previous public 

laws for multiple years from limitations on obligations for the current year. 

Section 142. The Committee includes a provision that rescinds 

unobligated contract authority authorized from the highway trust 

fund for NHTSA’s highway safety grant programs that will not be 

available for obligation because of limitations on obligations imposed on those funds in this Act or previous appropriations Acts. 

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) was established by 

the Department of Transportation Act, on October 15, 1966. The 

FRA plans, develops, and administers programs and regulations to 

promote the safe operation of freight and passenger rail transportation in the United States. The U.S. railroad system consists of 

over 550 railroads with over 187,000 freight employees, 171,000 

miles of track, and 1.35 million freight cars. With the passage of 

the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 and 

the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009, the FRA became responsible for developing, administering, and overseeing a 

multi-year, multi-billion dollar discretionary passenger rail grant 

program. In addition, the FRA continues to oversee grants to the 

National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) with the goal of 

assisting Amtrak with improvements to its passenger service and 

physical plant. 

SAFETY AND OPERATIONS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $172,270,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... 153,348,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 203,348,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. +31,078,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ +50,000,000 

The safety and operations account provides funding for FRA’s 

safety program activities related to passenger and freight railroads. 

Funding also supports salaries and expenses and other operating 

costs related to FRA staff and programs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $203,348,000 for safety and operations, which is $31,078,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted 

level and $50,000,000 above the fiscal year 2011 budget request. 

The Committee denies the Administration’s proposal to separate 

the operations and safety accounts and uses the existing funding 

structure. In addition, the Committee rejects the proposal to establish a rail safety user fee collected from railroads to offset salary 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
82 

costs associated with rail safety inspectors. Of the amount provided 

under this heading, $5,492,000 is available until expended. 

New FRA staff.—The Committee recognizes that the responsibilities of the FRA have grown exponentially in recent years with the 

enactment of the Rail Safety and Improvement Act (RSIA), the 

Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act (PRIIA) and the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). Therefore, the 

Committee approves FRA’s request for 62 additional positions and 

31 full time equivalents in fiscal year 2011. The Committee advises 

FRA that the Committee views this increase as an investment in 

FRA and consequently will expect FRA to perform at an even higher level of proficiency. 

Safety monitoring and oversight.—The Committee considers safety oversight and monitoring to be a critical component of FRA’s responsibilities. As freight traffic dropped during the economic downturn, safety and on time performance has increased. As the economy rebounds, the Committee expects FRA to remain vigilant in 

keeping the railway safe. In addition, the Committee reminds FRA 

that its core safety mission will be critical to the development of 

a national high speed rail network. 

RAILROAD RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $37,613,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... 40,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 40,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. +2,387,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ – – – 

The railroad research and development program provides science 

and technology support for FRA’s policy and regulatory efforts. The 

program’s objectives are to reduce the frequency and severity of 

railroad accidents through scientific advancement, and to support 

technological innovations in conventional and high speed railroads. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $40,000,000 for railroad research and development, which is $2,387,000 above the 

fiscal year 2010 enacted level and the same as the fiscal year 2011 

budget request. Within the funds provided, the Committee includes 

$500,000 for the Northern Lights Express Intercity Passenger Rail 

Study, MN. The Committee’s recommendation includes the following allocation for FRA’s Railroad Research and Development account: 

Railroad system issues ....................................................................... $3,835,000 

Human factors .................................................................................... 3,495,000 

Rolling stock and components ........................................................... 3,000,000 

Track and structures .......................................................................... 5,450,000 

Track and train interaction ............................................................... 3,800,000 

Train control ....................................................................................... 8,270,000 

Grade crossings ................................................................................... 2,200,000 

Hazmat transportation ...................................................................... 1,550,000 

Train occupant protection .................................................................. 4,700,000 

R&D facilities and test equipment .................................................... 2,700,000 

Rail cooperative research program ................................................... 500,000 

Highway crossing hazard elimination on designated high speed 

rail corridors.—The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient TransporVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:17 Jul 27, 2010 Jkt 057536 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR564.XXX HR564

pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
83 

tation Equity Act: A Legacy For Users (SAFETEA–LU) authorized 

the railway-highway crossing hazard elimination in high speed rail 

corridors program through 2009. Although the current authorization extension expires at the end of December 2010, the Committee 

recommendation assumes the annualized authorization level of the 

current extension. Within this account, the Committee directs funding to be allocated to the following projects: 

Empire Corridor West High Speed Rail Improvements, Cayuga 

County, NY ...................................................................................... $360,000 

Improvement to Safety Devices at Highway/Railway Grade 

Crossings, WI .................................................................................. 750,000 

Traffic Separation Studies in Durham and Wake County, NC ...... 500,000 

Empire Corridor West High Speed Rail Improvements, Oneida 

County, NY ...................................................................................... 625,000 

RAILROAD SAFETY TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $50,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... – – – 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 75,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. +25,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ +75,000,000 

The railroad safety technology program is authorized under the 

Rail Safety Improvement Act to provide grants to passenger, commuter 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 an appropriation of $75,000,000, for 

the railroad safety technology program, which is $25,000,000 above 

the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and $75,000,000 above the fiscal 

year 2011 budget request. 

The Committee believes the rail safety technology program is 

critical to developing methods to minimize conflict and ensure the 

safety of all rail users. In addition, the Committee believes this 

program will assist with meeting the Rail Safety Improvement Act 

(RSIA) mandate, requiring installation of positive train control 

(PTC) on all lines that jointly operate passenger and freight traffic 

by December 15, 2015. The FRA published its final rule on PTC in 

January 2010 and estimated that it will cost at least $5.5 billion 

for initial system acquisition and approximately $820 million annually for maintenance. The Committee directs FRA to provide these 

funds to grantees struggling with these costs. In particular, the 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
84 

Committee recognizes the cost and complexity that positive train 

control presents for commuter rail operations. Overall, however, 

the Committee believes that positive train control offers a significant safety benefit for passengers travelling on commuter rail operations. 

The bill includes language that would allow applicants to be eligible for funding provided under the rail safety technology program 

even if they have not yet completed all of the planning documents 

required under RSIA. However, in order to qualify for a grant 

under this program, all applicants must demonstrate that they are 

currently developing the required plans and the Committee directs 

the FRA to provide priority consideration to those entities that 

have completed all of their reporting requirements. 

RAILROAD REHABILITATION AND IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century of 1998 established the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing 

(RRIF) loan and loan guarantee program. SAFETEA–LU amended 

the program to allow direct loan and loan guarantees up to 

$35,000,000,000 and required that not less than $7,000,000,000 

shall be reserved for projects primarily benefiting freight railroads 

other than class I carriers. The funding may be used: (1) to acquire, 

improve, or rehabilitate intermodal or rail equipment or facilities, 

including track, components of track, bridges, yards, buildings, or 

shops; (2) to refinance existing debt; or (3) to develop and establish 

new intermodal or railroad facilities. 

No Federal appropriation is required, since a non-Federal infrastructure partner may contribute the subsidy amount required by 

the Credit Reform Act of 1990 in the form of a credit risk premium. 

Once received, statutorily established investigation charges are immediately available for appraisals and necessary determinations 

and findings. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

As in prior years 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. 

CAPITAL ASSISTANCE FOR HIGH SPEED CORRIDORS AND INTERCITY

PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $2,500,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... 1,000,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 1,400,000,000 

Bill compared to: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. ¥1,100,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ +400,000,000 

The Capital Assistance for High Speed Corridors and Intercity 

Passenger Rail Service program was first funded in ARRA. The 

program provides grants 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. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
85 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,400,000,000 for the passenger 

rail grant program. The Committee’s recommendation is 

$1,100,000,000 below the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and 

$400,000,000 above the level proposed in the fiscal year 2011 budget. The Committee provides a 40 percent increase over the budget 

request, which demonstrates the Committee’s continued commitment to the high speed rail program and creating a high speed rail 

network in the United States. The Committee is extremely interested in the investments made thus far in this program and directs 

FRA to continue to provide monthly updates to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on the progress of the selected 

grantees. These updates should include the status of each project, 

an update on the obligation and outlay of any high speed rail funds 

and an overview of any critical issues experienced in the program 

over the last month. 

FRA administration set aside.—The Committee recommends 

$50,000,000 for the FRA Administrator to administer and provide 

any necessary oversight activities for the passenger rail grant program. The Committee appreciates FRA’s efforts to build the high 

speed rail program over the last year and recognizes the difficult 

balance between obligating funds promptly and ensuring grants 

will be used effectively and efficiently. Consequently, the Committee believes this program must be a critical area of management focus at DOT. The Committee considers the investments 

made by this program to be critical to the nation’s infrastructure 

and essential to providing a transportation alternative for the congested highways and air space between city pairs around the country. Therefore, the Committee is adamant about the immense need 

for comprehensive oversight of this program. The Committee expects the Department to have thorough grant management processes in place for this program including key implementation milestones and related oversight cost estimates. Therefore, the Committee directs FRA to submit a report on the oversight and grants 

management process of the high speed rail program to the House 

and Senate Committees on Appropriations by March 29, 2011. 

Passenger rail grant program research.—The Committee recommends $30,000,000 of the funds under this heading for passenger rail research, including implementation of the Rail Cooperative Research Program authorized by 49 U.S.C. 24910. The Committee has included bill language directing FRA to conduct research that is anticipated to result in next-generation rolling stock 

fleet technology. 

Regulations.—The Committee continues language allowing FRA 

to use interim guidance for the program. However, the Committee 

directs the Department to finalize pending passenger rail regulations by the end of fiscal year 2011. 

Planning.—The Committee believes that sound planning is critical to the success of passenger rail in the U.S. The Committee recommends $50,000,000 for planning activities for the passenger rail 

grant program. The Committee continues language allowing a portion of the planning funds to be set aside for multi-state planning 

efforts, which are critical to creating interstate rail corridors. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
86 

Social justice.—The Committee is aware that in certain communities across the nation, highways were built along paths that divided poor or minority communities and that such routings required the relocation of families and resulted in significant impacts 

to neighborhoods and communities. The Committee is also aware 

that planners may seek to utilize existing transportation corridors 

in proposing new transportation projects, including high-speed rail. 

There is significant concern about the impact that any new project 

built in an existing transportation corridor will have on the surrounding communities. This is balanced by a concern in connection 

with creating entirely new transportation corridors impacting additional communities. The Committee therefore expects the environmental reviews conducted by the Department of Transportation in 

connection with implementing new transportation projects, including high-speed rail projects, to consider the effects of using existing 

or new transportation corridors, as appropriate, and to identify appropriate mitigation measures and comply with Executive Order 

12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. 

GRANTS TO THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION

(AMTRAK)

In the late 1960s private railroad companies, which provided 

both freight and passenger service were operating close to bankruptcy. By 1970, passenger service had eroded to the point that 

Congress passed the Rail Passenger Service Act (RPSA) creating 

the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), a for profit 

corporation, to take over and preserve passenger rail service in the 

United States. RPSA relieved private railroads of their common 

carrier obligation, a responsibility retained from English common 

law, in exchange for a payment in cash, equipment, or a promise 

of future service. On May 1, 1971, Amtrak began operations as a 

national passenger railroad. 

Today, Amtrak operates trains over 20,000 miles of track owned 

by freight railroad carriers, and over about 654 miles of its own 

track, most of which is on the Northeast Corridor (NEC) from 

Washington, DC to Boston. Amtrak operates both electrified trains, 

where speeds of up to 150 mph on the Northeast Corridor are possible on the highest quality track, and diesel locomotives, which 

can currently achieve speeds between 74–110 miles per hour. 

Congressional budget justification.—The Committee appreciates 

the level of detail in the fiscal year 2011 budget justifications and 

directs Amtrak to continue to submit justifications with a similar 

level of detail in all future budget years. 

Five-year plan.—The Committee was pleased to receive Amtrak’s 

five-year plan. The Committee strongly believes in the importance 

of long term planning and believes this plan is the first step in a 

larger process of improving Amtrak operations. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
87 

OPERATING GRANTS TO THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER

CORPORATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $563,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... 563,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 563,000,000 

Bill compared to: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ – – – 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $563,000,000 for operating grants 

for Amtrak, which is the same as the fiscal year 2010 enacted level 

and the level assumed in the fiscal year 2011 budget request. 

The Committee has included bill language allowing the Secretary 

to retain up to one-half of one percent for the use of the FRA for 

the implementation of the Amtrak Operating Grants as authorized 

by section 103 of PRIIA. The Federal Railroad Administration requires these funds to oversee the operating grants to Amtrak to ensure the prudent use of federal funds and foster transparency. 

On time performance.—The Committee is pleased with the recent 

increase in on time performance of Amtrak trains and appreciates 

Amtrak’s efforts. The Committee expects Amtrak to redouble these 

efforts as the economy rebounds and freight traffic increases. 

Reduced price fares.—In past years, the Committee has prohibited Amtrak from offering discounts of more than fifty percent from 

normal, peak fare prices, except where the loss from the discount 

is covered by a state and the state participates in setting the Amtrak fares in said state as a part of the overall state transportation 

plan. While the Committee is proposing to eliminate the prohibition of offering reduced fares, the Committee is interested in how 

often, and on what lines or line segments Amtrak will offer deeply 

discounted fares in fiscal year 2011. The Committee directs Amtrak 

to report quarterly on the following as related to fares reduced by 

fifty percent or more from the normal, peak fare: the frequency of 

the discounted offering; the lines or line segments with discounted 

fares; the number of tickets sold; the actual cost of operating the 

line or line segment; the regular, peak fare offered for the line or 

line segment; the amount of the reduced fare; the availability of another rail transportation option (i.e. commuter rail line or transit 

line) serving the riding population; and the fares associated with 

the other rail transportation options. 

CAPITAL AND DEBT SERVICE GRANTS TO THE NATIONAL RAILROAD

PASSENGER CORPORATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $1,001,625,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... 1,052,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 1,203,500,000 

Bill compared to: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. +201,875,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ +151,500,000 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,203,500,000 for capital grants, of 

which not to exceed $305,000,000 is provided for Amtrak’s debt 

service. The Committee’s recommendation is $201,875,000 above 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
88 

the level enacted in fiscal year 2010 and $151,500,000 above the 

level assumed in the fiscal year 2011 budget request. 

Americans with Disabilities Act.—The Committee recommends 

that Amtrak use no less than $165,000,000 of its capital funds to 

assist it in meeting its statutory obligations. The Americans with 

Disabilities Act (ADA) requires that Amtrak make all intercity passenger rail stations readily accessible to and usable by individuals 

with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs, as 

soon as practicable, but in no event later than July 26, 2010. 

While the Committee understands that Amtrak does not own all 

of the stations it serves, the Committee believes Amtrak’s performance in meeting the ADA legislative mandate has been abysmal, as 

only ten percent of the stations Amtrak serves are fully compliant. 

At a minimum, Amtrak must demonstrate better progress in bringing the Amtrak-owned stations into compliance. The Committee directs Amtrak to provide the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations quarterly updates on its progress in meeting the ADA 

requirement. 

Early buyout option.—Within the funds provided for Amtrak’s 

debt service, the Committee recommends up to $28,000,000 to be 

used for the payment of costs associated with early buyout options 

as authorized in section 102(b) of PRIIA. The Committee believes 

providing funding for this purpose will maximize Amtrak’s debt 

service and drive down future debt. 

Fleet plan.—The Committee recommends $127,500,000 for Amtrak’s capital fleet plan, which equals the total amount requested 

for the first year of the plan. The Committee believes this new comprehensive plan is a bold initiative that adds long-term structure 

to Amtrak’s fleet acquisition process. The Committee considers this 

type of planning, critical to the development and support of a domestic manufacturing base for rail. 

The Committee encourages Amtrak and FRA to explore alternative financing options, such as the RRIF program, to meet the 

immense capital need for the fleet plan. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

Section 150. The Committee retains a provision that ceases the 

availability of Amtrak funds if the railroad contracts for services 

outside the United States for any service performed by a full-time 

or part-time Amtrak employee as of July 1, 2006. 

Section 151. The Committee retains a provision, which allows 

FRA to receive and use cash or spare parts to repair and replace 

damaged automated track inspection cars and equipment in connection with the automated track inspection program. 

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) was established as a 

component of the Department of Transportation on July 1, 1968, 

when most of the functions and programs under the Federal Transit Act (78 Stat. 302; 49 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) were transferred from 

the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Known as the 

Urban Mass Transportation Administration until enactment of the 

Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, the Federal Transit Administration administers federal financial assistVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:17 Jul 27, 2010 Jkt 057536 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR564.XXX HR564

pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
89 

ance programs for planning, developing, and improving comprehensive mass transportation systems in both urban and non-urban 

areas. 

The most recent authorization for the programs under the Federal Transit Administration is contained in the Safe, Accountable, 

Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users 

(SAFETEA–LU) (P.L. 109–59). During the authorization period 

provided under SAFETEA–LU, the annual Appropriations Acts included annual limitations on obligations for the formula and bus 

grants programs, and direct appropriations of budget authority 

from the General Fund of the Treasury for the FTA’s administrative expenses, research programs, and capital investment grants. 

The transit programs authorized under SAFETEA–LU are set to 

expire on December 31, 2010. 

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $98,911,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... 113,559,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 130,698,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. +31,787,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ +17,139,000 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total of $130,698,000 for FTA’s administrative expenses, an increase of $31,787,000 above the fiscal 

year 2010 funding level and $17,139,000 above the budget request. 

Of this amount, $106,559,000 is for the salaries and expenses of 

FTA. The bill includes an additional $24,139,000 to carry out public 

transportation fixed guideway safety oversight activities, if authorized. 

Operating plans.—The Committee reiterates its direction from 

previous years which requires the FTA’s operating plan to include 

a specific allocation of administrative expenses resources. The operating plan should include a delineation of full time equivalent employees, for the following offices: Office of the Administrator; Office 

of Administration; Office of Chief Counsel; Office of Communications and Congressional Affairs; Office of Program Management; 

Office of Budget and Policy; Office of Research, Demonstration and 

Innovation; Office of Civil Rights; Office of Planning and Environment; and Regional Offices. In addition, the Committee directs the 

FTA to notify the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 

at least thirty days in advance of any change that results in an increase or decrease of more than five percent from the initial operating plan submitted to the Committees for fiscal year 2011. The 

accompanying bill specifies that no more than $2,200,000 shall be 

for the FTA’s travel expenses. 

Budget structure.—The Committee is not surprised by the creativity exhibited in the FTA budget justification and the strategic 

restructuring undertaken by the FTA Administrator. In many 

ways, the proposed restructuring reflects a careful analysis of existing resources and the best way to maximize funds and programs 

to ensure decisions that reflect the Administration’s focus on livability. However, in the absence of a long-term surface reauthorization bill, it is premature to radically shift the existing accounts. 

The Committee hopes, however, that the proposed restructuring 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
90 

will provide a roadmap for reauthorization and will guide decisions 

on FTA’s future structure. 

Budget justifications and annual new starts report.—The Committee also continues the direction to FTA to submit future budget 

justifications in a format consistent with the instruction provided 

in House Report 109–153. The Committee has again included bill 

language requiring FTA to submit the annual new starts report 

with the initial submission of the budget request due in February, 

2011. 

Transit security.—The Committee continues bill language prohibiting FTA from creating a permanent office of transit security. The 

Committee’s position remains that the Department of Homeland 

Security is the lead agency on transportation security and has 

overall responsibility among all modes of transportation, including 

rail and transit lines. 

Expiring projects.—The Committee is aware that there are a 

number of projects for which the funds will expire by the end of 

this fiscal year. The Committee reminds grantees that transit 

funds are available for three years and the Committee’s expectation is that these funds will be obligated in a timely fashion. Two 

years ago, the Committee ended its practice of extending expiring 

projects. It is a disservice to other projects to hold funds back for 

projects that may not move to completion. 

RAIL TRANSIT SAFETY OVERSIGHT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $– – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... 24,139,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... – – – 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ ¥24,139,000 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee firmly believes that issues of safety deserve careful consideration, adequate funding, and sufficient staffing, however, this office and the functions thereof are not yet authorized. 

The Committee recognizes that FTA has submitted a legislative 

proposal to establish this office and a set of responsibilities, thus 

it has elected to provide funding for additional safety inspectors 

within the administrative expenses account, should the legislative 

proposal be enacted. 

FORMULA AND BUS GRANTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORITY)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Liquidation of contract authorization Limitation on obliga- tions 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ................................................................................... $9,400,000,000 ($8,343,171,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ............................................................................... 9,200,000,000 (8,271,700,000) 

Recommended in the bill ............................................................................................ 9,200,000,000 (8,961,348,000) 

Bill compared to: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .......................................................................... ¥200,000,000 +618,177,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ...................................................................... – – – +689,648,000 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
91 

Formula grants to states and local agencies funded under the 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) fall into the following categories: Alaska Railroad, clean fuels grant program, over-the-road 

bus accessibility program, urbanized area formula grants, bus and 

bus facility grants, fixed guideway modernization, planning programs (both metropolitan and statewide), formula grants for special needs for elderly individuals and individuals with disabilities, 

formula grants for other than urbanized areas, job access and reverse commute formula program, new freedom program, growing 

states and high density states formula, National Transit Database, 

alternatives analysis, and alternative transportation in parks and 

public lands. SAFETEA–LU provided contract authority for the formula and bus program from the mass transit account of the highway trust fund. The Appropriations Act sets an annual obligation 

limitation for such authority. This account is the only FTA account 

funded from the highway trust fund. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee provides $8,961,348,000 in obligation limitations for these programs and activities which is $689,648,000 above the 

budget request and $618,177,000 over the fiscal year 2010 enacted 

level. The Committee recommendation follows the program structure as currently authorized in SAFETEA–LU, however, the Committee understands that the authorizing committee of jurisdiction 

has proposed significant modifications to the structure of the transit program. The Committee supports efforts to reform and realign 

programs to meet the unique transit needs of small and large communities across the nation; to better coordinate transit access and 

mobility; and, to improve the energy efficiency of vehicles and facilities. 

The Committee recognizes that the recommended level represents a significant increase in the transit formula and bus grant 

program. The Committee strongly believes that this increase is necessary to meet critical transit infrastructure needs and the growing 

public transportation demands facing our nation. The DOT’s 2008 

Conditions and Performance Report indicates that an estimated 

$15.1 billion annual average investment is needed to maintain 

transit conditions and performance and $21.1 billion is needed to 

improve transit conditions and performance. The Committee’s hearings underscored the substantial need and overall support for increased transit investment. 

The Committee well understands that the contract authority levels for the formula and bus grant program will be set by the underlying surface transportation authorization legislation. The Committee urges the authorizing committees of jurisdiction to provide 

additional contract authority sufficient to meet the level of obligation limitations provided in the bill. 

Given that the state of good repair needs for both fixed guideway 

systems and bus systems are estimated to be nearly $80 billion, the 

Committee believes that the authorizing committees of jurisdiction 

should consider providing increased resources to reduce this backlog. 

Livable Communities.— The Committee is a strong supporter of 

the principle of livable communities and has advocated for coordinating transportation infrastructure investments with the availVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:17 Jul 27, 2010 Jkt 057536 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR564.XXX HR564

pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
92 

ability of housing and community services in order to decrease 

transportation costs; improve access to jobs and services; promote 

healthy communities; improve air quality; protect the natural environment; and enhance community connectivity. As such, the Committee appreciates the commitment to livable communities that the 

Department has demonstrated throughout the budget request and 

by its active involvement in the interagency Partnership for Sustainable Communities. 

The budget request proposes shifting the job access and reverse 

commute program, alternative analysis, and metropolitan and 

statewide planning activities into a new livable communities account. The Committee notes that the budget request does not 

change the existing eligibility criteria or distribution mechanism 

for these programs and agrees with FTA that these programs provide a helpful contribution toward building more sustainable and 

livable communities. As noted earlier the Committee denies the request to restructure the existing account structure while a comprehensive authorization bill is pending. The Committee notes that 

in addition to the programs highlighted in the budget request, the 

Committee believes that other FTA programs, including the bus 

and bus facility grants, urban and rural formula programs, and 

capital investment grants, also contribute to the development of livable communities. While the Committee supports the decision to 

utilize existing programs to advance this initiative, it will require 

strong leadership by FTA senior management to ensure that these 

programs do not simply continue to operate business as usual, but 

adapt and embrace a cultural change. The Committee is confident 

that the FTA Administrator will make progress in this regard. 

Operating assistance.—The Committee recognizes the strain 

being placed on transit agencies by diminished state and local resources. Since January 2009, over 84 percent of transit agencies 

have implemented or plan to implement service reductions; increased fares; or laying off thousands of workers. The Committee 

recommendation makes available $250,000,000 for grants to States 

and designated recipients that receive funding under 49 U.S.C. 

5307 and 5311 for operating costs associated with equipment and 

facilities, if authorized before September 30, 2011. This measure is 

intended to help alleviate reductions in eligible transportation service under sections 5307 and 5311 as well as ensure that skilled 

transit employees remain on the job. 

Fixed guideway modernization.—The fixed guideway modernization program is distributed through a statutory formula for capital 

projects to modernize or improve existing fixed guideway systems 

that have been in operation for at least seven years. The Committee remains greatly concerned about the state of good repair 

needs for some of our nation’s oldest and most heavily used rail 

and subway systems. The FTA found that more than one-third of 

agencies studied have assets that are either in marginal or poor 

condition and that the estimated state of good repair backlog is 

roughly $50 billion. 

Bus and bus facilities.—The bus and bus facilities program is a 

discretionary program administered by the FTA for capital projects 

including the acquisition of buses for fleet and service expansion; 

bus maintenance and administrative facilities; transfer facilities, 

intermodal centers; park-and-ride stations; and, miscellaneous 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
93 

equipment such as mobile radio units, supervisory vehicles, fare 

boxes, computers and shop and garage equipment. 

The Committee encourages the FTA to utilize remaining discretionary funds for projects that meet the criteria established for the 

bus livability grants or for the transit investment in greenhouse 

gas and energy reduction (TIGGER) grants that were established 

under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Therefore, 

the Committee has not established a separate account for greenhouse gas and energy reduction as requested in the budget. Within 

the funds provided, the Committee directs funding for the following 

projects: 

Project Amount 

Chicago Union Station Improvements, IL ............................................................................................................ $500,000 

PVTA Regional Transit Traveler Information Systems Project, MA ...................................................................... 1,000,000 

Aberdeen Intermodal Transit Center, MD ............................................................................................................. 750,000 

ACE Boulder Highway Rapid Transit Project, NV ................................................................................................. 2,000,000 

Bay Town Trolley Multi-Modal Facility, FL ........................................................................................................... 500,000 

Bergen Intermodal Improvements, NJ .................................................................................................................. 2,000,000 

Berkshire Regional Transit Authority, MA ............................................................................................................ 1,000,000 

Bloomington Hybrid Buses, IN ............................................................................................................................. 250,000 

Brownsville Multi-Modal Terminal Facility, TX ..................................................................................................... 500,000 

Bus and Bus Facilities, VI ................................................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Bus Replacement, Westchester County, NY ......................................................................................................... 2,000,000 

Capital Area Transit Bus and Bus Facilities, PA ................................................................................................ 700,000 

Chatham Area Transit Bus Replacement, GA ...................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Chicago Ridge Metra Station Improvements, IL .................................................................................................. 190,000 

City of Rialto Metrolink Parking Lot Improvement, CA ........................................................................................ 700,000 

City of San Bernardino Intermodal Transit Center, CA ....................................................................................... 500,000 

City of Sante Fe Transit Department Bus Purchase, NM .................................................................................... 250,000 

Colorado Transit Coalition Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities, CO ..................................................................... 5,000,000 

Coralville Intermodal Center, IA ........................................................................................................................... 700,000 

Corpus Christi Regional Transportation Authority, TX ......................................................................................... 500,000 

COTA Electronic Fare Payment System, Columbus, OH ....................................................................................... 1,300,000 

Cypress Park Transit Bus and Bus Facilities, Los Angeles, CA .......................................................................... 400,000 

Dallas Area Rapid Transit Bus CNG Procurement, TX ........................................................................................ 800,000 

DAV Vehicles, Northport, NY ................................................................................................................................. 500,000 

Dutchess County Mass Transit Facility Project, NY ............................................................................................. 500,000 

El Paso New Operations/Maintenance Facility, TX .............................................................................................. 1,500,000 

Fair Lawn Community Shuttle Bus Program, NJ ................................................................................................. 315,000 

Falls Church Bus and Bus Facilities, VA ............................................................................................................ 725,000 

Flint MTA Conversion of Paratransit Facilities to CNG, MI ................................................................................. 750,000 

Goldsboro Union Station, NC ................................................................................................................................ 500,000 

Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority Clifton Boulevard Transit Enhancements, OH ............................ 750,000 

Greater Cleveland Warrensville/Van Aken Multi-Modal Facility, OH .................................................................... 550,000 

Greater Southeast Transit Terminal, Houston, TX ............................................................................................... 500,000 

GRTC Downtown Multimodal Center, Richmond, VA ............................................................................................ 500,000 

IndyGo Transit Bus Replacement Project, IN ....................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Joliet Multimodal Transportation Center, IL ......................................................................................................... 550,000 

JTA Regional Transit Authority Multi-Modal Facility, FL ...................................................................................... 500,000 

LexTran Vehicle Maintenance Facility Improvements, KY .................................................................................... 600,000 

Littleton Intermodal Parking Facility, MA ............................................................................................................ 1,200,000 

Los Angeles Boyle Heights DASH Bus, CA ........................................................................................................... 420,000 

Los Angeles Florence-Firestone/Walnut Park Transit Vehicles, CA ...................................................................... 300,000 

Los Angeles Midtown DASH Community Circulator Bus Expansion Project, CA ................................................. 1,000,000 

Los Lunas Intermodal Transportation Center, NM ............................................................................................... 1,000,000 

MARTA Bus, Bus Facilities and Security Improvements, GA ............................................................................... 3,000,000 

METRO Bus and Bus Facilities, Houston, TX ....................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Milwaukee County Buses, WI ............................................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Montebello Bus Lines and Norwalk Transit Agency Bus Replacement Project, CA ............................................ 500,000 

Monterey-Salinas Transit Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Security Systems Upgrade, CA .................. 800,000 

Municipal Transit Operators Coalition Clean Fuel Bus Purchase, CA ................................................................ 2,000,000 

Mustang Park and Ride Structure, Scottsdale, AZ .............................................................................................. 500,000 

New Center Intermodal Transportation Facility, Wayne, MI ................................................................................. 1,350,000 

Newburyport Intermodal Parking Facility, MA ...................................................................................................... 500,000 

Pace Paratransit Vehicles, IL ............................................................................................................................... 1,400,000 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
94 

Project Amount 

Port Authority Allegheny County Hybrid Buses, PA .............................................................................................. 600,000 

Port of Galveston Transit Terminal Parking, TX .................................................................................................. 1,250,000 

Potomac Yard-Crystal City Transit Way, VA ........................................................................................................ 1,250,000 

Replacement Buses for Urban Transit Systems in the Triangle, NC .................................................................. 2,500,000 

Riverview Corridor Bus Acquisition and Facilities, MN ....................................................................................... 750,000 

Rochester Intermodal Transportation Center, NY ................................................................................................ 2,500,000 

SEPTA 69th Street Terminal, PA .......................................................................................................................... 500,000 

SEPTA Levittown Station Intermodal Improvements, PA ...................................................................................... 600,000 

South Hampton Roads Satellite Transit Operating Facility, VA .......................................................................... 1,500,000 

Southern Maryland Commuter Bus Initiative, MD ............................................................................................... 1,500,000 

Stark Area Buses Regional Transit Authority, OH ............................................................................................... 800,000 

Suffolk County Bus and Bus Facilities, NY ......................................................................................................... 750,000 

Tennessee Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities, TN ............................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Transit Center, California State University, Northridge, CA ................................................................................ 500,000 

Unified Government Transit Buses and Bus Facilities, KS ................................................................................. 800,000 

Union Passenger Terminal, LA ............................................................................................................................. 1,250,000 

Union Station Intermodal Center, DC .................................................................................................................. 500,000 

Vacaville Intermodal Station-Phase 2, Vacaville, CA .......................................................................................... 750,000 

VIA Bus Fleet Modernization, TX .......................................................................................................................... 2,400,000 

VIA Fredericksburg Road Bus Rapid Transit Corridor, TX ................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Washington Avenue Port Plaza and Intermodal Center, WA ............................................................................... 1,000,000 

Watts DASH Community Circulator Bus Project, CA ............................................................................................ 200,000 

Alternatives analysis.—The alternative analysis program provides grants to assist in financing the evaluation of all reasonable 

modal and multimodal alternatives and general alignment options 

for identified transportation needs in a particular, broadly defined 

travel corridor. The Committee recommendation directs funding for 

the following projects: 

Project Amount 

Atlanta BeltLine, Inc. Tier 2 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/Preliminary Engineering, GA ................... $700,000 

Glassboro Camden Line EIS Project, NJ ............................................................................................................... 750,000 

Interstate 94 Transit Corridor, Ramsey and Washington Counties, MN ............................................................. 750,000 

LYNX Bus Rapid Transit Alternative Analysis, FL ................................................................................................ 500,000 

Naval Station Norfolk Light Rail Study, VA ......................................................................................................... 250,000 

OCTA Santa Ana-Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Construction, Santa Ana, CA .................................................. 250,000

Orange Line Extension Preliminary Engineering, IL ............................................................................................. 475,000 

Phoenix West (Formerly I–10 West) Light Rail Extension, Phoenix, AZ ............................................................... 1,000,000 

Red Line Extension, IL .......................................................................................................................................... 1,500,000 

South Central Avenue Light Rail Feasibility Study, Phoenix, AZ ......................................................................... 750,000 

LIVABLE COMMUNITIES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $– – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... 306,905,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... – – – 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ ¥306,905,000 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

As noted above, the Committee recommendation follows the currently authorized structure. 

GREENHOUSE GAS AND ENERGY REDUCTION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $– – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... 52,743,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... – – – 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ ¥52,743,000 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
95 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

As noted above, the Committee recommendation follows the currently authorized structure. 

RESEARCH AND UNIVERSITY RESEARCH CENTERS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $65,670,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... 29,729,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 65,376,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. ¥294,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ +35,647,000 

Grants for transit research are authorized by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 

Users (Public Law 109–59) (SAFETEA–LU). Starting in fiscal year 

2006, activities formerly under the ‘‘Transit Planning and Research’’ account are now under the ‘‘Formula and Bus Grants’’ account. The National Research program, the Transit Cooperative 

Research Program, and the National Institute are funded under 

this new heading. Funding for the National Research programs will 

be used to cover costs for FTA’s essential safety and security activities and transit safety data collection. Under the national component of the program, FTA is a catalyst in the research, development and deployment of transportation methods and technologies 

which address issues such as accessibility for the disabled, air quality, traffic congestion, and transit services and operational improvements. The University Research Centers program will provide continued support for research education and technology transfer activities aimed at addressing regional and national transportation 

problems. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $65,376,000 for FTA’s research activities. The Committee’s recommendation includes $44,076,000 for 

the national research program; $10,000,000 for transit cooperative 

research; $4,300,000 for the National Transit Institute; and 

$7,000,000 for the university centers program. The Committee, 

however, does support continued research into programs to advance 

the mobility of our nation’s senior citizens and individuals with disabilities. In that regard, the Committee directs the FTA to provide 

continued, if not increased, support for the Project Action and National Center for Senior Transportation. 

Consistent with the direction that was provided in previous 

years, the Committee requires FTA to report by May 15, 2010, on 

all FTA-sponsored research projects from fiscal year 2010 and 

2011. For each project, the report should include information on 

the National relevance of the research, relevance to the transit industry and community, expected final product and delivery date, 

sources of non-FTA funding committed to the project or research 

institute, and FTA funding history. 

Car sharing.—The Committee urges the FTA to also explore the 

use of non-traditional transportation methods, such as car sharing, 

to determine what benefit these methods provide in advancing the 

goals of livability. For example, the Transportation Research Board 

estimated in 2005 that every car available through a car sharing 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
96 

program removes 15 privately owned vehicles from streets and increases the chance that an individual will utilize public transit. 

Within the funds provided for FTA’s national research program, 

the Committee directs funding to be allocated for the following 

projects: 

City of College Station Public Transportation Initiative, TX ......... $150,000 

Project Transit, Philadelphia, PA ..................................................... 1,000,000 

CTAA Job links, Washington, DC ..................................................... 2,400,000 

Queens College Barriers to Public Transportation Survey, NY ..... 250,000 

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $– – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... 28,647,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... – – – 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ ¥28,647,000 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee does not provide funding for this newly proposed 

office, but supports the goal of providing additional technical assistance and workforce development, and believes that activities can be 

pursued within the National Research Program. 

CAPITAL INVESTMENT GRANTS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $2,000,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... 1,822,112,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 2,000,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ +177,888,000 

Grants for capital investment to rail or other fixed guideway 

transit systems are awarded to public bodies and agencies (transit 

authorities and other state and local public bodies and agencies 

thereof) including states, municipalities, other political subdivisions 

of states; public agencies and instrumentalities of one or more 

states; and certain public corporations, boards and commissions 

under state law. The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (Public Law 109–59) 

(SAFETEA–LU) made two significant changes to the major capital 

investment grant program. First, SAFETEA–LU funded the program entirely from the General Fund of the Treasury. Second, 

grants for bus and bus facilities and fixed guideway modernization 

projects, plus alternative analysis funds were made eligible under 

the ‘‘Formula and Bus Grants’’ account, which is funded by the 

mass transit account of the highway trust fund. Grants to the 

Denali Commission and the Hawaii and Alaska ferries were dictated by SAFETEA–LU. Other projects and investments were specifically authorized by SAFETEA–LU and are subject to regulation 

and oversight by FTA. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $2,000,000,000 for capital investment grants which is equal to the fiscal year 2010 enacted level 

and $177,888,000 above the budget request. Within the amount 

provided, the Committee includes a total of $20,000,000, or apVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:17 Jul 27, 2010 Jkt 057536 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR564.XXX HR564

pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
97 

proximately one percent, for oversight activities of the investments 

in this account. The Committee recommendation includes funding 

for the following capital investment grants: 

Project Amount 

Access to the Region’s Core, NJ .......................................................................................................................... $200,000,000 

Baltimore Red Line, MD ....................................................................................................................................... 1,500,000 

BART Silicon Valley Project, CA ........................................................................................................................... 2,000,000 

BRT Project, CO .................................................................................................................................................... 24,163,000 

Central Corridor LRT, MN ..................................................................................................................................... 45,000,000 

Central Florida Commuter Rail Transit—Initial Operating Segment, FL ............................................................ 40,000,000 

Central Subway LRT, CA ...................................................................................................................................... 20,000,000 

Crenshaw/LAX Transit Project, CA ....................................................................................................................... 750,000 

Downtown Transit Corridor Program, Downtown Circulator—The Wave, FL ....................................................... 1,750,000 

Dulles Corridor Metrorail Project Ext. to Wiehle Ave., DC ................................................................................... 96,000,000 

E Street Corridor sbX BRT, CA ............................................................................................................................. 42,630,000 

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

East Corridor, CO ................................................................................................................................................. 40,000,000 

Gold Line, CO ....................................................................................................................................................... 40,000,000 

Green Line Extension to Route 16 from Tufts, MA .............................................................................................. 500,000 

Houston Commuter Rail Service in Harris and Fort Bend County (US 90A), TX ................................................ 1,000,000 

King County BRT, WA ........................................................................................................................................... 21,274,000 

Long Island Rail Road East Side Access, NY ...................................................................................................... 215,000,000 

Mason Corridor BRT, CO ...................................................................................................................................... 5,450,573 

MetroRapid BRT, TX ............................................................................................................................................. 24,229,796 

Mid Jordan LRT, UT .............................................................................................................................................. 100,000,000 

New Britain-Hartford Busway, CT ........................................................................................................................ 45,000,000 

North Corridor LRT, TX ......................................................................................................................................... 75,000,000 

Northwest/Southeast LRT MOS, TX ....................................................................................................................... 86,249,717 

Nostrand Ave BRT, NY .......................................................................................................................................... 28,398,554 

Perris Valley Line, CA ........................................................................................................................................... 23,490,000 

Purple Line, MD .................................................................................................................................................... 1,500,000 

Rail Transit Project—East Kapolei to Ala Moana Center, HI ............................................................................. 55,000,000 

Second Avenue Subway Phase I, NY .................................................................................................................... 197,182,000 

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART), CA .................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

South Shore Commuter Rail Capital Reinvestment Plan, NICTD, IN .................................................................. 1,000,000 

Southeast Corridor LRT, TX .................................................................................................................................. 75,000,000 

Stamford Urban Transitway, CT ........................................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

University Link LRT Extension, WA ....................................................................................................................... 110,000,000 

Van Ness Avenue BRT, CA ................................................................................................................................... 15,000,000 

Weber County to Salt Lake City Commuter Rail, UT ........................................................................................... 80,000,000 

West Corridor LRT, CO .......................................................................................................................................... 40,179,000 

West Eugene EmX, OR ......................................................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Full funding grant agreements (FFGAs).—TEA–21 required that 

the FTA notify the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations as well as the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on Banking sixty days before 

executing a full funding grant agreement. In its notification to the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, the Committee 

directs the FTA to include the following: (1) a copy of the proposed 

full funding grant agreement; (2) the total and annual federal appropriations required for that project; (3) yearly and total federal 

appropriations that can be reasonably planned or anticipated for 

future FFGAs for each fiscal year through 2011; (4) a detailed analysis of annual commitments for current and anticipated FFGAs 

against the program authorization; (5) an evaluation of whether 

the alternatives analysis made by the applicant fully assessed all 

viable alternatives; (6) a financial analysis of the project’s cost and 

sponsor’s ability to finance the project, which shall be conducted by 

an independent examiner and which shall include an assessment 

of the capital cost estimate and the finance plan; (7) the source and 

security of all public- and private-sector financial instruments; (8) 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
98 

the project’s operating plan, which enumerates the project’s future 

revenue and ridership forecasts; and (9) a listing of all planned contingencies and possible risks associated with the project. 

The Committee continues the direction to FTA to inform the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations in writing thirty 

days before approving schedule, scope, or budget changes to any 

full funding grant agreement. Correspondence relating to changes 

shall include any budget revisions or program changes that materially alter the project as originally stipulated in the full funding 

grant agreement, including any proposed change in rail car procurements. In addition, the Committee directs FTA to continue reporting monthly to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on the status of each project with a full funding grant 

agreement or that is within two years of a full funding grant agreement. The Committee finds the monthly updates informative and 

a useful oversight tool. 

Inspector general audits and investigations.—The Committee includes $2,075,000 directly to the Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General for contract execution for costs associated 

with audits and investigations of transit-related issues, including 

reviews of new fixed guideway systems. 

WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $150,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... 150,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 150,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ – – – 

Section 601 of Division B of the Passenger Rail Investment and 

Improvement Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–432) authorized $1.5 billion over a ten-year period for preventive maintenance and capital 

grants for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority (WMATA). The law requires that the federal funds be 

matched dollar for dollar by Virginia, Maryland and the District of 

Columbia in equal proportions. The compact required under the 

law has been established and Virginia, Maryland and the District 

of Columbia have all committed to providing $50 million each in 

local matching funds. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation includes $150,000,000 for preventive maintenance and capital grants for WMATA, which is 

equal to the budget request and the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. 

The Committee remains very concerned about the speed with 

which WMATA is making progress on safety issues within the 

agency. Specifically, nine issues identified by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) in the wake of Metro’s horrific 

crash on June 22, 2009, remain unanswered. The Committee urges 

WMATA to work expeditiously to address the critical safety concerns identified by the NTSB. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
99 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

Section 160. The Committee continues the provision that exempts previously made transit obligations from limitations on obligations. 

Section 161. The Committee continues the provision that allows 

funds appropriated for capital investment grants and bus and bus 

facilities not obligated by September 30, 2013, plus other recoveries 

to be available for other projects under 49 U.S.C. 5309. 

Section 162. The Committee continues the provision that allows 

for the transfer of prior year appropriations from older accounts to 

be merged into new accounts with similar, current activities. 

Section 163. The Committee continues the provision that allows 

prior year funds available for capital investment grants to be used 

in this fiscal year for such projects. 

Section 164. The Committee continues the provision that requires unobligated funds or recoveries under section 5309 of title 

49 that are available for reallocation shall be directed to projects 

eligible to use the funds for the purposes for which they were originally intended. 

SAINT LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

(HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $32,324,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... 32,150,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 33,868,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. 1,544,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ 1,718,000 

The Great Lakes Saint Lawrence Seaway System, located between Montreal and Lake Erie, is a binational, 15-lock system 

jointly operated by the U.S. Saint Lawrence Seaway Development 

Corporation (SLSDC) and its Canadian counterpart, the Canadian 

St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation. The SLSDC was 

established by the St. Lawrence Seaway Act of 1954 and is a wholly owned government corporation and an operating administration 

of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). The SLSDC is 

charged with operating and maintaining the U.S. portion of the St. 

Lawrence Seaway. This responsibility includes the two U.S. locks 

in Massena, New York, vessel traffic control in portions of the St. 

Lawrence River and Lake Ontario, and trade development functions to enhance the utilization of the St. Lawrence Seaway. 

The Water Resources Development Act of 1986 authorized the 

Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund as a source of appropriations for 

SLSDC operations and maintenance. Additionally, the SLSDC generates non-federal revenues which can then be used for operations 

and maintenance. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total appropriation of $33,868,000 

to fund the operations, maintenance, and capital asset renewal 

needs of the SLSDC. This funding level is $1,544,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and $1,718,000 above the fiscal year 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
100 

2011 request. The Committee remains committed to the SLSDC’s 

ongoing infrastructure improvements and directs the additional 

funds be used for capital investments as planned for in the Asset 

Renewal Program. 

Asset Renewal Program.—The Committee directs the SLSDC to 

provide semiannual reports consistent with the requirements stated in the Explanatory Statement of the Department of Transportation Appropriations Act of 2009. 

MARITIME ADMINISTRATION

The Maritime Administration (MARAD) is responsible for programs that strengthen the U.S. maritime industry in support of the 

Nation’s security and economic needs, as authorized by the Merchant Marine Act of 1936. MARAD’s mission is to promote the development and maintenance of an adequate, well-balanced United 

States merchant marine, sufficient to carry the Nation’s domestic 

waterborne commerce and a substantial portion of its waterborne 

foreign commerce, and capable of serving as a naval and military 

auxiliary in time of war or national emergency. MARAD, working 

with the Department of Defense (DoD), helps provide a seamless, 

time-phased transition from peacetime to wartime operations, 

while balancing the defense and commercial elements of the maritime transportation system. MARAD also manages the maritime 

security program, the voluntary intermodal sealift agreement program and the ready reserve force, which assures DoD access to 

commercial and strategic sealift and associated intermodal capability. Further, MARAD’s education and training programs through 

the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy and six state maritime academies help create skilled U.S. merchant marine officers. 

MARITIME SECURITY PROGRAM

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $174,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... 174,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 174,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ – – – 

The purpose of the Maritime Security Program (MSP) is to maintain and preserve a U.S. flag merchant fleet to serve the national 

security needs of the United States. The MSP provides direct payments to U.S. flagship 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 $174,000,000 for this account, equal 

to both the budget request and the level enacted in fiscal year 

2010. This recommendation provides funding directly to MARAD 

and assumes that MARAD will continue to administer the program 

with support and consultation of DoD. The Committee’s recommendation provides funding for 60 ships, with a payment per 

ship of $2,900,000. The recommendation will provide the necessary 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
101 

resources for the operation of the MSP through fiscal year 2011. 

Funds are available until expended. 

OPERATIONS AND TRAINING

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $149,750,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... 164,353,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 169,353,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. +19,603,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ +5,000,000 

The operations and training account provides funding for headquarters and field offices to administer and direct MARAD operations and programs. The account also provides funding for the 

operation of the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy and financial assistance to the six state maritime academies. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $169,353,000 for this account, 

$5,000,000 above the budget request and $19,603,000 above the 

amounts provided in fiscal year 2010. Funds provided for this account are to be distributed as follows: 

[Dollars in Thousands] 

Activity Fiscal Year 2011 

Request 

Fiscal Year 2011 

Recommendation 

U.S. Merchant Marine Academy: 

Salary and benefits ............................................................................................ $32,877 $32,877 

Midshipmen program .......................................................................................... 8,402 8,402 

Instructional program ......................................................................................... 4,184 4,184 

Program direction and administration ............................................................... 8,545 8,545 

Maintenance, repair and operating requirements ............................................. 9,112 9,112 

Capital improvements ........................................................................................ 30,900 30,900 

Midshipman fee refunds .................................................................................... 6,000 6,000 

Subtotal, USMMA ....................................................................................... $100,020 $100,020 

State maritime academies: 

Student incentive payments ............................................................................... $2,000 $2,400 

Direct payments ......................................................................................... 2,000 2,550 

Schoolship maintenance and repair .................................................................. 11,007 11,240 

Subtotal, State maritime academies ........................................................ $15,007 $16,190 

MARAD operations: 

Salaries and benefits ......................................................................................... $29,047 $29,047 

Non-discretionary operations .............................................................................. 11,179 11,179 

Information technology ....................................................................................... 6,314 6,314 

Discretionary operations and travel ................................................................... 1,786 1,786 

Maritime program expenses ............................................................................... 1,000 4,817 

Subtotal, MARAD operations ...................................................................... $49,326 $53,143 

Subtotal, operations and training ............................................................. $164,353 $169,353 

United States Merchant Marine Academy.—The U.S. Merchant 

Marine Academy (the Academy or USMMA) provides educational 

programs for men and women to become shipboard officers and 

leaders in the maritime industry. The Committee strongly supports 

the Academy’s goals and mission and believes each of the Academy’s midshipmen should receive the highest quality education. 

The Committee recognizes MARAD’s recent efforts to remedy the 

past mismanagement at the Academy and understands that comprehensive improvements will take time. Therefore, the Committee 

expects a multi-year commitment from MARAD and the Department to meeting the demands these improvements require and 

conducting the necessary oversight. In addition, the Committee 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
102 

continues to include 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 Committee believes this 

process provides increased accountability and improves internal 

controls. 

USMMA Authorization.—In recent years, the Committee has included many incremental authorizing changes to the Academy in 

order to address specific issues. The Committee believes MARAD 

should produce a complete legislative proposal for the USMMA’s reauthorization, which addresses recent issues and presents a path 

forward for the Academy. 

Capital needs, USMMA.—The Committee agrees with the Blue 

Ribbon Panel’s ‘‘USMMA: Red Sky in the Morning: A Report by the 

U.S. Merchant Marine Academy Capital Improvements Advisory 

Panel’’ assessment that the condition of the Academy’s physical 

plant has reached a tipping point. The Committee, recognizing this 

immense capital need, provides the $30,900,000 requested in the 

budget for this purpose. The Committee encourages MARAD and 

the Academy to incorporate green and sustainable building practices in their rehabilitation of the USMMA campus. 

The Committee directs MARAD to submit to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a strategic plan for USMMA 

within 120 days of enactment of this Act. Concurrent with the Blue 

Ribbon Panel, the Committee believes the Academy needs a comprehensive strategic plan for its capital investments, which takes 

into account the future demand for merchant mariners, a detailed 

facility needs assessment and a capitalization plan. In addition to 

these areas, the strategic plan should address the Academy’s response to each of the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Panel. 

Staffing, USMMA.—The Committee was pleased to see funds allocated toward hiring two new professional staff with the requisite 

facilities management and engineering skills to manage the Academy’s Capital Improvement Program in the USMMA’s fiscal year 

2010 financial plan. The Committee believes having the proper 

staff in place to manage the rehabilitation of the USMMA campus 

is critical to this endeavor’s success. Therefore, the Committee directs MARAD to provide quarterly USMMA staffing updates to the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. These reports 

should breakout the number of full time equivalent (FTE) by operating area on board at the beginning of the fiscal year, the number 

of FTE currently on board and the estimated number of FTE on 

board by the end of year. In addition, these reports should list all 

vacant positions at the Academy. 

Midshipman fees.—The Committee includes $6,000,000 requested 

in the budget to compensate midshipman who in previous school 

years were charged more in fees than they owed. 

Recruitment diversity initiative.—The Committee remains concerned about the lack of diversity in the student body at the Academy. Therefore, the Committee includes the requested increase of 

$145,000 to assist with the recruitment efforts of student groups 

underrepresented at the Academy. The Committee directs MARAD 

to submit a status report on this initiative to the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations within six months of enactment of 

this Act. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
103 

State maritime academies.—The Committee has included an increase of $250,000 above last year for the state maritime academies 

(SMA). This additional funding will support the six state maritime 

academies in providing educational programs for future merchant 

marine and commercial ship officers. The state academies produce 

the largest number of new licensed officers in the country. The 

Committee includes $2,400,000 for the student incentive payments 

in order to provide full assistance to 50 cadets at each of the six 

academies at $8,000 each; $2,550,000 for the SMA direct payments 

to provide each academy with the same level assistance as last 

year; and $11,240,000 for schoolship maintenance and repair. The 

Committee remains concerned about the deferred maintenance to 

the training ships at the state maritime academies and directs 

MARAD to include in next year’s budget justifications a multi-year 

plan to invest in the capital needs of these ships. 

Environment and compliance activities.—The Committee recommendation includes a total of $4,000,000 for MARAD’s environment and compliance activities. This funding will be used to support MARAD’s environmental efforts including: air emission reductions for ships and ports; the continued development of an agencywide environmental management system to encourage energy efficiency and alternative energy strategies; and support of partnerships and cooperative efforts with academic, public, and non-governmental entities to advance the research and development of effective ballast water treatment systems and compliance monitoring 

methods. 

Congressional budget justification.—The Committee continues to 

direct MARAD to justify each provision proposed in a section of its 

Congressional budget justification. 

SHIP DISPOSAL

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $15,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... 10,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 10,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. ¥5,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ – – – 

MARAD serves as the federal government’s disposal agent for 

government-owned merchant vessels weighing 1,500 gross tons or 

more. The ship disposal program provides resources to dispose of 

obsolete merchant-type vessels in the National Defense Reserve 

Fleet (NDRF). The Maritime Administration was required by Public Law 106–398 to dispose of its obsolete inventory by the end of 

2006. These vessels pose a significant environmental threat due to 

the presence of hazardous substances such as asbestos and solid 

and liquid polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). MARAD has custody 

of approximately 78 obsolete vessels that are not yet under contract 

for disposal. The obsolete ships are located at the James River Reserve Fleet site in Virginia (16 ships), the Suisun Bay Reserve 

Fleet site in California (52 ships), and the Beaumont Reserve Fleet 

site in Texas (10 ships). 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
104 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for this account, equal 

to the budget request and $5,000,000 below the fiscal year 2010 

funding level. Funds are available until expended. 

Suisun Bay.—The Committee was pleased with the recent 

Suisun Bay Agreement, which resolved environmental concerns 

about the disposal process of 52 obsolete ships in California. The 

Committee hopes this and other recent agreements will revive the 

process and reduce the number of obsolete vessels in NDRF’s fleet. 

Therefore, the Committee directs MARAD to submit a multi-year 

plan to dispose of the remaining obsolete vessels in its fleet to the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 60 days of 

enactment of this Act. This document should include cost estimates 

for each year of the plan. 

Savannah.—Within the funds provided, the Committee recommends $3,000,000 for maintenance and safeguarding of the Nuclear Ship Savannah. The Savannah, the world’s first nuclear powered merchant ship, is a legacy asset assigned to the NDRF in retention status. 

MARITIME GUARANTEED LOAN (TITLE XI) PROGRAM

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $9,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... 3,688,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 3,688,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ...................................................... ¥5,312,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................... – – – 

The Maritime Guaranteed Loan Program, as provided for by 

Title XI of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, provides for guaranteed loans for purchasers of ships from the U.S. shipbuilding industry and for modernization of U.S. shipyards. Funds for administrative expenses for the Title XI program are appropriated to this account, and then paid to operations and training to be obligated and 

outlayed. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $3,688,000 for the Maritime Guaranteed Loan (Title XI) Program, equal to the budget request and 

$5,312,000 below the amounts provided in fiscal year 2010. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—MARITIME ADMINISTRATION

Section 170. The Committee continues a provision that allows 

the Maritime Administration to furnish utilities and services and 

make repairs to any lease, contract, or occupancy involving government property under the control of MARAD and rental payments 

shall be paid into the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts. 

PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 

(PHMSA) was established as an administration within the Department of Transportation (DOT) on November 30, 2004, pursuant to 

the Norman Y. Mineta Research and Special Programs ImproveVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:17 Jul 27, 2010 Jkt 057536 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR564.XXX HR564

pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
105 

ment Act (Public Law 108–246). The PHMSA is responsible for the 

safe transportation of hazardous materials by all modes of transportation including pipelines. The agency’s highest priority is safety, and its work includes developing plans, programs and regulations, as well as overseeing financial assistance programs, which 

focus on preparedness and response. The PHMSA uses safety management principles and security assessments to mitigate 

vulnerabilities and disseminate information concerning hazardous 

materials transportation. 

OPERATIONAL EXPENSES

(PIPELINE SAFETY FUND)

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $21,132,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... 22,383,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 22,383,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. +1,251,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ – – – 

This appropriation finances the program support costs for the 

PHMSA. This includes policy development, legal counsel, budget, 

financial management, civil rights, management, administration 

and agency-wide expenses. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $22,383,000 for PHMSA operational expenses, of which $639,000 shall be derived from the Pipeline 

Safety Fund. This is equal to the budget request and $1,251,000 

above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. The Committee has included bill language directing PHMSA to transfer $1,000,000 to 

pipeline safety to fund pipeline information grants to communities. 

IT Modernization Plan.—PHMSA’s budget requests an additional $650,000 in fiscal year 2011 for the continuation of its IT Modernization Plan, which also supports the agency’s special permits 

and approvals action plan. The Committee approves this request so 

that PHMSA can continue the work it started in fiscal year 2010 

related to data and business analysis for the hazardous materials 

information system, which is a database used for hazmat incident 

reporting. The Committee believes that this funding is vital in 

order for PHMSA to significantly improve data quality, transparency, and the ability to base safety decisions on facts rather 

than assumptions and fragmented data. 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $37,994,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... 40,434,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 40,434,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. +2,440,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ – – – 

The hazardous materials safety program has responsibility for 

the safety and security of hazardous materials shipments by commercial air, truck, railroad and vessel. The agency is the primary 

resource and regulatory authority for hazardous materials safety 

and promulgates regulations which cover hazardous materials safeVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:17 Jul 27, 2010 Jkt 057536 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR564.XXX HR564

pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
106 

ty security, shipper and carrier operations, training, and packaging 

and container specifications. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee provides $40,434,000 to continue the agency’s hazardous materials safety functions, which is $2,440,000 above 

the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and equal to the budget request. 

Multimodal hazardous materials intelligence portal.—Included 

within the hazardous materials program appropriation is 

$2,107,000, as requested, to fund the multimodal hazardous materials intelligence portal. This funding level is $847,000 above the 

fiscal year 2010 enacted level. The portal integrates inspection, incident, regulation, penalty, and other data collected by multiple administrations. Integrated data allows PHMSA and other users to 

develop comprehensive, risk-based strategies to identify emerging 

safety issues. The Committee notes that this system is used by and 

benefits the Federal Aviation Administration, the Federal Motor 

Carrier Safety Administration, the Federal Railroad Administration, as well as the United States Coast Guard, and this additional 

funding will eliminate the need for PHMSA to rely on funding from 

the other modal administrations within DOT. 

Hazardous materials information system.—This web-based system is an integral tool used for daily hazardous materials operations, workflow, and document management. The Committee continues to encourage PHMSA to ensure that this important system 

is searchable and useful to other operating administrations and 

that the data is accurate and verified. The Committee provides 

$2,255,000 in fiscal year 2011, as requested, to continue with the 

modernization of this system. 

PIPELINE SAFETY

(PIPELINE SAFETY FUND)

(OIL SPILL LIABILITY TRUST FUND)

(Pipeline safety 

fund) 

(Oil spill liability 

trust fund) Total 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ................................................ $86,334,000 $18,905,000 $105,239,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ............................................. 92,206,000 18,905,000 111,111,000 

Recommended in the bill ......................................................... 92,206,000 18,905,000 111,111,000 

Bill compared to: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ....................................... +5,872,000 – – – +5,872,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 .................................... – – – – – – – – – 

PHMSA oversees the safety, security, and environmental protection of pipelines through analysis of data, damage prevention, education and training, development and enforcement of regulations 

and policies, research and development, grants for states pipeline 

safety programs, and emergency planning and response to accidents. The pipeline safety program is responsible for a national 

regulatory program to protect the public against the risks to life 

and property in the transportation of natural gas, petroleum and 

other hazardous materials by pipeline. The enactment of the Oil 

Pollution Act of 1990 expanded the role of the pipeline safety program in environmental protection and resulted in a new emphasis 

on spill prevention and containment of oil and hazardous substances from pipelines. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
107 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $111,111,000 to continue pipeline 

safety operations, research and development, and state grants-inaid in fiscal year 2011, which is $5,872,000 above the fiscal year 

2010 enacted level and the same as the budget request. The bill 

specifies that of the total appropriation, $18,905,000 shall be derived from the oil spill liability trust fund and the remaining 

$92,206,000 shall be derived from the pipeline safety fund. 

State pipeline safety grants.—PHMSA’s budget requests 

$41,945,000 for fiscal year 2011 for the state pipeline safety grants 

program, which is $3,986,000, or almost 11 percent, above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. Section 2(c) of the PIPES Act (49 

U.S.C. 60107(a)), raised the Secretary of Transportation’s grant 

matching authority from 50 percent to 80 percent. The Committee 

supports PHMSA’s goal to increase the federal funding annually 

until the 80 percent cap is reached. 

Pipeline integrity management.—The Committee recommends 

$9,658,000 for PHMSA’s pipeline integrity management program in 

fiscal year 2011, as requested. This $1,000,000 increase over the 

fiscal year 2010 enacted level will allow the agency to conduct 

timely and technically sufficient analyses of the nontraditional design and operating parameters of proposed natural and hazardous 

liquid pipelines in Alaska, as well as other major interstate pipeline projects already proposed or underway in the lower 48 states, 

in order to meet the construction schedule of these projects. 

State one-call grants.—The Committee directs that no less than 

$1,053,000 of the funds provided shall be for state one-call grants, 

as requested. 

Pipeline safety improvements.—While the Committee recognizes 

that pipeline safety improvements have been made, exemplified by 

the declining average fatality rate associated with pipeline incidents over the last 20 years, the recent explosion at a natural gas 

facility in Texas and the underground oil pipeline leak in Utah 

have reinforced the need to remain vigilant in seeking continued 

incremental improvements. Furthermore, the BP oil disaster in the 

Gulf of Mexico has demonstrated the catastrophic human and environmental impacts that can occur when lapses in oversight of oil 

and gas systems occurs. 

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has investigated numerous incidents and provided PHMSA with recommendations for improving the agency’s safety oversight. Specifically, in response to a fatal 2007 accident in Mississippi, the NTSB 

investigated and concluded that current inspection and testing programs are not sufficiently reliable to identify features associated 

with longitudinal seam failures of electric resistance welded (ERW) 

pipe prior to catastrophic failure in operating pipelines. The Committee directs PHMSA to conduct a comprehensive study to identify actions that can be implemented by pipeline operators to eliminate catastrophic longitudinal seam failures in ERW pipes. At a 

minimum, the study should include assessments of the effectiveness and effects of in-line inspection tools, hydrostatic pressure 

tests, and spike pressure tests; pipe material strength characteristics and failure mechanisms; the effects of aging on ERW pipelines; 

operational factors; and data collection and predictive analysis. The 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
108 

Committee directs PHMSA to submit a report to the House and 

Senate Committees on Appropriations and to the NTSB by June 1, 

2011, with the results of this study. 

In addition, the Committee is acutely aware of the findings in 

the report Human Factors Analysis of Pipeline Monitoring and 

Control Operations that analyzed the role of human factors in ten 

severe accidents. Accordingly, the Committee directs the Department of Transportation Inspector General to review PHMSA’s implementation of Federal pipeline safety regulations, 49 CFR Parts 

192 and 195, to address human factors and other aspects of control 

room management for pipelines where controllers use supervisory 

control and data acquisition systems. The review should cover, but 

is not limited to, the processes in place to validate operators’ individual management procedure plans in the absence of standardized 

requirements and PHMSA’s process for verifying implementation of 

the required management plans after their August 1, 2011 submission deadline. The Committee directs the Inspector General to report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by 

September 1, 2011, with the results of that review. 

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS GRANTS

(EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUND)

(Emergency preparedness fund) (Emergency preparedness grant program) 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ................................................................................... $188,000 ($28,318,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ............................................................................... 188,000 (28,318,000) 

Recommended in the bill ............................................................................................ 188,000 (28,318,000) 

Bill compared to: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .......................................................................... – – – (– – –) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ...................................................................... – – – (– – –) 

The Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 

1990 (Public Law 101–615) requires PHMSA to: (1) develop and implement a reimbursable emergency preparedness grant program; 

(2) monitor public sector emergency response training and planning 

and provide technical assistance to states, political subdivisions 

and Indian tribes; and (3) develop and update periodically a mandatory training curriculum for emergency responders. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $28,318,000 for the emergency preparedness grants program, which is the same as the fiscal year 

2010 enacted level and the budget request. 

RESEARCH AND INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY ADMINISTRATION

The Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA) 

was established as an administration within the Department of 

Transportation (DOT) effective November 30, 2004, pursuant to the 

Norman Y. Mineta Research and Special Programs Improvement 

Act, Public Law 108–426. As DOT’s lead organization for research 

and innovation, RITA’s mission is to provide strategic clarity to 

DOT’s multi-modal and intermodal research efforts, while coordinating the multifaceted research agenda of the department. 

RITA coordinates, facilitates, and reviews the Department’s research and development programs and activities; advances innovaVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:17 Jul 27, 2010 Jkt 057536 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR564.XXX HR564

pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
109 

tive technologies, including intelligent transportation systems; performs comprehensive transportation system research, analysis, and 

reporting; and provides education and training in transportation 

and transportation-related fields through the John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, the Transportation Safety 

Institute, and the University Transportation Centers (UTC) Program. 

Also included within RITA is the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), funded from the Federal Highway Administration’s 

federal-aid highway account. BTS is responsible for developing and 

disseminating timely, relevant, and high quality transportation 

data and information for all modes to public and private transportation decision makers. 

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $13,007,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... 17,200,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 18,900,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ...................................................... 5,893,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................... 1,700,000 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The bill includes $18,900,000 to continue research and development activities in fiscal year 2011, which is $5,893,000 greater 

than fiscal year 2010 enacted and $1,700,000 greater than the 

budget request. 

Administrative Expenses.—The Committee provides $7,135,000 

for administrative expenses, an increase of $164,000 over fiscal 

year 2010 enacted and a decrease of $65,000 from the fiscal year 

2011 request. This funding level is sufficient for 26.5 full-time 

equivalents (FTEs), an increase of .5 FTE from fiscal year 2010 enacted. The Committee does not provide additional funds outside of 

salaries and benefits for the additional .5 FTE and anticipates 

RITA absorbing this FTE into other current service cost levels. 

Research Programs.—Within the fiscal year 2010 recommended 

funding level, the Committee provides $11,765,000 for RITA’s research, development, and technology (RD&T) programs as follows: 

Alternative Fuels Research and Development (R&D) ..................... $500,000 

Research, Development, and Technology (RD&T) Coordination .... 900,000 

Nationwide Differential Global Positioning System (NDGPS) ....... 9,400,000 

Positioning, Navigation and Timing (PN&T) ................................... 965,000 

The Committee’s recommendation for research programs represents an increase of $5,729,000 over fiscal year 2010 and an increase of $1,765,000 over the budget request. The Committee funds 

the Alternative Fuels R&D and the RD&T Coordination at the 

budget request. 

The Committee funds PN&T at $965,000, largely funding the request of $1,000,000. This is an increase of $565,000 from the fiscal 

year 2010 enacted level. The Committee funds NDGPS at $9,400,000, which is $4,800,000 

above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and $1,800,000 above the 

fiscal year 2011 request. The reasons for this increase are twofold. 

First, the Committee funds a $1,000,000 increase to Operations 

and Maintenance (O&M), equal to the requested increase for O&M. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
110 

This increase will allow for proper servicing and tower inspections 

to prevent service loss and/or system failures. In some instances, 

towers have not been inspected in more than four years. Second, 

the Committee funds the equipment recapitalization at $3,800,000, 

an increase of $1,800,000 over the budget request. At present, 

NDGPS equipment is operating beyond its service life, which not 

only increases the risk of system failures, but manifests as higher 

costs in the O&M account, now and into the future. While the request estimates the total cost of recapitalization at $4,000,000 over 

two years, the Committee funds NDGPS at $3,800,000 in fiscal 

year 2011, allowing for upfront savings in purchase of the new 

equipment. 

The bill also includes language that allows funds received from 

states, counties, municipalities, other public authorities, and private sources for expenses incurred for training to be credited to 

this appropriation. 

BUREAU OF TRANSPORTATION STATISTICS

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... ($28,000,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... (30,000,000) 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... (27,000,000) 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ...................................................... (¥1,000,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................... (¥3,000,000) 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The most recent long-term surface transportation authorization 

act, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity 

Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU), expired on September 30, 

2009. Since that time, Congress has passed several short-term extension bills that have continued to provide contract authority for 

the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. However, the current extension will expire on December 31, 2010. Because reauthorization 

actions have not yet been completed, the Committee has continued 

the fiscal year 2010 program structure for the account and has assumed that the funding levels provided for the first quarter of fiscal year 2011 will be extended and annualized for the remainder 

of the year. 

The Committee notes that the Federal Aviation Administration’s 

Air Traffic Organization budget request includes $4,000,000 for the 

Office of Airline Statistics within BTS. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $75,114,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... 79,772,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 86,406,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ...................................................... +11,292,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................... +6,634,000 

The Inspector General’s office was established in 1978 to provide 

an objective and independent organization that would be more effective in: (1) preventing and detecting fraud, waste, and abuse in 

departmental programs and operations; and (2) providing a means 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
111 

of keeping the Secretary of Transportation and the Congress fully 

and currently informed of problems and deficiencies in the administration of such programs and operations. According to the authorizing legislation, the Inspector General is to report dually to the 

Secretary of Transportation and to the Congress. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation provides $86,406,000 for activities of the Office of Inspector General (OIG), an increase of 

$11,292,000 above fiscal year 2010 and $6,634,000 above the budget request. 

Full-time equivalent staff years (FTE).—Funding is sufficient to 

finance 426 FTE in fiscal year 2011, an increase of 8 FTE above 

the fiscal year 2010 level as requested in the budget. 

Mandatory cost increases.—Consistent with the budget request, 

the Committee provides the OIG with the funds necessary to meet 

mandatory increases above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level, in 

the following amounts: 

Amount 

Salaries and benefits ....................................................................................................................................... +$1,960,000 

Working capital fund ........................................................................................................................................ +212,000 

Rental payments to GSA/rental security payments to DHS ............................................................................. +190,000 

Inflation ............................................................................................................................................................ +94,000 

Total ......................................................................................................................................................... +$2,456,000 

New or expanded programs.—In addition to the mandatory cost 

increases identified above, the Committee recommendation includes 

$2,202,000, as requested, for the OIG to expand existing programs 

or embark on new initiatives. Included within this amount is 

$1,525,000 to fund the salaries, benefits, and operating costs associated with 8 additional FTE. The Committee continues to value 

the work of the OIG in its oversight of departmental programs and 

activities and is committed to providing the Inspector General with 

the resources necessary to ensure that the office continues to complete its mission at the highest level. 

Funding from other agencies.—Consistent with prior years, the 

OIG’s budget for fiscal year 2011 requests $6,634,000 from other 

agencies within the Department, as noted below, to fund audit and 

investigative efforts associated with those agencies: 

Federal Highway Administration ...................................................... $3,809,000 

Federal Transit Administration ........................................................ 2,075,000 

Federal Aviation Administration ...................................................... 650,000 

National Transportation Safety Board ............................................. 100,000 

The Committee recommends fully funding the OIG through a direct appropriation, rather than relying on transfers and offsetting 

collections. The Committee believes that this provides greater 

transparency with regard to the actual funding level of the office 

and eliminates the need for the OIG to rely on receiving funding 

from the agencies it is auditing. This increase in the appropriation 

to the OIG is offset by corresponding reductions to the budgets of 

the operating administrations. 

Unfair business practices.—The bill maintains language first enacted in fiscal year 2000 which authorizes the OIG to investigate 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
112 

allegations of fraud and unfair or deceptive practices and unfair 

methods of competition by air carriers and ticket agents. 

Audit reports.—The Committee requests that the OIG to continue 

forwarding copies of all audit reports to the Committee immediately after they are issued, and to continue to make the Committee aware immediately of any review that recommends cancellation or modifications to any major acquisition project or grant, or 

which recommends significant budgetary savings. The OIG is also 

directed to withhold from public distribution for a period of 15 days 

any final audit or investigative report which was requested by the 

House or Senate Committees on Appropriations. 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

The Surface Transportation Board (STB) was created by the 

Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995 and is 

the successor agency to the Interstate Commerce Commission. The 

STB is an economic regulatory and adjudicatory body charged by 

Congress with resolving railroad rate and service disputes and reviewing proposed railroad mergers. The STB is independent, although it is affiliated administratively with the Department of 

Transportation. The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement 

Act of 2008 (PRIIA) further expanded the responsibilities of the 

STB. 

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $29,066,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... 25,988,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 31,249,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ...................................................... +2,183,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................... +5,261,000 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $31,249,000 for 

fiscal year 2011, which is $2,183,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and $5,261,000 above the fiscal year 2011 budget request. Included in the recommendation is an offsetting collection of 

$1,250,000 from user fees established by the STB Chairman. The 

Committee recommendation is consistent with the budget request 

submitted independently by the Surface Transportation Board. 

Uniform railroad costing system.—The Committee recommends 

$1,000,000 for the STB to continue its work on updating the Uniform Railroad Costing System. This system is used to set the 

Board’s rate jurisdiction, is the basis for Board decisions, and estimates the variable cost of transporting a given commodity for each 

Class I railroad. The system was originally adopted in 1989. The 

Committee was pleased with the level of detail provided in the 

STB’s ‘‘Report to Congress Regarding the Uniform Rail Costing 

System’’ and looks forward to periodic updates on the STB’s 

progress on this initiative. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Section 180. The Committee continues the provision allowing the 

Department of Transportation (DOT) to use funds for aircraft; 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
113 

motor vehicles; liability insurance; uniforms; or allowances, as authorized by law. 

Section 181. The Committee continues the provision limiting appropriations for services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 to the rate for 

an Executive Level IV. 

Section 182. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

funds in this act for salaries and expenses of more than 110 political and Presidential appointees in the DOT and prohibits political 

and Presidential personnel from being assigned on temporary detail outside the DOT. 

Section 183. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

funds for the implementation of section 404 of title 23, United 

States Code. 

Section 184. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

recipients of funds made available in this Act from releasing personal information, including social security number, medical or disability information, and photographs from a driver’s license or 

motor vehicle record, without express consent of the person to 

whom such information pertains; and prohibits the withholding of 

funds provided in this Act for any grantee is a state is in noncompliance with this provision. 

Section 185. The Committee continues the provision allowing 

funds received by the Federal Highway Administration, Federal 

Transit Administration, and the Federal Railroad Administration 

from states, counties, municipalities, other public authorities, and 

private sources to be used for expenses incurred for training may 

be credited to each agency’s respective accounts. 

Section 186. The Committee continues the provision requiring 

funding of certain programs, projects and activities identified in the 

accompanying report within the accounts of the Federal Highway 

Administration, Federal Railroad Administration, and the Federal 

Transit Administration. 

Section 187. The Committee continues the provision authorizing 

the Secretary of Transportation to allow issuers of any preferred 

stock to redeem or repurchase preferred stock sold to the DOT. 

Section 188. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

funds from being used to make a grant unless the Secretary of 

Transportation notifies the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations not less than three full business days before any discretionary grant award, letter of intent, or full funding grant agreement totaling $1,000,000 or more is announced by the department 

or its modal administrations, and directs the Secretary to give concurrent notification for any ‘‘quick release’’ of funds from the Federal Highway Administration’s emergency relief program. 

Section 189. The Committee continues a provision allowing funds 

received from rebates, refunds, and similar sources to be credited 

to appropriations of the DOT. 

Section 190. The Committee continues a provision allowing 

amounts from improper payments to a third party contractor that 

are lawfully recovered by the DOT to be available to cover expenses 

incurred in the recovery of such payments. 

Section 191. The Committee continues a provision mandating 

that reprogramming actions are to be approved or denied solely by 

the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
114 

Section 192. The Committee continues a provision capping the 

amount of fees the Surface Transportation Board can charge and 

collect for rate complaints filed at the amount authorized for court 

civil suit filing fees. 

Section 193. The Committee continues a provision allowing the 

Department to provide payments in advance to carry out its contract for the implementation of a debit card program for distribution of transit benefits. 

Section 194. The Committee includes a provision providing $7,622,655 in increase the Department’s acquisition workforce capacity and capabilities. 

TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN 

DEVELOPMENT 

MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

Management and Administration provides operating support to 

the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), including salaries and expenses (S&E) for all HUD employees. The 

Committee supports the Department’s efforts to transform the way 

HUD does business and recommends the Department first and 

foremost focus its efforts on its human capital needs. Therefore, the 

Committee directs HUD to provide quarterly updates on its efforts 

to improve the Department’s hiring process, the performance appraisal process, the succession planning process and the budgeting 

of S&E resources. In addition, these reports should include updates 

on the number of FTE projected for each office in the Department 

compared to last year’s actual level and the authorized level for the 

current fiscal year. 

Congressional budget justification.—The Committee directs HUD 

to provide in its fiscal year 2012 budget request, and all future 

budget requests, detailed staffing justifications for each office within the Department, including an organizational chart for each operating area within the Department. Further, the Department is directed to include in the budget justification funding levels for the 

past five fiscal years for all offices. 

The budget submitted by the Department must also include a detailed justification for the incremental funding increases, decreases 

and FTE fluctuations being requested program, activity, or program element. The Committee encourages the Department to format the discussion of these changes in a similar format to the Department of Transportation Office of the Secretary Salaries and Expenses justification for each of its offices. In addition, the Committee directs the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to examine the Department’s method for estimating and allocating S&E 

resources. 

Reprogramming.—As in previous years, the Committee reiterates 

that the Department must limit the reprogramming of funds between the program, projects, and activities within each account to 

not more than $500,000 without prior written 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. Further, it is the intent of the Committee that all carryover 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
115 

funds in the various accounts, including recaptures and de-obligations, are subject to the normal reprogramming requirements outlined above. 

Reorganizations.—The Committee expects one month prior notice 

of office, program or activity reorganizations. Additionally, the 

Committee requires notice 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. 

New initiatives.—The Committee reiterates that no changes may 

be made to any program, project, or activity if it is construed to 

have policy implications, without prior approval of the Committees 

on Appropriations. The Committee is dismayed that on many occasions the Department has taken action on new initiatives without 

seeking, or before receiving, formal approval, as required in Section 

405 of the appropriations act. For example, the Committee was displeased to learn of the establishment of the Disaster Relief Enhancement Fund (DREF), a diversion of funds to a new initiative 

without an approved reprogramming request. Examples such as 

this diminish the Department’s credibility, especially in light of the 

Department’s recent requests for increased flexibility. 

Relationship between HUD and the Committee on Appropriations.—The primary relationship between the Committee and the 

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) exists via 

the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, or the budget office. This 

relationship, an absolute necessity in structuring the annual appropriations Act, is based on the sharing of a wide range of budgetary 

and cost information. The Committee retains the right to call upon 

all offices and agencies within the Department, but the primary 

connection between the two entities exists through the budget office. To that end, the Committee expects that all offices within 

HUD will work with the budget office to provide timely and accurate information for submission to the Committee. In particular, 

the Committee is dismayed that HUD has not provided all of the 

reports or followed all of the directives that were required in the 

fiscal year 2010 Appropriations Act. Therefore, the Committee has 

addressed many of these concerns in bill language. The Department is reminded that directives and reports mandated in the 

House or Senate Appropriations reports are not optional, unless revised or eliminated by the Statement of Managers accompanying 

the Act. Finally, the Committee cautions HUD that Section 405 of 

the Appropriations Act governs the creation of new offices and policies. 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $26,855,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... 30,265,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 30,265,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. +3,410,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ – – – 

The Executive Direction account encompasses the offices of the 

major policymakers at the Department, including all of the Senateconfirmed political appointees. The responsibilities of the Department are administered under the supervision and direction of the 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
116 

Secretary, who is responsible for the administration of all programs, functions and authorities of the Department. The Deputy 

Secretary assists the Secretary in the execution of these duties and 

responsibilities, and serves as Acting Secretary in the absence of 

the Secretary. 

In fiscal year 2010 the Department created the Office of the 

Chief Operating Officer to manage and provide comprehensive 

strategy for HUD’s support operations, with a particular focus on 

the transformation of HUD’s human capital, procurement, and information technology functions. In addition to the Office of the Secretary, Deputy Secretary and the Chief Operating Officer, the offices of seven Assistant Secretaries are included, as well as the immediate offices of the Chief Financial Officer and the General 

Counsel. This account also includes the activities of two offices of 

highly specialized staff with Department-wide responsibility, the 

Office of Hearings and Appeals and the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization. 

The Office of Hearings and Appeals is an independent adjudicatory office within the Office of the Secretary whose administrative 

judges conduct hearings and make determinations for the Department in accordance with existing statutes and departmental policies, regulations, and procedures. The Office of Hearings and Appeals is headed by a Director appointed by the Secretary who supervises the administrative judges, administrative law judges of 

the Office of Administrative Law Judges, and support staff. 

The Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization is 

responsible for the implementation and execution of the Department’s activities on behalf of small businesses, minority businesses, 

businesses owned and controlled by disadvantaged persons, and 

firms, in accordance with Sections 8 and 15 of the Small Business 

Act, as amended. For the functions and responsibilities required by 

this law, the Director shall be responsible and report directly to the 

Secretary or Deputy Secretary. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $30,265,000 for this account, which 

is $3,410,000 above the level enacted in the fiscal year 2010 bill 

and equal to the budget request. The funds are to be distributed 

as follows: 

Immediate Office of the Secretary and Deputy Secretary .............. $7,674,000 

Office of the Chief Operating Officer ................................................ 549,000 

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 Housing .. 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 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
117 

In fiscal year 2008, the structure of the Management and Administration account was altered to separate the salaries and expenses 

of the Department from one account into nine accounts. This 

change was made to improve transparency and to give the Committee greater oversight of this large account. By splitting the Senate-confirmed Secretary, Deputy Secretary and Assistant Secretaries into the ‘‘Executive Direction’’ account, the Committee aimed 

to increase accountability over the lead policymakers of the Department. The Committee instructs the Department to use this structure in submitting all future budgets. 

As this structure was created to increase oversight, the Committee directs HUD to only fund senior policymakers out of the Executive Direction account. In addition, all senior advisors to the 

Secretary should be funded directly through the Office of the Secretary. The Committee directs the Department to specify the number of senior advisors in the Office of the Secretary salaries and expenses budget justification. 

The Secretary is authorized to transfer funds within offices 

under Executive Direction following written notification to the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, provided that no 

amount for any office may be increased or decreased by more than 

5 percent by all transfers. Notice of any change in funding greater 

than 5 percent must be submitted to and receive prior written approval from the Committees on Appropriations. 

Further, the Secretary must provide quarterly status updates to 

the Committees regarding on pending congressional reports. The 

bill also provides that no more than $25,000 provided under the 

immediate Office of the Secretary shall be available for the official 

reception and representation expenses as the Secretary may determine. In addition, the bill includes a provision requiring the Department to notify the Committees on Appropriations one month in 

advance of any international travel. 

ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $537,011,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... 538,552,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 538,552,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. +1,541,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ – – – 

This account funds the personnel compensation and benefits of 

ten program offices, as well as non-personnel expenses for the entire Department, such as travel and training. Included in the account are salaries and expenses of the programs listed in the following paragraphs. 

The Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer provides general 

support services to all offices and divisions throughout HUD. These 

services include: management analysis, human resource management, employee training, performance analysis; providing general 

building and office services; as well as carrying out special activities directly assigned by the Secretary of HUD. 

The Office of Departmental Operations and Coordination (ODOC) 

performs a broad range of cross-program functions that assist the 

Secretary and the Deputy Secretary with HUD’s continuing management improvement initiatives. Key responsibilities include: 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
118 

managing the Department’s Compliance and Monitoring Program; 

managing HUD’s oversight and monitoring of labor standards for 

HUD-funded construction projects; managing HUD’s Quality Management Review process; oversight of OIG and GAO reviews and 

audits; and coordinating Executive Management and Field Office 

Management Meetings for the Deputy Secretary. 

The Office of Field Policy and Management (FPM) serves as the 

principal advisor providing oversight and communicating Secretarial priorities and policies to field office staff and HUD clients. 

The Regional and Field Office Directors act as the operational managers in each of the field offices. The Regional and Field Office Directors manage and coordinate cross program delivery of the Department’s programs in the field. 

The Office of the Chief Procurement Officer’s (OCPO) mission is 

to provide high-quality acquisition support services to all HUD program offices by purchasing necessary operational and mission-related goods and services; provide advice, guidance and technical assistance to all departmental offices on matters concerning procurement; assist program offices in defining and specifying their procurement needs; develop and maintain all procurement guidance 

including regulations, policies, and procedures; and assist in the 

development of sound acquisition strategies. 

The Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) provides leadership in instituting financial integrity, fiscal responsibility and accountability. The CFO is responsible for all aspects of financial 

management, accounting and budgetary matters; ensures the Department establishes and meets financial management goals and 

objectives; ensures the Department is in compliance with financial 

management legislation and directives; analyzes budgetary implications of policy and legislative proposals; and provides technical 

oversight with respect to all budget activities throughout the Department. 

Appropriations Attorneys.—During consideration of the fiscal 

year 2003 appropriations legislation, it became apparent to the 

Committee that both the Committee and the Department would be 

better served if the attorneys responsible for appropriations matters were housed in the Office of the Chief Financial Officer 

(OCFO), and the fiscal year 2003 Act provided funds and FTE to 

the OCFO to accommodate four attorneys transferred from the Office of General Counsel (OGC). Since that time, the Committee has 

routinely received prompt, accurate, and reliable information from 

the OCFO on various appropriations law matters. For fiscal year 

2011, the Committee continues to fund appropriations attorneys in 

the OCFO and directs HUD to maintain this responsibility within 

the OCFO. 

The General Counsel, as the chief legal officer and legal voice of 

the Department, is the legal adviser to the Secretary and other 

principal staff of the Department. It is the responsibility of the Office of the General Counsel (OGC) to provide legal opinions, advice 

and services with respect to all programs and activities, and to provide counsel and assistance in the development of the Department’s 

programs and policies. 

The mission of the Office of Departmental Equal Employment 

Opportunity (ODEEO) is to ensure the enforcement of Federal laws 

relating to the elimination of all forms of discrimination in the DeVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:17 Jul 27, 2010 Jkt 057536 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR564.XXX HR564

pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
119 

partment’s employment practices. The mission is carried out 

through the functions of three divisions: the Affirmative Employment division, the Alternative Dispute Resolution division, and the 

Equal Employment Opportunity division. 

The Office of Faith-based and Community Initiatives conducts 

outreach, recommends changes to HUD policies and programs that 

present barriers to grassroots organizations, and initiates special 

projects, such as grant writing training. 

The Office of Sustainability provides technical and policy support 

for energy, green building, and transportation programs at HUD 

and other relevant departments. The office will manage new grant 

programs to catalyze the home retrofit market and promote sustainable community planning and development. This office will also 

coordinate inter- and intra-agency efforts to ensure that housing 

programs targeting the built environment are well coordinated 

with the programs of the Department of Transportation, the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and 

other relevant Federal agencies. The office will also coordinate with 

the Office of Policy Development and Research to develop and undertake integrated research to support efforts leading to sustainable housing and regional planning. 

The Office of Strategic Planning and Management drives organizational, programmatic, and operational change across the Department to maximize efficiency and performance. The office will facilitate HUD’s strategic planning process by identifying the Department’s strategic priorities and transformational change initiatives, 

create and manage work plans for targeted transformation projects, 

and develop key program performance measures and targets for 

monitoring. 

The Office of Disaster and Emergency Management will advise 

the Secretary, Deputy Secretary, and Departmental leadership on 

all aspects of disaster preparedness, response, recovery, and emergency management, and will implement programs to mitigate 

threats to employees, public resources, and critical infrastructure. 

The Office will work with key stakeholders, including the Department of Homeland Security and White House National Security 

Staff, to establish policy and ensure compliance with directives for 

safety and welfare of HUD equities and partners. Through Regional Disaster Coordinators, the Office will ensure preparedness 

and response across the nation. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
120 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer Personnel Compensation and Benefits ............................................................................. $65,049,000 

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 .................................................................................... 13,861,000 

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 ............................................... 3,115,000 

Office of 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 Disaster and Emergency Management .............................. 4,875,000 

Non-personnel expenses ..................................................................... 264,479,000 

The Committee recommends $538,552,000 for this account, which 

is $1,541,000 above the level enacted in the fiscal year 2010 bill, 

and equal to the budget request. The Committee will continue to 

monitor hiring and personnel needs as the appropriation process 

moves forward. 

The bill provides funding in this account for necessary administrative and non-administrative expenses of the Department. Funds 

may be used for advertising and promotional activities that support 

the housing mission area. Further, the Secretary is authorized to 

transfer funds between offices under this account, after such transfer has been submitted to, and received written approval by, the 

Committees on Appropriations. No appropriation for any office may 

be increased or decreased by more than 10 percent. In addition, the 

bill includes a provision requiring the Department to notify the 

Committees on Appropriations one month in advance of any international travel. Finally, the bill contains a general provision (Sec. 

234), as requested in the budget, which includes an additional 

$2,070,635 to increase the Department’s acquisition workforce capacity and capabilities. Finally, the Committee includes 

$11,000,000, as requested in the budget, for modernization of the 

Robert C. Weaver, HUD Headquarters building. 

PERSONNEL COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS

PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $197,074,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... 197,282,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 197,282,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. +208,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ – – – 

The Office of Public and Indian Housing (PIH) oversees the administration of HUD’s Public Housing, Housing Choice Voucher, 

and Native American Programs. PIH is responsible for administering and managing programs authorized and funded by Congress under the basic provisions of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
121 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $197,282,000 for this account, which 

is $208,000 above the level enacted for fiscal year 2010 and is 

equal to the budget request. 

COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $98,989,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... 105,768,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 105,768,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. 6,779,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ – – – 

The Office of Community Planning and Development (CPD) assists in developing viable communities by promoting integrated approaches that provide decent housing, a suitable living environment, and expand economic opportunities for low and moderate-income persons. The primary means toward this end is the development of partnerships among all levels of government and the private sector, including for-profit and nonprofit organizations. This 

Office is responsible for the effective administration of Community 

Development Block Grant programs (CDBG), Home Investment 

Partnership (HOME), Brownfields Economic Development Initiative (BEDI), Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program 

(SHOP), Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) 

and other HUD community development programs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $105,768,000 for this account, which 

is $6,779,000 above the level enacted in the fiscal year 2010 bill 

and equal to the budget request. 

HOUSING

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $374,887,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... 395,917,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 395,917,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. +21,030,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ – – – 

The Office of Housing implements programmatic, regulatory, financial, and operational responsibilities under the leadership of six 

deputy assistant secretaries and the field staff for activities related 

to Federal Housing Administration (FHA) multifamily and single 

family homeownership programs, the housing counseling grant program, and assisted rental housing programs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $395,917,000 for this account, which 

is $21,030,000 above the level enacted in the fiscal year 2010 bill 

and is equal to the budget request. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
122 

OFFICE OF THE GOVERNMENT NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $11,095,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... 10,902,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 10,902,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. ¥193,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ – – – 

The Office of the Government National Mortgage Association 

(GNMA) supports the Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS) program, 

which is the guarantee of timely payment of principal and interest 

to investors on the mortgage-backed securities pools of FHA, Veterans Affairs, Rural Development, and Public and Indian Housing 

guaranteed loans. The mission of GNMA is to expand affordable 

housing in America by linking domestic and global capital markets 

to the Nation’s housing markets. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $10,902,000, which is $193,000 

below the level enacted in fiscal year 2010 and equal to the budget 

request. The Committee recommends that the salaries and expenses of GNMA be paid from revenue earned. As GNMA plays a 

significant role in helping the housing sector respond to and recover from the subprime crisis, the Committee recommends this additional flexibility to ensure that GNMA will be staffed adequately 

to respond to the increase in FHA guarantees. 

POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $21,138,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... 23,588,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 23,588,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. +2,450,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ – – – 

The Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R) directs 

the Department’s annual research agenda to support the research 

and evaluation of housing and other departmental initiatives to improve HUD’s effectiveness and operational efficiencies. Research 

proposals are determined through consultation with senior staff 

from each HUD program office, the Office of Management and 

Budget, and Congress as well as discussion with key HUD stakeholders. The office addresses all inquiries regarding key housing 

economic information such as the American Housing Survey, Fair 

Market Rents, Median Family Income Limits, annual housing goals 

and oversight of the Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs), 

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and mortgage market analyses. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $23,588,000 for this account, which 

is $2,450,000 above the level enacted in fiscal year 2010 and is 

equal to the budget request. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
123 

FAIR HOUSING AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $71,800,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... 67,964,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 67,964,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. ¥3,836,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ – – – 

The Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) is responsible for developing policies and guidance, and for providing 

technical support for enforcement of the Fair Housing Act and the 

civil rights statues. FHEO serves as the central point for the formulation, clearance and dissemination of policies, intra-departmental clearances, and public information related to fair housing 

issues. FHEO receives, investigates, conciliates and recommends 

the issuance of charges of discrimination and determinations of 

non-compliance for complaints filed under Title VIII and other civil 

rights authorities. Additionally, FHEO conducts civil rights compliance reviews and compliance reviews under Section 3. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $67,964,000 for this account, which 

is $3,836,000 below the level enacted in the fiscal year 2010 bill 

and equal to the budget request. 

OFFICE OF HEALTHY HOMES AND LEAD HAZARD CONTROL

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $7,151,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... 6,762,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 6,762,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. ¥389,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ – – – 

The Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control 

(OHHLHC) is directly responsible for the administration of the 

Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction program authorized by Title X 

of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992. The office also addresses multiple housing-related hazards affecting the 

health of residents, particularly children. The office develops leadbased paint regulations, guidelines, and policies applicable to HUD 

programs, and enforces the Lead Disclosure Rule issued under 

Title X. For both lead-based paint and healthy homes issues, the 

office designs and administers programs for grants, training, research, education and information dissemination, and serves as the 

Department’s central information source for the Secretary, the Congress, HUD staff, HUD grantees, state and local governments and 

the public. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $6,762,000 for this account, which is 

$389,000 below the level enacted in the fiscal year 2010 bill and 

equal to the budget request. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
124 

PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING

TRANSFORMING RENTAL ASSISTANCE

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... $350,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... – – – 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ ¥350,000,000 

The fiscal year 2011 budget request proposed the first phase of 

a new multi-year initiative to transform up to 13 different rental 

assistance programs into one program that converts these units to 

long-term property-based rental assistance contracts. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends no funding for the Transforming 

Rental Assistance (TRA) program. While the Administration submitted a legislative proposal to Congress in mid-May, it has not yet 

seen legislative action and remains unauthorized. 

TRA represents a significant shift in policy for HUD and its inventory of nearly 1.2 million public housing units, as well as a myriad of other HUD-assisted housing units. TRA’s stated purpose is 

to preserve these units as affordable options for low income families and individuals. Indeed, the Committee agrees that preservation is a vital concern and that public housing is an invaluable 

asset, evidenced by the Committee investing $4,000,000,000 in the 

Public Housing Capital Fund through the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act. To date, 181,809 units of public housing have 

been rehabilitated with this funding, preservation of an historic 

level. 

In addition, TRA strives to streamline HUD’s rental assistance 

rules and regulations, therefore reducing the regulatory burden on 

public housing authorities (PHAs) and allowing them greater access to private financing for the further rehabilitation of units. 

Again, the Committee sees the value in streamlining federal regulations and in thinking broadly about recapitalization methods for 

the affordable housing stock. However, the system that developed 

over 75 years will take more than one year to reform. The TRA proposal is still very much evolving, as evidenced in numerous briefings with the Department, and the Committee has concerns about 

funding a proposal when so much remains unknown. Particularly, 

the Committee is concerned that future costs are potentially large 

and cannot commit to an approach until long-term budgetary exposure is better defined. Further, the Committee is concerned that 

the proposals for resident mobility and PHA regionalization, as examples, are not yet well formed. 

The Committee understands that the Department has invested a 

great deal of time and effort into the TRA proposal. However, the 

attention granted to this proposal seems to have come at the cost 

of other HUD programs, also in need of reform. The Committee is 

disappointed the Department chose to spend such a large amount 

of time and resources on this new proposal instead of making the 

regulatory changes badly needed in existing programs, such as Section 202 and 811, as HUD itself states in the budget. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
125 

TENANT-BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $18,184,200,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... 19,550,663,183 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 19,395,663,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. +1,211,463,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ ¥155,000,183 

In fiscal year 2005, the Housing Certificate Fund was separated 

into two new accounts: Tenant-Based Rental Assistance and 

Project-Based Rental Assistance. This account administers the tenant-based Section 8 rental assistance program otherwise known as 

the Housing Choice Voucher program. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $19,395,663,000 for tenant-based 

rental assistance, an increase of $1,211,463,000 above the fiscal 

year 2010 enacted level and $155,000,183 below the budget request 

for Section 8 vouchers. Consistent with the budget request, the 

Committee continues the advance of $4,000,000,000 of the funds 

appropriated under this heading for Section 8 programs to October 

1, 2010. 

Voucher Renewals.—The Committee provides $17,080,000,000, which is an increase of $740,800,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level for the renewal of tenant-based vouchers. The Department is instructed to monitor and report to the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations each quarter on the trends in Section 8 subsidies and to report on the required program alterations 

due to changes in rent or changes in tenant income. 

The Committee takes very seriously the renewal needs of this account and is dedicated to funding existing vouchers so that no family or individual loses their assistance. In order to make an accurate appropriation to this account, the Committee monitors leasing 

and cost data throughout the year to determine the true needs of 

the program. As such, the numbers fluctuate from the President’s 

budget. Over the course of the past several months, the inflation 

factor used to calculate needs in this program has decreased, resulting in a reduced renewal number for this program. The Committee will continue to monitor leasing and inflation data as the 

appropriations process moves forward, and will make adjustments, 

as necessary. 

Further, the Committee has adjusted the funding formula used 

to calculate each PHA’s allocation in this account, shifting from a 

formula based on data from the previous federal fiscal year to a formula based on data from calendar year 2010. The Committee is 

hopeful that this change will result in a more streamlined process 

for renewal funding and will reduce the need for setasides and contingency funding in this account. 

The Committee reminds the Department that this program is a 

budget-based account and must be implemented as such. The renewal demand for this program is considerable and growing each 

year. In order to responsibly fund PHAs for providing rental assistance to the 2 million families and individuals that rely on this resource, HUD must adhere to the strict principles of budgeting 

based on rents and inflation, not on the number of units or other 

expenses. Any efforts to deviate from a budget-based approach in 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
126 

this account will not be looked upon favorably by the Committee. 

Further, the Committee expects HUD to follow Treasury’s rules on 

cash management in this account. 

Tenant protection.—The Committee provides $125,000,000 for tenant protection vouchers, $5,000,000 above the level enacted in 

fiscal year 2010 and equal to the budget request. As a result of the 

variable nature of this activity from year to year, language is included allowing the Department to use carryover and recaptures of 

unexpended Section 8 balances to fund additional rental assistance 

costs in addition to funds appropriated for fiscal year 2011. These 

additional rental assistance costs are limited to housing assistance 

payments and administrative fees not to exceed the rate of administrative fees provided for contract renewals. 

Administrative Fees.—The Committee recommends 

$1,851,000,000 for allocations to the PHAs to conduct activities associated with placing and maintaining individuals under Section 8 

assistance. This amount is $216,000,000 above the level enacted in 

fiscal year 2010 and is equal to the budget request for administrative fees and family self-sufficiency (FSS) coordinators. This increase in administrative fees reflects the increased number of 

vouchers in use at PHAs, including special purpose vouchers such 

as VASH vouchers. PHAs must have adequate resources to ensure 

that the resources provided for new and renewal vouchers will be 

used effectively and efficiently. The Committee instructs the Administration to fund administrative fees based on the number of 

units leased, in accordance with section 8(q) of the Quality Housing 

and Work Responsibility Act (QHWRA). As part of the administrative fees, the Committee includes $60,000,000 for FSS coordinators, 

equal to the budget request and to the level enacted for 2010. FSS 

Coordinators are a critical component in the success of families in 

the voucher program, and they served 55,231 families in fiscal year 

2009. The Committee cannot comprehend the delay in issuing these 

funds to PHAs in the past, and has included bill language to mandate that these funds be obligated to the recipients within 60 days 

of enactment of this Act. Further, the Committee reminds HUD 

that training is an allowable expense in the FSS program. 

Mainstream Voucher Renewals.—The Committee recommends 

$113,663,183 in this account for renewal of expiring Section 811 

tenant-based subsidies. In doing so, the Committee directs HUD to 

issue guidance to the housing agencies administering these vouchers to continue to serve people with disabilities upon turnover. 

Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing.—The Committee recommends $75,000,000 for incremental voucher assistance through 

the Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) program, the 

same as the enacted level for 2010 and $75,000,000 above the 

budget request. This program will be administered in conjunction 

with the Department of Veterans Affairs and these vouchers shall 

remain available for homeless veterans upon turnover. The Committee is disappointed that the Department did not request funding 

for this vital program, especially since HUD has improved the efficiency with which previously appropriated vouchers have been allocated. The Committee revived this program in fiscal year 2008 

after more than a decade of neglect, and has thus far provided 

30,450 vouchers for homeless veterans. This year’s allocation will 

add 10,000 new vouchers to that total, and will support the DepartVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:17 Jul 27, 2010 Jkt 057536 PO 00000 Frm 00126 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR564.XXX HR564

pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
127 

ment of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) goal of ending homelessness 

amongst veterans within five years. The Committee instructs HUD 

to rely on the Continuum of Care system to assist the VA in identifying eligible veterans, and directs the Department to focus on 

chronically homeless veterans in allocating these resources. This 

program is intended to serve the most vulnerable, long-term homeless veterans, not those currently being served in VA programs. In 

order to have an effect on the chronically homeless population, 

which is the goal of both HUD and the VA, the focus needs to be 

on the hardest to serve population. The Committee expects to see 

progress on this front and will continue to work with HUD and the 

VA to accelerate leasing in this program. In addition, the Committee directs HUD to report on VASH utilization rates, challenges 

encountered in the program, and increases in veteran self-sufficiency by January 15, 2011. 

Housing and Services for Homeless Persons Demonstration.—The 

Committee includes $85,000,000 for the Housing and Services for 

Homeless Persons Demonstration, as proposed in the fiscal year 

2011 budget request. The Committee is very pleased that HUD and 

the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) are working 

together to establish a demonstration that coordinates HUD housing funding with HHS services resources for homeless persons. It 

is imperative that these agencies break down the traditional federal silos that hinder assistance for vulnerable populations, and 

this demonstration is a positive step in the direction of leveraging 

the expertise and resources of each agency. By facilitating access 

to mainstream health programs combined with stable, affordable 

housing, HUD and HHS are leading the way toward solving homelessness in this nation. The Committee is very hopeful that HUD 

and HHS will work diligently to streamline various program and 

application requirements for these funds, and encourages HUD to 

utilize the Office of Special Needs Assistance Programs and its extensive Continuum of Care (CoC) network to identify best practices, 

as well as assist PHAs in identifying clients. The CoCs should, to 

the maximum extent possible, be the coordinating entities for these 

resources, as these organizations have tremendous experience and 

expertise in housing this population, as well as connecting individuals with mainstream services resources. The Committee further 

urges HUD and HHS to grant flexibility, as appropriate, in overcoming traditional barriers between these programs, starting with 

the application process. This demonstration should heed the lessons of other demonstrations and programs within HUD, such as 

the VASH program and the Homelessness Prevention and Rapid 

Re-Housing Program, and the Committee expects the funding to be 

allocated expeditiously. To that end, the Committee urges the Secretary to use the waiver authority granted to ensure that the targeted population is served. The Committee looks forward to receiving data on this demonstration and requires that HUD and HHS 

present a joint briefing to the relevant Appropriations Subcommittees on progress with this demonstration within 180 days of enactment of this Act. 

The Committee includes a provision allowing the Secretary of 

HUD to transfer up to $100,000,000 of the allocation in this account to the Transformation Initiative. This program is an absolute 

necessity for the nearly two million extremely low- and low-income 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
128 

families that rely on it for safe and affordable housing. The Committee knows, however, that budgetary projections will continue to 

be updated as the appropriations process moves forward. If the Secretary determines that factors such as lower inflation rates have 

decreased the renewal needs of this account, he may choose to 

transfer funding. 

The Committee does not include any of the authorizing changes 

that the Department’s budget requested, including the authority to 

offset renewal allocations for PHAs and reminds the Department 

once again that these changes must be contemplated in a full reauthorization bill, not in an Appropriations bill. The changes proposed are significant shifts in policy, such as lifting the cap on the 

number of authorized units each PHA may lease, and are best addressed in the context of a larger reform effort. Further, recent 

issues at some PHAs point to the fact that the era of incremental 

improvements in this program is over, and that only a comprehensive reform effort will address these issues. The Department is advised that there is a role for both the authorizing and appropriations functions and that the two should complement, not overstep 

or contradict, each other. 

The Committee continues in bill language the direction to the 

Department to communicate to each PHA, within 60 days of enactment, the fixed amount that will be made available to each PHA 

for fiscal year 2011. The amount being provided in this account is 

the only source of federal funds that may be used to renew tenantbased vouchers. The amounts appropriated here may not be augmented from any other source. 

HOUSING CERTIFICATE FUND

The Housing Certificate Fund, until fiscal year 2005, provided 

funding for both the project-based and tenant-based components of 

the Section 8 program. Project-Based Rental Assistance and Tenant-Based Rental Assistance are now separately funded accounts. 

The Housing Certificate Fund retains balances from previous years’ 

appropriations. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The President did not request, and the Committee does not include, a rescission from the Housing Certificate Fund for fiscal year 

2011. Language is included to allow unobligated balances from specific accounts may be used to renew or amend Project-Based Rental 

Assistance contracts. 

PUBLIC HOUSING CAPITAL FUND

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $2,500,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... 2,044,200,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 2,500,000,000 

Bill compared with:.

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ...................................................... – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................... +455,800,000 

The Public Housing Capital Fund provides funding for public 

housing capital programs, including public housing development 

and modernization. Examples of capital modernization projects include replacing roofs and windows, improving common spaces, upVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:17 Jul 27, 2010 Jkt 057536 PO 00000 Frm 00128 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR564.XXX HR564

pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
129 

grading electrical and plumbing systems, and renovating the interior of an apartment. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total funding level of $2,500,000,000, which is equal to the level provided in fiscal year 

2010 and $455,800,000 above the budget request. The Committee 

signaled its commitment to the Capital Fund through the inclusion 

of $4,000,000,000 in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

(ARRA) in February, 2009, and believed that HUD would be partner in this effort. In fact, the Committee commends HUD and in 

particular, the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, 

for obligating these resources extremely efficiently. However, in the 

fiscal year 2011 budget, the Department used this unprecedented 

investment in public housing as a reason to reduce funding for the 

account, which is counterproductive to the goal of working through 

the capital needs backlog that PHAs are facing. While the Department performed admirably in allocating the funding provided in 

ARRA to PHAs, it is disappointing that HUD’s only strategy now 

for reducing the capital backlog is its Transforming Rental Assistance program, an unauthorized initiative. 

Within the amounts provided the Committee directs that: 

—$20,000,000 is made available for Emergency Capital 

needs, excluding Presidentially declared disasters. The Committee continues last year’s language to ensure that funds are 

used only for repairs needed due to an unforeseen and unanticipated emergency event or natural disaster that occurs during fiscal year 2011; 

—$50,000,000 is directed to the Resident Opportunity and 

Supportive Services program. This is equal to the amount provided in the fiscal year 2010 enacted bill. The Committee was 

disappointed to see that the Department’s budget request did 

not include funding for this important program, especially in 

light of the fact that 617 applications totaling $124,000,000 

were received in fiscal year 2009 for $40,000,000 in available 

resources. For the second consecutive year, the Committee is 

concerned about the large unexpended balance in this account 

and directs, in bill language, the Department to issue a Notice 

of Funding Availability (NOFA) for these funds within 60 days 

of enactment of this Act. The Committee notes that the Department did not follow this directive in fiscal year 2010, so 

the directive has been included in bill language to eliminate 

any potential confusion about compliance; —No more than $15,345,000 is directed to support the ongoing Public Housing Financial and Physical Assessment activities of the Real Estate Assessment Center; and 

—$8,820,000 is directed to the support of administrative and 

judicial receiverships. The Committee directs that the Department continue to report to the House and Senate Committees 

on Appropriations quarterly on the progress made at each 

agency under receivership. 

The Department is directed to continue to provide quarterly detailed reports on those Public Housing Authorities with obligation 

rates of less than 90 percent. In addition, the fiscal year 2010 report included an instruction to HUD to evaluate the effectiveness 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
130 

of the myriad of reporting and planning mechanisms now being required of PHAs. The Committee did not receive any such analysis, 

thus the Department is now directed to provide a list to the Committee within 30 days of enactment of this Act that details every 

reporting requirement and data system that PHAs must adhere to, 

as well as the explanation of how HUD uses this information. 

PUBLIC HOUSING OPERATING FUND

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $4,775,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... 4,829,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 4,829,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ...................................................... +54,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................... – – – 

The Public Housing Operating Fund subsidizes the costs associated with operating and maintaining public housing. This subsidy 

supplements funding received by public housing authorities (PHA) 

from tenant rent contributions and other income. In accordance 

with section 9 of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended, funds are allocated by formula to public housing authorities for 

the following purposes: utility costs; anticrime and anti-drug activities, including the costs of providing adequate security; routine 

maintenance cost; administrative costs; and general operating expenses. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $4,829,000,000 for the federal share 

of PHA operating expenses. This amount is $54,000,000 above the 

enacted level for fiscal year 2010 and is equal to the budget request. 

The Committee is pleased that the Administration has recommended full funding for this account, but is concerned about the 

$99,000,000 included in this account to support units recently 

added to the federal inventory of public housing. 

The Department’s commitment to sustainability and energy efficiency is admirable, and nowhere is this commitment needed more 

than in public housing units. The Committee expects that HUD 

and the Public Housing Authorities will work together to find ways 

to achieve greater energy efficiency in public housing, which will 

ease the pressure of rising utility costs on this account. 

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS INITIATIVE

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $ – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... 250,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... – – – 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ...................................................... – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................... ¥250,000,000 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends no funding for the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative, as this program is, yet again, unauthorized. The 

Committee has instead elected to fund the HOPE VI program to 

further complete the work of revitalizing severely distressed public 

housing units, as this proven program has been in existence since 

1993. In the fiscal year 2010 bill, the Committee funded Choice 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
131 

Neighborhoods as a demonstration, and no awards have been 

made. Therefore, it is premature to create an entirely new program 

without evidence of how the demonstration will work. Further, the 

Committee has concerns about the Department’s proposal to use 

HUD funds to pay for items such as transportation improvements 

or educational facilities. The Committee has no intent to dilute the 

valuable and limited funding for the revitalization of public housing by funding enhancements that should be supported by other 

federal departments. Furthermore, it would be more efficient for 

HUD to leverage its federal partnerships with the Department of 

Education and the Department of Transportation to support the 

place-based enhancements that advance each agency’s mission. 

There is no need for HUD to tackle all of the problems of a distressed neighborhood alone, and to do so would negate all of the 

work that has been done on building partnerships and interagency 

collaborations thus far. 

REVITALIZATION OF SEVERELY DISTRESSED PUBLIC HOUSING (HOPE VI)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $200,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... – – – 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 200,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ +200,000,000 

The Revitalization of Severely Distressed Public Housing program, also known as HOPE VI, provides competitive grants to public housing authorities to revitalize entire neighborhoods adversely 

impacted by the presence of badly deteriorated public housing 

projects. In addition to developing and constructing new affordable 

housing, the program provides PHAs with the authority to demolish obsolete projects and to provide self-sufficiency services for families who reside in and around the facility. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee provides $200,000,000 for the Severely Distressed Public Housing program (HOPE VI) for fiscal year 2011, 

equal to the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and $200,000,000 above 

the budget request. The Committee commends HUD for its recent 

work with the earliest HOPE VI grantees and its success in getting 

some of the oldest projects moving forward again. HUD must continue to work with grantees that have been delayed for various reasons, and the Committee expects that the backlog of unexpended 

funds will continue to diminish. Particularly since the NOFA does 

not change significantly from year to year, the Committee directs 

HUD to issue its fiscal year 2011 NOFA within 90 days of enactment, as included in bill language. 

NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANTS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $700,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... 580,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 700,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ 120,000,000 

The Native American Housing Block Grants program provides 

funds to Indian tribes and their Tribally Designated Housing EntiVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:17 Jul 27, 2010 Jkt 057536 PO 00000 Frm 00131 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR564.XXX HR564

pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
132 

ties (TDHES) to address housing needs within their communities. 

The block grant is designed to fund TDHE operating requirements 

and capital needs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $700,000,000 for the Native American Housing Block Grants. This is $120,000,000 above the budget 

request and the same as the level enacted in fiscal year 2010. 

The Committee is disappointed that the Department continually 

cuts funding for this program in its annual budget request. As discussed during the Committee’s hearing an ‘‘Housing and Transportation Issues in Native American Communities,’’ the need for affordable housing units in Indian Country is undeniable. A 2003 

United States Commission on Civil Rights study (‘‘A Quiet Crisis: 

Federal Funding and Unmet Needs in Indian Country’’) found that 

nearly 200,000 housing units are needed immediately to adequately 

house Native Americans on their native land. Further, high rates 

of unemployment on native lands and inadequate infrastructure 

need to be addressed. The Native American Housing Block Grant 

funds present an opportunity to better the lives of Native Americans through both housing and employment. In addition, construction of housing in Indian Country is a significant chance to advance 

sustainable building practices and lower the energy costs of housing in often remote and expensive areas of the country. 

Of the amounts made available under this heading: —$2,000,000 is included for Title VI loan guarantees. However, the Department is advised that loan level activity must 

be monitored to ensure that sufficient grant funds are available as collateral for new loans; 

—$4,250,000 is for technical assistance training and associated travel. The Committee recognizes that the Department 

has proposed to consolidate technical assistance funding in the 

Transformation Initiative. However, the Committee remains 

committed to increasing the capacity of grantees on tribal 

lands and wants to ensure that funds will be dedicated to this 

activity; and 

—$3,500,000 is included for contracted assistance regarding 

a national organization representing Native American housing 

interests for providing training and technical assistance to tribally designated housing entities as authorized under 

NAHASDA. 

In 2003, when HUD began using the new 2000 Census data, 

HUD shifted the basis for the needs portion of the formula distribution of funds from single-race to multi-race. The Committee 

continues language from last year instructing HUD to distribute 

funds based on single-race or multi-race data, whichever is the 

higher amount for each recipient. 

The Committee includes language requiring the Department to 

notify grantees of their formula allocation within 60 days of enactment of this Act. 

Technical assistance.—The Committee expects HUD will provide 

targeted and valuable technical assistance to Indian tribes to assure the best expenditure of Native American Housing Block Grant 

funds. Too often, technical assistance in this program has been 

slow or ineffective, and the Committee will not tolerate inefficiency 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
133 

in this regard. The demand is too great, and the consequences too 

dire, for HUD to ignore the needs of this population. 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds.—The 

Committee commends HUD for its quick obligation of funds provided for this program in ARRA. The Committee expects HUD will 

continue to work diligently with tribes to ensure these funds are 

used effectively and efficiently. 

Coordination of Indian programs.—The Committee is pleased the 

Department’s budget discussed the need for improved coordination 

of Federal housing programs for Native Americans and Alaska Natives. The Committee directs HUD to work with the Department of 

the Interior to clarify the roles and responsibilities of each Department and coordinate the delivery of housing programs to ensure 

maximum benefit and avoid duplicative efforts. The Committee directs the Departments to submit a report to the Committees on Appropriations outlining the progress that has been made on this request by March 29, 2011. 

Transformation initiative.—The Committee looks forward to the 

results of the Assessment of Housing Needs in Indian Country and 

the demonstration of sustainable building practices on Native 

American lands, both funded through the Department’s Transformation Initiative in fiscal year 2010. 

NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $13,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... 10,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 10,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. ¥3,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ – – – 

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 $10,000,000 for this program, 

$3,000,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2010 and 

equal to the budget request. Of the amounts provided, $300,000 is 

for technical assistance. 

The Committee is concerned about the high carryover balance in 

this account and directs HUD to work with the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands to ensure that the funds provided in this account will be fully utilized in a timely and expeditious manner because the need remains great. Over 20,000 Native Hawaiians are 

on the waiting list for homestead properties. The Committee urges 

the Department to put these funds, and prior year’s funds, to immediate use in addressing this backlog. The Committee directs the 

Department to report on the progress of obligating these funds 

within 90 days of enactment of this Act and quarterly thereafter. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
134 

INDIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Program account: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. $7,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ 9,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ............................................................ 9,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. +2,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ – – – 

Limitation on direct loans: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. $919,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ 994,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ............................................................ 994,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. +75,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ – – – 

Section 184 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 

1992 establishes a loan guarantee program for Native Americans 

to build or purchase homes on trust land. This program provides 

access to sources of private financing for Indian families and Indian housing authorities that otherwise cannot acquire financing 

because of the unique legal status of Indian trust land. This financing vehicle enables families to construct new homes or to purchase 

existing properties on reservations. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $9,000,000 in new credit subsidy for 

the Section 184 loan guarantee program, $2,000,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and the same as the budget request to 

guarantee a total loan volume of $994,000,000. 

NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND PROGRAM

ACCOUNT

Program account: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. $1,044,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ – – – 

Recommended in the bill ............................................................ 1,044,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ +1,044,000 

Limitation on direct loans: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. $41,504,255 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ – – – 

Recommended in the bill ............................................................ 41,504,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. ¥255 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ +41,504,000 

The Hawaiian Homelands Homeownership Act of 2000 created 

the Native Hawaiian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund to provide 

loan guarantees for native Hawaiian individuals and their families, 

the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, the Office of Hawaiian 

Affairs, and private, nonprofit organizations experienced in the 

planning and development of affordable housing for Native Hawaiians. The funds can be used for the purchase, construction, and/or 

rehabilitation of single-family homes on Hawaiian Home Lands. 

This program provides access to private sources of financing that 

would otherwise not be available because of the unique legal status 

of Hawaiian Home Lands. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
135 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,044,000 for this program, the 

same amount as provided in fiscal year 2010 and $1,044,000 above 

the President’s request to guarantee a total loan volume of 

$41,504,000. 

The Committee is concerned about the slow expenditure of credit 

subsidy in this account. The Department is instructed to take the 

necessary steps to ensure that the credit subsidy in this account 

will be fully utilized in a timely and expeditious manner because 

the need remains great. Over 20,000 Native Hawaiians are on the 

waiting list for homestead properties. The Committee urges the Department to put these funds, and prior year’s funds, to immediate 

use in addressing this backlog. The Committee directs the Department to report on the progress of obligating these funds within 90 

days of enactment of this Act and quarterly thereafter. 

COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $335,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... 340,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 350,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. +15,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ +10,000,000 

The Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) program is authorized by the Housing Opportunities for Persons with 

AIDS Act. This program provides states and localities with resources and incentives to devise long-term comprehensive strategies to meet the housing needs of persons with HIV/AIDS and their 

families. Ninety percent of funding is distributed by formula to 

qualifying states and metropolitan areas based on the cumulative 

number and incidences of AIDS reported to the Centers for Disease 

Control. The remaining 10 percent of funding is distributed 

through a national competition. Government recipients are required to have a HUD-approved Comprehensive Plan or Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS). 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $350,000,000, which is $15,000,000 

above the enacted level for fiscal year 2010 and $10,000,000 above 

the budget request. 

Within the funds provided, the Department should continue to 

give priority to creating new housing opportunities for persons with 

HIV or AIDS. The Committee believes affordable housing is a critical component of effective HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment and 

care. Up to 70 percent of all people living with HIV or AIDS report 

a lifetime experience of homelessness or housing instability and the 

HIV/AIDS death rate is seven to nine times higher for homeless 

adults than for the general population. The Committee provides additional funding for this program in order to provide a stable costeffective option to more persons living with HIV or AIDS. 

The Committee continues language requiring the Secretary to 

renew eligible, expiring permanent supportive housing contracts 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
136 

previously funded under the national competition before awarding 

new competitive grants. 

The Committee includes language requiring the Department to 

notify grantees of their formula allocation within 60 days of enactment of this Act. 

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $4,450,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... 4,380,100,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 4,352,100,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. ¥97,900,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ ¥28,000,000 

The Community Development Fund provides funding to state 

and local governments, as well as other eligible entities, to carry 

out community and economic development activities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total of $4,352,100,000 for the 

Community Development Fund account, which is $97,900,000 

below the fiscal year 2010 level and $28,000,000 below the fiscal 

year 2011 budget request. 

Of the amounts made available: 

—$3,990,755,000 is for the formula grants and state share; 

—$65,000,000 for the Native American Housing and Economic Development Block Grant; 

—$150,000,000 for the Sustainable Communities Initiative; 

—$25,000,000 for the Rural Innovation Fund; 

—$25,000,000 for the University Community Fund—Section 

107 Grants; 

—$77,145,000 for economic development initiative activities 

and $12,200,000 for neighborhood initiative activities; and 

—$7,000,000 for insular areas. 

The Committee includes language requiring the Department to 

notify grantees of their formula allocation within 60 days of enactment of this Act. 

Sustainable Communities Initiative.—The Committee provides 

$150,000,000 for the Sustainable Communities Initiative, equal to 

the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and the budget request. The 

Committee is very pleased by HUD’s collaboration with the Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) in the Partnership for Sustainable Communities. 

The strength of the partnership is admirable, and the accomplishments to date are impressive. Within six months of receiving the 

funding for the Sustainable Communities Initiative, HUD conducted a listening tour and solicited pre-NOFA comments from interested communities and stakeholders. The three agencies have 

collaborated on reviewing grant applications and formulating policies for the future. The level of attention to this effort is impressive 

and the Committee urges HUD to continue to work with DOT and 

EPA, as well as other agencies as appropriate, to advance the goals 

of sustainable communities. The Department must be cautious, 

however, that the roles and responsibilities of the three departments are separate and defined, but complementary. There can be 

no duplication of effort. Further, HUD is reminded that sustainVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:17 Jul 27, 2010 Jkt 057536 PO 00000 Frm 00136 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR564.XXX HR564

pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
137 

ability is not a concept that exists only in urban areas, but that 

many rural communities are struggling with energy efficiency, regional planning and livability, as well. HUD is encouraged, along 

with its partners, to address the needs of rural communities, as 

well as urban centers, with these resources. 

Rural Innovation Fund.—The Committee provides $25,000,000 

for the Rural Innovation Fund, equal to the fiscal year 2010 budget 

and $25,000,000 above the level requested. The Committee is disappointed that the Department would abandon this program one 

year after bringing it into existence, and believes that the needs of 

small and rural communities are an important part of HUD’s mission. The Committee directs HUD to brief the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations on the planned expenditure of these 

funds and the funds appropriated in fiscal year 2010 within 60 

days of enactment of this Act. 

University Community Fund.—The Committee denies the Department’s request to consolidate the four separate university partnership programs into one unified $25,000,000 University Community Fund. As in 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 these resources 

will be used to revitalize neighborhoods surrounding these Colleges 

and Universities and to assist the residents of these neighborhoods. 

Catalytic Competition Grants.—The Committee denies the Department’s request to include $150,000,000 within this account to 

create the Catalytic Competition Grant program. The Committee 

recognizes the great need for capital assistance for stalled industrial and commercial development projects in distressed areas 

across the country. However, the Committee believes localities 

could undertake these efforts with their regular Community Development Block Grant funds. In addition, creation of a new program 

to target the complex needs of distressed areas should be developed 

through the regular authorization process. 

The Committee directs HUD to implement the Economic Development Initiative program as follows: 

Recipient Project Amount 

American Legion Post 139, CA ................................... Rehabilitation and Renovation of an American Legion Hall.$95,000 

American Red Cross, Cincinnati Area Chapter, OH ... Construction and Build Out of a Regional Red 

Cross Hub.

750,000 

Appalachia Service Project, TN .................................. Home Repair Program for Low-Income Families ....... 350,000 

ARC Community Services, MA .................................... Renovate a Building that Provides Services for Individuals with Developmental Disabilities.300,000 

Ashunti Residential Management Systems Inc., IL ... Renovation of Existing Facility .................................. 600,000 

Atlanta Center for Civil and Human Rights, GA ....... Construction of a Civil Rights Museum and Visitor 

Center in Downtown Atlanta.

500,000 

Black Economic Union of Greater Kansas City, MO .. Planning, Design, Renovation and Revitalization of 

a Historic Building.

1,000,000 

Blue Springs Hoke County CDC (BSHC–CDC), NC ..... Acquisition of Land for an Affordable Housing Initiative.500,000 

Boys Town of Chicago, IL ........................................... Construction of Housing for Low-Income Youth ........ 500,000 

Bristol Boys and Girls Club Association, CT .............. Planning, Design and Construction of a Boys and 

Girls Club.

1,000,000 

Brooke County Commission, WV ................................. Development and Construction of a Park and Memorial.400,000 

Brooklyn Navy Yard Development Corporation, NY .... Design and Construction of a Facility ...................... 500,000 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
138 

Recipient Project Amount 

Bucks County Housing Development Corporation, PA Construction of Affordable Housing for Disabled 

Veterans.

500,000 

CAMBA, Inc., NY ......................................................... Construction of Supportive Housing .......................... 1,000,000 

Chabad of the Valley, CA ........................................... Renovation of a Facility ............................................. 250,000 

Charles City County, VA ............................................. Construction of a Library Facility .............................. 500,000 

Charles County, Department of Community Services, 

MD.

Renovation of Low-Income Housing .......................... 300,000 

Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc., AZ ............................... Building Rehabilitation for a Workforce Readiness 

Center.

400,000 

Children’s Museum of Tampa, FL .............................. Construction of a Facility .......................................... 750,000 

City of Albany, NY ...................................................... Construction and Renovation of a Facility ................ 750,000 

City of Astoria, OR ...................................................... Construction of a Park .............................................. 800,000 

City of Burbank, CA .................................................... Planning, Design and Construction of a Library ...... 100,000 

City of Canton, OH ..................................................... Infrastructure Improvement and Streetscaping for 

Mahoning Road Economic Development Project.

500,000 

City of Chicago, IL ...................................................... Construction of Veterans Housing ............................. 750,000 

City of Cleburne, TX ................................................... Construction of the Lake Pat Cleburne Trail System 250,000 

City of Cortland, NY ................................................... Engineering, Preparation and Construction of a 

Community Center.

400,000 

City of Creedmoor, NC ................................................ Planning and Design for a Community Center ......... 500,000

City of Dubuque, IA .................................................... Renovation of Buildings to Create Affordable Workforce Housing.750,000 

City of Durham, NC .................................................... Streetscaping of Fayetteville Street Corridor Project 500,000 

City of Ecorse, MI ....................................................... Demolition of Blighted Buildings .............................. 1,000,000 

City of Enterprise, AL ................................................. Demolition, Planning, Construction, and Renovation 

of Downtown Business District.

500,000 

City of Fort Lauderdale, FL ......................................... Streetscaping in Underserved Communities ............. 500,000 

City of Fullerton, CA ................................................... Demolition, Planning, Design and Construction of a 

Community Center.

500,000 

City of Gary, IN ........................................................... Demolition of Buildings and Neighborhood Redevelopment.500,000 

City of Glens Falls, NY ............................................... Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation of a Community Service Center.500,000 

City of Gonzales, LA ................................................... Park Improvements .................................................... 250,000 

City of Grants, NM ...................................................... Planning, Design, Construction and Build Out of a 

Library.

750,000 

City of Green Bay, WI ................................................. Demolition of a Blighted Building ............................. 1,000,000 

City of Inkster, MI ....................................................... Construction of a Senior Center ................................ 550,000 

City of La Joya, TX ...................................................... Construction of Youth Facilities ................................ 500,000 

City of Lawndale, CA .................................................. Design and Construction of a Community Center .... 500,000 

City of Mount Rainier, MD .......................................... Planning and Design of a Library ............................. 350,000 

City of New Bedford, MA ............................................ Demolition and Construction of an ADA-Compliant 

Pedestrian Bridge.

750,000 

City of Port Orchard, WA ............................................ Parcel Acquisition and Project Design ...................... 500,000 

City of River Rouge, MI .............................................. Demolition of Blighted Buildings .............................. 500,000 

City of Salem, OR ....................................................... Construct Waterline Improvements ............................ 500,000 

City of Stevens Point, WI ............................................ Environmental Remediation and Development within 

the City of Stevens Point.

750,000 

City of Toledo, OH ....................................................... Ohio Broadway Street Corridor Enhancement ........... 1,000,000 

City of Tucson, AZ ...................................................... Stabilization and Renovation of the Historic Marist 

College Building.

500,000 

City of Warren, MI ...................................................... Facility and Security Improvements to Senior Apartments.750,000 

City of Winter Park, FL ............................................... Acquisition of Land for Expansion of a Park ............ 250,000 

City of Worcester, MA ................................................. Gardner-Kilby-Hammond Neighborhood Revitalization.450,000 

Community Advocates, Inc., WI .................................. Acquisition and Remodeling of a Facility ................. 250,000

Community Development Corporation of South Berkshire, MA.Redevelopment of the former Searles Bryant School 

Complex in Great Barrington.

600,000 

Community Food Bank, Inc., AZ ................................. Installation of Solar Panels ....................................... 200,000 

Community Hospitals of Central California Foundation, dba Community Medical Foundation, CA.Design, Construction, Engineering, Furnishings and 

Equipment.

750,000 

Comprehensive Community Action, Inc., RI ............... Renovations including Energy Efficient Upgrades .... 250,000 

Concourse House, HDFC, NY ....................................... Renovation of a Facility ............................................. 150,000 

Connecticut Food Bank, Inc., CT ................................ Renovation of a Facility ............................................. 1,000,000 

Coos County Historical Society, OR ............................ Planning, Development and Construction of a Facility.500,000 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
139 

Recipient Project Amount 

Covenant House, LA .................................................... Acquisition of Land for a Low-Income Youth Initiative.250,000 

Davis Street Community Center, Inc., CA .................. Building Acquisition ................................................... 500,000 

Domestic Abuse Intervention Services, Inc., WI ......... Construction of a Domestic Violence Shelter ............ 300,000 

East Hartford Housing Authority, CT .......................... ADA Upgrades to and Renovation of a Community 

Center.

500,000 

Emlenton Borough, PA ................................................ Redevelopment of a Former Industrial Site .............. 150,000 

Essex County Family Justice Center, NJ ..................... Renovations of Essex County Family Justice Center 700,000 

Family Service Association of San Antonio, TX .......... Renovation of a Roof, HVAC and Other Facilities ..... 500,000 

Friends of the Waterboro Public Library, ME ............. Construction of a Community Center ........................ 500,000 

Glenridge Senior Citizen Multi-Service & Advisory 

Center, Inc, NY.

Construction of a Community Center ........................ 230,000 

Hilltown Community Development Corporation, MA ... Development of Energy-Efficient Affordable Senior 

Housing.

300,000 

Historic Seattle, WA .................................................... Restoration and Preservation of Washington Hall .... 475,000 

Island Municipality of Rota, MP ................................. Design and Renovation of a Facility ......................... 500,000 

Isles, Inc., NJ .............................................................. Construction of a Green Job Training Center ............ 300,000 

Josephine Solomon Ellis Foundation—CDC, PA ......... Construction of Low-Income Housing ........................ 500,000 

Joseph’s Home, Inc., NY ............................................. Rehabilitation of a Community Room for Veterans .. 350,000 

Kips Bay Boys & Girls Club, NY ................................. Construction, Renovations and Equipment ............... 75,000 

Kittay House, Jewish Home Lifecare, Inc, NY ............. Building Renovation and Repairs .............................. 200,000 

Lake Eufaula Association, OK .................................... Construction of a Facility .......................................... 400,000 

Lawrence Economic Development Corporation, OH .... Redevelopment of a Park .......................................... 700,000 

Liberty House Shelter Inc, NH .................................... Building Acquisition for Housing for Homeless Veterans.250,000 

Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation, CA.Construction of a Park .............................................. 300,000 

Lutheran Social Service of Minnesota, MN ................ Renovation of Homes for the Disabled ..................... 225,000 

Luzerne County Commissioners, PA ........................... Infrastructure Improvements at the Crestwood and 

Hanover Industrial Parks.

750,000 

Martin House Restoration Corporation, NY ................ Restoration and Improvements to the Historic Darwin Martin House Home and Complex.1,000,000 

Middlesex Community College, MA ............................. Planning, Design and Renovation of a Historic 

Building.

300,000 

Morehouse College, GA ............................................... Construction of a Facility to Display the Papers of 

Martin Luther King, Jr.

500,000 

Mount Washington Community Development Corporation, PA.Planning and Construction of a Trail ....................... 100,000 

Municipality of Yauco, PR .......................................... Construction of a Children’s Playground .................. 150,000 

Museum for African Art, NY ....................................... Streetscaping ............................................................. 500,000 

My Sister’s House, CA ................................................ Renovation of Asian and Pacific Islander Domestic 

Violence Survivor Home.

250,000 

National Civil Rights Museum, TN ............................. Renovation of a Facility ............................................. 750,000 

Nepperhan Community Center, Inc., NY ..................... Renovation of a Community Center .......................... 200,000 

New River Community and Technical College, WV .... Acquisition and Renovation of a Building to be 

Used as Technical Training Center.

600,000 

Niles Township Government, IL .................................. Renovation of a Facility for the Niles Township Food 

Pantry.

250,000 

Northern Illinois Food Bank, IL ................................... Construction of a Facility .......................................... 300,000 

Old Sturbridge Village, MA ......................................... Renovation of Historic Buildings ............................... 135,000 

Paul J. Cooper Center for Human Services, Inc., NY Building Acquisition, Renovation, Expansion and 

Build out of a Facility.

300,000 

People in Progress, Inc., CA ....................................... Acquisition of a Building for Homeless Veterans ..... 380,000 

Porter County Government, IN .................................... Streetscaping ............................................................. 500,000 

Positive Workforce INC., NY ........................................ Completion of a Job Training Facility ....................... 250,000 

Project Angel Food, CA ............................................... Installation of a Roof and Solar Energy Panels ....... 150,000 

ProLiteracy, NY ............................................................ Planning, Design and Construction of a Building .... 1,000,000 

Providence Community Action Program, RI ................ Renovation and Rehabilitation of a Community 

Center.

750,000 

Rebuilding Together Broward County, Inc., FL ........... Renovations to Low-Income Housing ......................... 250,000 

Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, MN ................. Planning, Design and Construction of a Multi-Purpose Facility.1,000,000 

Redevelopment Authority of the County of Westmoreland, PA.Redevelopment of a Brownfield Site ......................... 250,000 

Rum River Health Services, Inc., MN ......................... Construction of Temporary and Permanent Supportive Housing Units.500,000 

Senior Services of Snohomish County, WA ................. Construction and Equipment for a Service Delivery 

Facility.

500,000 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
140 

Recipient Project Amount 

Southern Queens Park Association, Inc., NY .............. Modernization and Improvements to Roy Wilkins 

Complex.

800,000 

St. Louis Development Corporation, MO ..................... Development of Road and Stormwater Infrastructure 

for Carondelet Commons Business Park Development.

750,000 

Suwannee County Board of County Commissioners, 

FL.

Engineering, Design and Construction of a Library .. 500,000 

The Children’s Aid Society’s Goodhue Center, NY ..... Acquisition of Land for a Park .................................. 1,000,000 

The Children’s Campus of Kansas City, Inc., KS ...... Facility Upgrades ....................................................... 200,000 

The Neighborhood House Charter School, MA ............ Planning and Construction of a Facility ................... 300,000 

The Resurrection Project, IL ....................................... Planning, Design, and Construction of a Residence 

Hall for Low-Income Youth.

500,000 

Three Square Food Bank, NV ...................................... Construction of a Solar Power Array ......................... 750,000 

Tibbits Opera House, MI ............................................. Renovation and Restoration of a Facility .................. 150,000 

Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Governments, 

OH.

Construction of a Facility .......................................... 2,500,000 

Town of Braintree, MA ................................................ Restoration and Rehabilitation of the Original 

Thayer Library.

500,000 

Town of Hempstead, Department of Planning & Economic Development, NY.Streetscaping ............................................................. 750,000 

Town of Islip, NY ........................................................ Restoration and Renovation of Veteran Facilities ..... 500,000 

Town of Madison, WI .................................................. Construction of the Novation Technology Campus 

Redevelopment Project.

500,000 

Town of North Castle, NY ........................................... Streetscaping ............................................................. 200,000 

Town of Seymour, CT .................................................. Construction of a Community Center ........................ 100,000 

Town of South Boston, VA .......................................... Renovations and Development of a Community Center.750,000 

Town of Sprague, CT .................................................. Renovation of a Senior Housing Complex ................. 750,000 

Town of Steilacoom, WA ............................................. Construction and Expansion of a Community Center 500,000 

Township of Moorestown, NJ ...................................... Reconstruction of a Library ....................................... 750,000 

Tubman African American Museum, GA .................... Construction of a Facility .......................................... 500,000 

Ulster County, NY ....................................................... Rehabilitation and Stabilization of a National Historic Landmark.350,000 

Union City Family Support Center, PA ....................... Renovation of a Facility ............................................. 200,000 

Variety Boys and Girls Club, CA ................................ Demolition and Reconstruction of a Facility ............. 200,000 

Veterans Green Jobs, CO ............................................ Planning, Design and Renovation of a Disabled Veterans Green Jobs Training Center.500,000 

Veterans Museum of Mid Ohio Valley, WV ................. Acquisition, Construction and Renovation of a Veterans Museum.300,000 

Veterans of Foreign Wars, William F Taylor Post 

9486, NY.

Renovation of a Veterans Facility ............................. 70,000 

Vienna Town Council, VA ............................................ Streetscaping ............................................................. 500,000 

Village of North Riverside, IL ..................................... Construction and Build Out of a Park ...................... 135,000 

Village of Port Washington, NY .................................. Revitalization of Manhasset Bay Waterfront ............. 750,000 

Whitman Walker Clinic, Inc., DC ................................ Planning, Design and Construction ........................... 400,000 

Williamsburg County, SC ............................................ Construction of a Community Center ........................ 1,000,000 

Woodward Development Corporation, OH ................... Renovation of a Building in Downtown Mount 

Vernon.

750,000 

Wynnefield Overbrook Revitalization Corporation 

(WORC), PA.

Streetscaping and Infrastructure for WORC Commercial Center.500,000 

YMCA of San Diego County, CA ................................. Planning, Design and Construction of a Housing 

and Community Center.

1,500,000 

YMCA of San Francisco, Bayview Hunters Point 

branch, CA.

Renovation Costs Associated with Expansion of a 

Community Center.

600,000 

YMCA of San Francisco, Chinatown YMCA branch, 

CA.

Construction of Transitional Housing Units for Domestic Violence Victims.500,000 

York County Community Development Corporation, 

SC.

Construction of a Neighborhood Community Center 700,000 

Youngstown Edison Incubator Corporation dba 

Youngstown Business Incubator, OH.

Renovation of a Facility ............................................. 700,000 

YWCA of Northwest Georgia, GA ................................. Construction and Renovation of a Domestic Violence Shelter and Outreach Facility.250,000 

YWCA of Silicon Valley, CA ......................................... Renovation of a Domestic Violence Shelter .............. 350,000 

YWCA Southeastern Massachusetts, MA .................... Building Expansion and Construction ....................... 475,000 

Zavala County, TX ...................................................... Construction and Renovation of Facilities for Senior 

Citizens.

300,000 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
141 

The Committee directs HUD to implement the Neighborhood Initiatives program as follows: 

Recipient Project Amount 

City and County of San Francisco, Mayor’s Office of 

Housing, CA.

For Critical Infrastructure and Housing Development 

Work.

$1,250,000 

City of Jackson, MI ..................................................... Demolition of Buildings and Neighborhood Redevelopment.1,500,000 

City of Wausau Community Development Area, WI ... Acquisition and Remediation of Blighted Properties 2,000,000 

Community Legal Services of Mid-Florida, FL ........... Housing Counseling and Foreclosure Modification ... 500,000 

Greenfield Community College, MA ............................ Renovation of Buildings ............................................ 1,000,000 

Los Angeles Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc., CA Counsel and Assist Homeowners Facing Foreclosures.500,000 

National Council of La Raza, DC ............................... Capitalization of a Revolving Loan Fund to be Used 

for Nationwide Community Development Activities.

1,000,000 

New Hampshire Food Bank, NH ................................. Expansion of Food Assistance Programs ................... 1,000,000 

Shelter Network of San Mateo County, CA ................. Shelter Network’s Maple Street Project ..................... 200,000 

United Way for Southeastern Michigan, MI ............... Foreclosure Prevention Program ................................ 1,500,000 

Wisconsin Indianhead Technical College, WI ............. Construction of a Training Center ............................. 1,750,000 

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LOAN GUARANTEES PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Program cost: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. $6,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ – – – 

Recommended in the bill ............................................................ 10,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. +4,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ +10,000,000 

Limitation on guaranteed loans: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. 275,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ 500,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ............................................................ 247,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. ¥28,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ ¥253,000,000 

The Section 108 Loan Guarantees program underwrites private 

market loans to assist local communities in the financing of the acquisition and rehabilitation of publicly owned real property, rehabilitation of housing, and certain economic development projects. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for the Section 108 loan 

guarantees program, $4,000,000 above the enacted level for fiscal 

year 2010 and $10,000,000 above the level in the budget request. 

The Committee does not agree that the activities of this account 

are best funded through the Community Development Block Grant 

(CDBG) program. Further, the Committee does not believe that the 

fee structure proposed by the Administration is the best way to resolve the need for appropriations in this account. In fact, the fee 

proposal will increase the cost of capital for these projects, which 

will negatively impact the ability of local governments to carry out 

revitalization efforts in areas of low capital investment. Further, 

the type of redevelopment projects funded through the Section 108 

program are similar to the investments that the Department anticipates making in the Catalytic Competition Grants, an unauthorized program requested within the CDBG account. The Committee 

does not see the utility in diminishing the effectiveness of the Section 108 program, which many communities have used successfully, 

while proposing a new program with ambiguous goals. Section 108 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
142 

is a valuable tool for local communities in revitalizing distressed 

areas, and the fee proposed will impede the effectiveness of this 

program. Since 1977, HUD has issued 1,781 commitments totaling 

more than $8.3 billion without a single default or delinquent payment. 

BROWNFIELDS REDEVELOPMENT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $17,500,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... – – – 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 17,500,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ +17,500,000 

The Brownfields Redevelopment program provides competitive 

economic development grants in conjunction with section 108 loan 

guarantees for qualified brownfields projects. Grants are made in 

accordance with section 108(q) selection criteria. The goal of the 

program is to return contaminated sites to productive uses with an 

emphasis on creating substantial numbers of jobs for lower-income 

people in physically and economically distressed neighborhoods. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $17,500,000 for the Brownfields Redevelopment program, equal to the level enacted for fiscal year 

2010 and $17,500,000 above the amount in the budget request. It 

is disappointing that the Department, which is actively pursuing 

sustainability and revitalization efforts elsewhere in the budget request, would ignore the success of the Brownfields program in 

transforming environmentally damaged and useless properties into 

economic development engines in communities. HUD asserts that 

the rationale for not funding this account lies within the slow expenditure of funds within the program, but the Committee notes 

that the Department has gotten into the habit of only issuing a 

NOFA for these funds once every two years. The Department is reminded that when the Committee appropriates funding for a particular fiscal year, it expects that HUD will expeditiously compete 

and award those funds in that fiscal year. As such, bill language 

is included that directs HUD to publish a NOFA for these funds 

within 90 days of enactment of this Act. 

HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $1,825,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... 1,650,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 1,825,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ +175,000,000 

The HOME investment partnerships program uses formula allocations to provide grants to states, units of local government, Indian tribes, and insular areas for expanding the supply of affordable housing in the jurisdiction. Upon receipt, state and local governments develop a comprehensive housing affordability strategy 

that enables them to acquire, rehabilitate, or construct new affordable housing, or to provide rental assistance to eligible families. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
143 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,825,000,000 for activities funded 

under this account, equal the level enacted in fiscal year 2010 and 

$175,000,000 above the budget request. Funds are provided for formula grants for participating jurisdictions (states, units of local 

government and consortia of units of local government) and insular 

areas. Of the amount provided, pursuant to the authorizing statute, at least 15 percent of each participating jurisdiction’s allocation is reserved for housing that is developed, sponsored, or owned 

by Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDOs). 

The Committee includes language requiring the Department to 

notify grantees of their formula allocation within 60 days of enactment of this Act. 

CAPACITY BUILDING

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... 60,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... – – – 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ ¥60,000,000 

The fiscal year 2011 budget request proposed a new Capacity 

Building program to develop the capacity and ability of community 

development corporations, community housing development organizations, and local governments to undertake community development and affordable housing projects and programs for low-income 

families. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee does not recommend funding for this new, unauthorized program and does not agree with the Department’s argument for replacing the successful Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program. While it is admirable that the Department wishes 

to build the expertise of local governments, it is not clear that HUD 

possesses the capacity to do so at this point. In this time of economic crisis for local communities, introducing a new program and 

a new competition without specific parameters is not helpful to 

those neighborhoods or local governments. 

SELF-HELP AND ASSISTED HOMEOWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $82,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... – – – 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 82,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ +82,000,000 

Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program (SHOP) funds 

make competitive grants to national and regional nonprofit organizations and consortia that have experience in providing or facilitating self-help housing opportunities. Grant funds are used to develop housing for low-income families and to develop the capacity 

of nonprofit organizations for such development. In 2006, SHOP became a separate account. SHOP was previously funded as a setaside within the Community Development Fund. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
144 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $82,000,000 for the Self Help and 

Assisted Homeownership Program. This account funds programs 

that previously have been funded as set asides within the Community Development Fund. This is equal to the fiscal year 2010 enacted funding level and $82,000,000 above the budget request. The 

Committee is disappointed that HUD would recommend eliminating this program, as it is one of the most highly rated and successful programs within the Department. This program is one of 

the best returns on investment that the federal government makes, 

as the recipients of these funds go above and beyond the leveraging 

requirement of 3–to–1, often raising outside funds to the level of 

10–to–1 leveraging. The organizations funded in this account have 

the expertise to effect real change in the communities that they 

touch, and have been leaders in addressing the foreclosure crisis, 

in particular. Therefore language is included that provides: 

$5,000,000 for capacity building activities as authorized in 

Sections 6301 through 6305 of Public Law 110–234; 

$27,000,000 for the Self Help Homeownership Program; and 

$50,000,000 for the Section 4 program for the Local Initiatives Support Corporation, Enterprise Community Partners, 

Habitat for Humanity International, of which not less than 

$5,000,000 is designated for rural and tribal areas. 

The Committee notes with extreme disappointment that HUD 

has not followed report language for the past several years to publish a NOFA for these funds within a specified time period. In 

order to ensure that the communities that need these funds will 

not be hindered by HUD’s reluctance to compete the funds, bill language is included to mandate the publication of a NOFA within 60 

days of enactment of the Act. 

The Committee is concerned that the economic recession has left 

self-help housing organizations with real estate sites that have substantially declined in value, and urges the Department to work 

with the authorizing committees to expeditiously address this issue 

so that self-help organizations can participate in the SHOP program. 

HOMELESS ASSISTANCE GRANTS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $1,865,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... 2,055,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 2,200,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. +335,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ +145,000,000 

The homeless assistance grants account provides funding for the 

following homeless programs under title IV of the McKinney Act: 

(1) the emergency shelter grants program; (2) the supportive housing program; (3) the section 8 moderate rehabilitation (Single Room 

Occupancy) program; and (4) the shelter plus care program. This 

account also supports activities eligible under the innovative homeless initiatives demonstration program. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
145 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends funding homeless programs at $2,200,000,000, an increase of $335,000,000 above the enacted level 

for 2010 and $145,000,000 above the budget request. 

The Committee recommends an increase in this account in recognition of the passage of the Homeless Emergency Assistance and 

Rapid Transition to Housing (HEARTH) Act. It is to the benefit of 

homeless services organizations across the country that this important legislation now governs the delivery of homeless services to 

the most vulnerable populations, and the Committee is very 

pleased to be a partner in this effort. The Committee commends 

the Office of Special Needs Assistance Programs for its implementation of the Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program in the ARRA legislation and its leadership in the effort to reauthorize these programs. The Committee looks forward to the first 

year of implementation of the HEARTH Act and appreciates HUD’s 

role in partnering with other federal agencies and with the Interagency Council on Homelessness to make significant progress in 

the prevention of, and rapid resolution of, homelessness in this 

country. 

HOUSING PROGRAMS

PROJECT-BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $8,557,853,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... 9,382,328,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 9,382,328,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. +824,475,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ – – – 

The Project-Based Rental Assistance account (PBRA) provides a 

rental subsidy to a private landlord tied to a specific housing unit 

so that the properties themselves, rather than the individual living 

in the unit, remain subsidized. Amounts provided in this account 

include funding for the renewal of expiring project-based contracts, 

including Section 8, moderate rehabilitation, and single room occupancy (SRO) contracts, amendments to Section 8 project-based contracts, and administrative costs for performance-based, projectbased Section 8 contract administrators and costs associated with 

administering moderate rehabilitation and single room occupancy 

contracts. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee provides a total of $9,382,328,000 for the annual 

renewal of project-based contracts, of which not less than 

$315,000,000 is for the cost of contract administrators. This funding level is $824,475,000 above the enacted level for fiscal year 

2010 and is equal to the budget request. The Committee’s recommendation includes the use of project-based recaptures for the 

renewal of project-based contracts and amendments as well as for 

performance-based contract administrators in 2010. As the Department rebids the contracts for performance-based contract administrators, the Committee strongly believes that there should be a 

preference for public entities whose mission is oriented towards a 

public purpose. In an increasingly tight fiscal environment, it is difVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:17 Jul 27, 2010 Jkt 057536 PO 00000 Frm 00145 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR564.XXX HR564

pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
146 

ficult to fund increases in programs, so these important federal 

funds should be used to support the public mission of safe, affordable rental housing. 

HOUSING FOR THE ELDERLY

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $825,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... 273,700,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 825,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ +551,300,000 

The Housing for the Elderly (Section 202) program provides eligible private, non-profit organizations with capital grants to finance 

the acquisition, rehabilitation or construction of housing intended 

for low-income elderly people. In addition, the program provides 

project-based rental assistance contracts (PRAC) to support operational costs for units constructed under the program. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $825,000,000 for the Section 202 

program for fiscal year 2010, which is equal to the level enacted 

for fiscal year 2010 and $551,300,000 above the request for fiscal 

year 2011. The recommendation allocates funding as follows: —$491,300,000 for new capital and project rental assistance 

contracts (PRAC); 

—$183,700,000 for one-year renewals of expiring PRAC payments; 

—$90,000,000 for service coordinators and the continuation 

of congregate services grants; and —$40,000,000 for grants to convert Section 202 projects to 

assisted living facilities; the Committee intends that the Assisted Living Conversion Program funds be made available to 

cover the cost of the following three activities: (1) conversion of 

existing affordable housing sites to assisted living; (2) substantial capital repairs; and (3) emergency capital repair grants. 

The Committee continues language relating to the initial contract and renewal terms for assistance provided under this heading. Language is also included to allow these funds to be used for 

inspections and analysis of data by HUD’s Real Estate Assessment 

Center (REAC). 

The Committee rejects the Administration’s proposal to eliminate 

funding for new capital grants in fiscal year 2011. According to the 

U.S. Census Bureau, the number of elderly is expected to rise to 

72 million by 2030, which is more than double the number in 2000. 

The United States already has a shortage of housing for the elderly—the American Association of Retired Persons estimates that 

there are 10 seniors on a waiting list for every one unit of elderly 

housing that becomes available—and the rise in the number of elderly will continue to exacerbate this housing shortage. Further, in 

a report released in 2002, the bipartisan Commission on Affordable 

Housing and Health Facility Needs for seniors in the 21st Century 

estimated that an additional 730,000 units of affordable housing for 

the elderly will be needed by 2020. The Section 202 program is the 

largest housing program specifically dedicated to serving the elderly, with over 268,000 units for seniors. The Committee believes this 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
147 

program is a wise investment in both the current and future needs 

of the nation’s elderly population. 

The Committee agrees with the Department that reforms to the 

Section 202 program are needed, especially those that will hasten 

the development process and increase program efficiency. In particular, the Committee is concerned about the continuing large carryover balances in this program, as well as delays in the distribution of project rental assistance (PRAC payments). However, the 

Committee believes the need for affordable senior housing is too 

high to put this program on hold. Therefore, the Committee directs 

HUD to submit to the Committees on Appropriations within 30 

days of enactment of this Act a list of administrative reforms the 

Department can complete without legislative action to begin the reform process. The Committee looks forward to working with HUD’s 

leadership on implementing these necessary reforms to ensure that 

the funds dedicated to this program are expended in an effective 

and expeditious manner. 

The Committee supports increased collaboration between HUD 

and other agencies in order to meet the supportive services needs 

of Section 202 residents. However, in its partnership with the Department of Health and Human Services, the Committee directs 

HUD to incorporate support services beyond those targeting frail 

elders. The Committee believes an important component of the Section 202 program is serving seniors of all ages, not just the frail, 

and assisting them to age in place. 

Like HUD, the Committee believes that the use of tax credits 

with the Section 202 program will result in a greater number of affordable senior housing units built, but that the complexity of 

mixed financing, and associated delays, have limited its use. The 

Committee recommends continued exploration of this area through 

the authorization process. 

The Committee is concerned about the Department’s proposals to 

both increase the minimum number of units allowed for development under the Section 202 program and to eliminate the targeted 

distribution of funds across the country. The Committee fears these 

changes would result in fewer units being developed in rural areas 

and leave some areas of the country without desperately needed 

housing resources. 

HOUSING FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $300,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... 90,036,817 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 300,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ +209,963,183 

The Housing for Persons with Disabilities (Section 811) program 

provides eligible private, non-profit organizations with capital 

grants to finance the acquisition, rehabilitation or construction of 

supportive housing for disabled persons and provides project-based 

rental assistance (PRAC) to support operational costs for such 

units. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
148 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $300,000,000 for Section 811 activities, which is equal to the fiscal year 2010 enacted level, and 

$209,963,183 above the budget request. The Committee finds that 

there is universal agreement at all levels of analysis that facility 

construction is needed for this program in fiscal year 2010. The recommendation allocates funding as follows: 

—Up to $209,900,000 for capital grants and PRAC; 

—$90,100,000 for PRAC renewals; and 

—No funds are provided for additional ‘‘mainstream’’ vouchers in fiscal year 2011. 

The Committee continues language allowing these funds to be 

used for inspections and analysis of data by HUD’s Real Estate Assessment Center program office. 

As requested in the budget, the Committee provides funding for 

the renewals or amendments of expiring ‘‘mainstream’’ tenant 

based rental assistance in the tenant based rental assistance account. 

The Committee rejects the Administration’s proposal to eliminate 

funding for new units. The Committee notes that funding for this 

program has been virtually flat for the past decade, despite the increase in the population eligible for and in need of this housing. 

Further, as the need to renew rental contracts in this account has 

grown over the years, fewer and fewer housing units have been 

produced. The Committee recommends an increase in the capital 

funding for this program, recognizing that Section 811 is a cost-effective supportive housing alternative to expensive institutional 

settings. A study by the Center for Outcome Analysis found that 

people entering Section 811 units required 61 percent less public 

financing—a savings of more than $40,000 per person. 

Further, the 2007 HUD report, ‘‘Worst Case Housing Needs Report to Congress,’’ uses 2005 data to show that 542,000 non-elderly 

disabled households without children have ‘‘worst case’’ housing 

needs, meaning that these households have income below half of 

their area’s Area Median Income (AMI) and either pay more than 

half of their income for housing or live in severely substandard 

housing. It is estimated between 2.1 million and 2.3 million nonelderly disabled households have worst case housing needs. Further, the population in need of Section 811 housing is growing. Approximately 700,000 people with developmental disabilities live 

with one or more parents over the age of 65, further demonstrating 

the growing need for supportive housing units for persons with disabilities. 

As with the Section 202 program, HUD has the opportunity to 

eliminate administrative hurdles that have prevented mixed-finance deals, including the use of tax credits, from successfully 

using Section 811 funding. The Committee fully expects HUD to do 

everything in its power to immediately eliminate any and all administrative barriers that have prevented the effective use of Section 811 funds, including in mixed finance deals. The Committee 

believes the Section 811 program is an excellent candidate for the 

Department to demonstrate its ability to streamline a program and 

make incremental, positive changes. Therefore, the Committee directs HUD to submit to the Committees on Appropriations within 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
149 

30 days of enactment of this Act a list of administrative reforms 

the Department can complete without legislative action to begin 

the reform process. 

HOUSING COUNSELING ASSISTANCE

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $87,500,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... 88,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 88,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. +500,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ – – – 

Section 106 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 

authorized HUD to provide housing counseling services to homebuyers, homeowners, low and moderate income renters, and the 

homeless. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $88,000,000 for housing counseling, 

equal to the budget request and $500,000 more than the level enacted in the fiscal year 2010 bill. Previously, this activity was funded as a set-aside within the HOME Investments Partnership Program account. 

However, the Committee is concerned by the slow expenditure of 

funds in this account. Again, the Committee is puzzled by HUD’s 

inability to publish a NOFA within a reasonable amount of time of 

enactment. In fact, the inability of HUD to compete and obligate 

funding within any acceptable timeframe is the reason that the 

Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation was chosen to run the National Foreclosure Mitigation Counseling Program instead of HUD. 

HUD must improve its ability to obligate funds, especially in light 

of increasingly tight budgets. The stagnation of funding for a year 

or more makes it very difficult to defend as a necessary expenditure, despite the obvious demand for the program. With the dire 

need for these funds in light of the current housing crisis, bill language is included that mandates the publication of a NOFA within 

60 days of enactment of this Act. 

The Committee is concerned about reports of foreclosure ‘rescue 

scams’ and other predatory practices targeting vulnerable populations. Consistent with its mandate, the Committee believes HUD 

should assure that its housing counseling program reaches all communities, with attention to regional and locally specific needs and 

including those underserved population not literate or fluent in 

English. The Committee is encouraged by HUD’s recent designation of the first Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI)-serving HUD Housing Counseling Intermediary. This Intermediary is 

a first step to supporting a network of housing counseling agencies 

that provide in-language housing and foreclosure counseling to all 

communites. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
150 

OTHER ASSISTED HOUSING PROGRAMS

RENTAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $40,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... 40,600,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 40,600,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. +600,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ – – – 

The Rental Housing Assistance account provides amendment 

funding for housing assisted under a variety of HUD housing programs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $40,600,000 for the Rental Housing 

Assistance Program, as proposed in the budget request. 

RENT SUPPLEMENT

(RESCISSION)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... ¥$72,036,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... ¥40,600,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... ¥40,600,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. +31,436,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ – – – 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a rescission of $40,600,000, the 

same as the budget request and $31,436,000 above the level enacted in fiscal year 2010. 

PAYMENT TO MANUFACTURED HOUSING FEES TRUST FUND

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $9,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... 7,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 7,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. ¥2,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ – – – 

The National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety 

Standards Act of 1974, as amended by the Manufactured Housing 

Improvement Act of 2000, authorized the Secretary to establish 

Federal manufactured home construction and safety standards for 

the construction, design, and performance of manufactured homes. 

All manufactured homes are required to meet the Federal standards, and fees are charged to producers to cover the costs of administering the Act. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends up to $21,000,000 for the manufactured housing standards programs to be derived from fees collected 

and deposited in the Manufactured Housing Fees Trust Fund established pursuant to the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act 

of 2000. The amount recommended is the same as the budget request and the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. 

In addition, the Committee includes language allowing the Department to collect fees from program participants for the dispute 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
151 

resolution and installation programs. These fees are to be deposited 

into the trust fund and may be used by the Department subject to 

the overall cap placed on the account. 

The Committee recognizes that the manufactured housing industry has been impacted greatly by the subprime and unemployment 

crises that plague the housing sector. However, this sector of the 

housing market has not gotten a great deal of attention from HUD, 

as evidenced by the lack of a proposed rule in this account, and 

several key vacancies in this office. The Committee urges HUD to 

focus on this portion of the housing market and to issue the final 

rule and mortgagee letter that will enable this sector of the housing market to begin recovery. 

FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION

MUTUAL MORTGAGE INSURANCE PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Limitation of direct 

loans 

Limitations of guaranteed loans Administrative contract expenses Positive credit subsidy 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ............. $50,000,000 $400,000,000,000 $188,900,000 $0 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 .......... 50,000,000 400,000,000,000 207,000,000 250,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ...................... 50,000,000 400,000,000,000 207,000,000 250,000,000 

Bill compared with: .............................. .............................. .............................. ..............................

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .... .............................. .............................. +18,100,000 ..............................

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 .............................. .............................. .............................. ..............................

The Federal Housing Administration’s (FHA) mutual mortgage 

insurance program account includes the mutual mortgage insurance (MMI) and cooperative management housing insurance funds. 

This program account covers unsubsidized programs, primarily the 

single-family home mortgage program, which is the largest of all 

the FHA programs. The cooperative housing insurance program 

provides mortgages for cooperative housing projects of more than 

five units that are occupied by members of a cooperative housing 

corporation. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends the following limitations on loan 

commitments in the MMI program account: $400,000,000,000 for 

loan guarantees and $50,000,000 for direct loans. The recommendation also includes $207,000,000 for administrative contract expenses, of which $71,500,000 is transferred to the Working Capital 

Fund for development and modifications to information technology 

systems that serve programs or activities under the Federal Housing Administration. The Committee continues language, as requested, appropriating additional administrative expenses in certain circumstances. 

The Committee includes $150,000,000 to allow the continuation 

of the Home Equity Conversion Mortgage (HECM) program, which 

is a reduction of $100,000,000 from the budget request. The Committee has been monitoring volume in this program, and the updated estimates indicate that the full request is not needed in this 

program for fiscal year 2011. The Committee will continue to monitor volume in this program as the Appropriations process moves 

forward, and will adjust as necessary to ensure that this program 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
152 

will continue to provide a resource for seniors. HECM mortgages 

are an important tool for elderly homeowners, enabling them to 

stay in their homes and avoid more expensive assisted living facilities. The Committee is pleased that HUD is working on alternatives to the traditional HECM program that may mitigate the 

need for an appropriation in the future, and looks forward to future 

conversations about the best way to assist seniors without cost to 

the taxpayers. 

GENERAL AND SPECIAL RISK PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Limitation of direct loans Limitations of guar- anteed loans Administrative contract expenses Credit subsidy 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ............. $20,000,000 $15,000,000,000 $0 $8,600,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 .......... 20,000,000 20,000,000,000 0 0 

Recommended in the bill ...................... 20,000,000 20,000,000,000 0 0 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .... +5,000,000,000 .............................. ¥8,600,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 .............................. .............................. .............................. ..............................

The Federal Housing Administration’s (FHA) general and special 

risk insurance (GI and SRI) program account includes 17 different 

programs administered by FHA. The GI fund includes a wide variety of insurance programs for special purpose single and multifamily loans, including loans for property improvements, manufactured housing, multifamily rental housing, condominiums, housing 

for the elderly, hospitals, group practice facilities, and nursing 

homes. The SRI fund includes insurance programs for mortgages in 

older, declining urban areas that would not be otherwise eligible 

for insurance, mortgages with interest reduction payments, mortgages for experimental housing, and for high-risk mortgagors who 

would not normally be eligible for mortgage insurance without 

housing counseling. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends the following limitations on loan 

commitments for the general and special risk insurance program 

account as requested: $20,000,000,000 for loan guarantees and 

$20,000,000 for direct loans. 

The Committee is very concerned about the increasing length of 

time necessary to complete processing for Section 232 applications, 

which are applications to finance housing for the frail elderly, such 

as nursing homes and assisted living facilities. As private financing 

has become increasingly difficult to secure, FHA has been a resource for the construction and refinancing of units for elders, particularly those in need of supportive services. However, the 

timeline for getting an application through FHA’s LEAN processing 

model has increased by months during fiscal year 2010. Since the 

Committee has been diligent about providing more staff for FHA 

in light of its increased workload, this is not due to lack of staff, 

but rather a misallocation of staff. Therefore, FHA is directed to 

transfer 25 qualified underwriters into the Office of Insured 

Healthcare Facilities to ease the workload experienced in that office within 30 days of enactment of this Act. These staff must be 

trained on the LEAN processing model and qualified to assist in reducing the backlog of applications in a timely manner. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
153 

GOVERNMENT NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION

GUARANTEES OF MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES LOAN GUARANTEE

PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Limitation of guaranteed loans: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ................................................. $500,000,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ............................................... 500,000,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ........................................................... 500,000,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year ................................................... – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ........................................ – – – 

The guarantee of mortgage-backed securities program facilitates 

the financing of residential mortgage loans insured or guaranteed 

by the Federal Housing Administration, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Rural Housing Services program. The Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA) guarantees the 

timely payment of principal and interest on securities issued by 

private service institutions such as mortgage companies, commercial banks, savings banks, and savings and loan associations that 

assemble pools of mortgages, and issues securities backed by the 

pools. In turn, investment proceeds are used to finance additional 

mortgage loans. Investors include non-traditional sources of credit 

in the housing market such as pension and retirement funds, life 

insurance companies, and individuals. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The recommendation includes a $500,000,000,000 limitation on 

loan commitments for mortgage-backed securities as requested. 

POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH

RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $48,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... 87,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 50,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. +2,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ ¥37,000,000 

The Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970 directs the 

Secretary to undertake programs of research, studies, testing, and 

demonstrations related to the HUD mission. These functions are 

carried out internally through contracts with industry, non-profit 

research organizations, and educational institutions and through 

agreements with state and local governments and other Federal 

agencies. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $50,000,000 for the Office of Policy 

Development and Research. This is $2,000,000 above the level of 

funding enacted for fiscal year 2010 and $37,000,000 below the 

budget request. 

The role of research is an important one, and one that the Committee takes very seriously, as evidenced by the fiscal year 2010 

appropriation for the Transformation Initiative. Through the 

Transformation Initiative, the Committee has approved 17 research 

projects and demonstrations that would not have been possible othVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:17 Jul 27, 2010 Jkt 057536 PO 00000 Frm 00153 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR564.XXX HR564

pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
154 

erwise. However, in this time of tight budget constraints, an 81 

percent increase is unsustainable. Further, the request for 

$32,000,000 in government-wide research is poorly justified. There 

is no information regarding the participation of or funding by other 

agencies, and very little information about how the data gathered 

will be used in policymaking. In addition, of the three studies described in the ‘‘Evaluation Initiative,’’ all three received funding in 

the fiscal year 2010 Transformation Initiative. 

FAIR HOUSING AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

FAIR HOUSING ACTIVITIES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $72,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... 61,100,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 72,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ +10,900,000 

The Fair Housing Act, title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, 

as amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental and financing of housing 

and authorizes assistance to state and local agencies in administering the provision of fair housing statutes. The Fair Housing 

Assistance Program (FHAP) assists state and local fair housing enforcement agencies that are certified by HUD as ‘‘substantially 

equivalent’’ to HUD with respect to enforcement policies and procedures. FHAP assures prompt and effective processing of complaints 

filed under title VIII that are within the jurisdiction of state and 

local fair housing agencies. The Fair Housing Initiatives Program 

(FHIP) alleviates housing discrimination by providing support to 

private nonprofit organizations, state and local government agencies and other nonfederal entities for the purpose of eliminating or 

preventing discrimination in housing, and to enhance fair housing 

opportunities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total of $72,000,000 for this account, equal to the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and $10,900,000 

above the Administration’s budget request. Of this amount, 

$29,500,000 is for FHAP and $42,500,000 is for FHIP. 

The Committee expects HUD to continue to provide quarterly reports on obligation and expenditure of these funds, delineated by 

each program and activity. 

OFFICE OF LEAD HAZARD CONTROL AND HEALTHY HOMES

LEAD HAZARD REDUCTION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $140,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... 140,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 140,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ – – – 

The Lead Hazard Reduction Program, authorized under the 

Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, provides grants 

to state and local governments to perform lead hazard reduction acVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:17 Jul 27, 2010 Jkt 057536 PO 00000 Frm 00154 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR564.XXX HR564

pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
155 

tivities in housing occupied by low-income families. The program 

also provides technical assistance, undertakes research and evaluations of testing and cleanup methodologies, and develops technical 

guidance and regulations in cooperation with the Environmental 

Protection Agency. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $140,000,000 for this account, equal 

to both the budget request and the level enacted in fiscal year 

2010. Amounts provided are to be allocated as follows: 

—$96,000,000 for the lead-based paint hazard control grant 

program to provide assistance to state and local governments 

and Native American tribes for lead-based paint abatement in 

private low-income housing; 

—$4,000,000 for technical assistance and support to state 

and local agencies and private property owners; and 

—$40,000,000 for the Healthy Homes Initiative for competitive grants for research, standards development, and education 

and outreach activities to housing-related diseases and hazards. 

The Committee continues language delegating the authority and 

responsibility for performing environmental review for the Healthy 

Homes Initiative, LEAP, and Lead Technical Studies projects and 

programs to governmental entities that are familiar with local environmental conditions, trends and priorities. 

Additionally, the Committee includes language pertaining to 

fund flexibility for available amounts from prior appropriations 

Acts. The Committee directs the Department to include in future 

congressional justifications the demand for each of its competitive 

programs in tabular format for the previous five years. 

The Committee includes language requiring the Department to 

publish the Notice of Funding Availability for this program within 

60 days of enactment of this Act. 

MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

WORKING CAPITAL FUND

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $200,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... 243,500,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 243,500,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. +43,500,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ – – – 

The Working Capital Fund was established pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. 3535 to provide necessary capital for the development of, 

modifications to, and infrastructure for Department-wide information technology systems, and for the continuing operation of both 

Department-wide and program-specific information technology systems. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $243,500,000 in direct appropriations for the Working Capital Fund to support Department-wide information technology systm activities, which is 43,500,000 above 

the fiscal year 2010 level and equal to the budget request. In addiVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:17 Jul 27, 2010 Jkt 057536 PO 00000 Frm 00155 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR564.XXX HR564

pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
156 

tion to the direct appropriation for Department-wide systems, 

funds are transferred from FHA. 

The Committee directs that funds appropriated for specific 

projects and activities should not be reduced or eliminated in order 

to fund other activities inside and outside of HUD without the expressed approval of the Committee. HUD is not to contribute or 

participate in activities that are specifically precluded in legislation, unless the Committee agrees to a change. 

The Committee recognizes the Department’s effort to improve the 

activities, oversight and management of the Working Capital Fund. 

However, the Committee remains distressed about these systems, 

many of which are outdated and insufficient to carry out the functions necessary to keep the Department’s valuable programs running effectively. The Committee is pleased with the focus on new 

development to improve the Department’s largest programs, such 

as the Tenant Based Rental Assistance program and the Federal 

Housing Administration. In addition, the Committee directs HUD 

to focus its attention on reducing the maintenance costs of existing 

legacy systems. An investigation by the Committee found that the 

estimation and accounting process for maintenance costs lacked 

transparency and provided no incentive for cutting costs. The Committee expects the Department to address these concerns. In addition, the Committee directs the Department to include in its budget 

justification in fiscal year 2012 and all future budgets, a list of 

each system being supported by this account, the program or office 

it serves and the annual maintenance costs for the last five fiscal 

years. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $125,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... 122,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 122,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. ¥3,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ – – – 

In 1978, Congress established the Office of Inspector General 

(IG) to conduct and supervise audits and investigations of agency 

operations and programs in order to: (1) promote administrative 

economy, efficiency, and effectiveness; and (2) prevent and detect 

programmatic and operational fraud, waste, and abuse. The IG is 

required to keep both Congress and the Secretary of HUD fully and 

currently informed about problems and deficiencies relating to the 

administration of programs and operations and the necessity for 

and progress of corrective action. 

At HUD, the audit function provides internal audit, contract 

audit, and inspection services. Internal audits evaluate all aspects 

of agency operations. Contract audits provide professional advice to 

agency contracting officials on accounting and financial matters relative to negotiation, award, administration, re-pricing, and settlement of contracts. Inspection services provide detailed technical 

evaluations of agency operations. The investigative function provides for the detection and investigation of improper and illegal activities involving programs, personnel, and operations. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
157 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $122,000,000 for the Office of Inspector General, equal to the budget request and $3,000,000 below 

the amount provided in fiscal year 2010. 

The Committee directs the Office of Inspector General to submit 

the Top Management Challenges Report directly to the Appropriations Committee staff at the time of report transmittal to the HUD 

Secretary. Additionally, the Committee directs the Office of Inspector General to separately post this report on the IG web site. 

Language is included in the bill which clarifies the authority of 

the Inspector General with respect to certain personnel issues. 

TRANSFORMATION INITIATIVE

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $20,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... 20,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 20,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ – – – 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee provides $20,000,000 for the Transformation Initiative, which is equal to the budget request. This funding amount 

will support HUD’s proposed Combating Mortgage Fraud initiative, 

which was initially funded in the fiscal year 2010 budget. The 

Committee will continue to monitor the use of these funds to ensure that HUD is not duplicating the efforts of any other agencies, 

such as the Department of Treasury or the Department of Justice. 

As in fiscal year 2010, the Administration requests authority to 

transfer up to one percent of funding from most HUD program 

areas to the Transformation Initiative (TI). The Committee provided $258,787,060 for this initiative in fiscal year 2010 to specifically address four areas: (1) Research, Evaluation and Performance 

Metrics; (2) Program Demonstrations; (3) Technical Assistance and 

Capacity Building; and (4) Information Technology. For fiscal year 

2011, the Department requests $475,616,500 for TI; the Committee 

recommends $220,740,500, a decrease of $254,876,000 from the request and $38,046,560 from the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. 

The Committee recognizes and appreciates the steps HUD has 

taken in transforming the agency, including the adoption of a new 

strategic plan, the hiring of an outstanding Chief Operating Officer, and the collaboration with the National Association of Public 

Administration (NAPA) on a variety of HUD operating concerns. 

Additionally, the Committee is pleased that HUD has begun to increase utilization of field offices and associated staff by delegating 

greater decision-making authority to those with the ‘‘boots on the 

ground’’ expertise. 

It is no secret that current leadership inherited a Department 

riddled with problems and suffering from a deficit in many 

foundational areas including information technology, human resources, and procurement. While the breadth of these areas is 

great, they do contain one unifying thread: internality. To transform HUD, as the Transformation Initiative proposes to do, requires not a series of new demonstrations, research projects, and 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
158 

programs, but rather a dedication and focus on the internal issues 

facing the Department. 

This is a critical point in the history of HUD. Instead of expending valuable resources on newly developed, theoretical programs, 

the Committee expects to see the Department turn its focus inward. Before assuming a slate of new responsibilities, HUD must 

prove that it can efficiently administer its existing responsibilities. 

The Committee’s reluctance to fund many of HUD’s new initiatives 

comes not from differing objectives, but a concern about HUD’s lack 

of progress on reducing administrative inefficiencies in its existing 

programs. There is no questioning the need for innovation in helping solve the housing challenges facing this nation’s citizens, but 

successful innovation requires successful implementation. And successful implementation requires HUD to have a strong internal 

foundation. 

The Committee has high expectations for the Department and is 

pleased that the majority of the high level staff consists of experienced housing practitioners. However, it is critical that these practitioners not only bring their housing experience to HUD, but also 

their management experience. The Committee is confident that the 

team in place can successfully address many of these internal challenges. 

To this end, the Committee is encouraged by the hiring of a 

Chief Operating Officer and believes this expertise is exactly what 

the Department requires for long-term transformation. With this in 

mind, the Committee expects that the Chief Operating Officer will 

play a critical role in the formation and implementation of the 

Transformation Initiative activities in fiscal year 2011. 

Transforming HUD, and thus the Transformation Initiative, 

must be envisioned more broadly than budgetary flexibility. Flexibility, or lack thereof, is not the primary challenge facing HUD. 

Therefore, the Committee has limited the use of the Transformation Initiative funds to the core needs of the Department. The 

majority of the funds provided ($130,000,000) are directed toward 

upgrades to HUD’s information technology so that HUD’s programs 

and core administrative functions can continue to improve. In addition, the Committee includes funding for technical assistance and 

capacity building ($40,000,000), because it is critical for HUD to 

improve these functions while it improves its own capacity. Lastly, 

a portion of the funding for research and demonstrations (which totals $30,740,500) is dedicated to the completion of the Housing Discrimination Study which began in the fiscal year 2010 TI appropriation as well as conducting an assessment of the effectiveness 

of HUD funded service coordinators. Due to the fact that the Committee had numerous holes to fill in the President’s budget, the Department is not allowed to transfer funding from accounts that 

were proposed for decreases or for elimination. 

The Committee denies the Department’s request for a central 

salaries and expenses fund in the Transformation Initiative. The 

Committee believes all of the objectives of this request can be addressed through the normal reprogramming process. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
159 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN

DEVELOPMENT

Section 201. The Committee continues the provision that relates 

to the division of financing adjustment factors. 

Section 202. The Committee continues the provision that prohibits available funds from being used to investigate or prosecute 

lawful activities under the Fair Housing Act. 

Section 203. The Committee continues language to correct an 

anomaly in the HOPWA formula that results in the loss of funds 

for certain states. 

Section 204. The Committee continues language requiring funds 

appropriated to be distributed on a competitive basis in accordance 

with the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform 

Act of 1989. 

Section 205. The Committee continues language regarding the 

availability of funds subject to the Government Corporation Control 

Act and the Housing Act of 1950. 

Section 206. The Committee continues language regarding allocation of funds in excess of the budget estimates. 

Section 207. The Committee continues language regarding the 

expenditure of funds for corporations and agencies subject to the 

Government Corporation Control Act. 

Section 208. The Committee continues language requiring the 

Secretary to provide quarterly reports on uncommitted, unobligated 

and excess funds in each departmental program and activity. 

Section 209. The Committee continues the provision that extends 

a technical amendment included in the fiscal year 2000 appropriations Act relating to the allocation of HOPWA funds in the Philadelphia and Raleigh-Cary metropolitan areas. A proviso is added to 

allow a state to administer the HOPWA program in the event that 

a local government is unable to undertake the HOPWA grants 

management functions. 

Section 210. The Committee continues the provision that requires that the Administration’s budget and the Department’s 

budget justifications for fiscal year 2012 shall be submitted in the 

identical account and sub-account structure provided in this Act. 

Section 211. The Committee continues the provision that exempts PHA Boards in Alaska, Iowa, and Mississippi and the County of Los Angeles from public housing resident representation requirement. 

Section 212. The Committee continues the provision that authorizes HUD to transfer debt and use agreements from an obsolete 

project to a viable project, provided that no additional costs are incurred, and other conditions are met. 

Section 213. The Committee continues the provision that distributes 2010 Native American housing block grant funds to the same 

Native Alaskan recipients as 2005. 

Section 214. The Committee continues the provision that prohibits the IG from changing the basis on which the audit of GNMA 

is conducted. 

Section 215. The Committee continues the provision that sets 

forth requirements for eligibility for Section 8 voucher assistance, 

and includes consideration for persons with disabilities. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
160 

Section 216. The Committee continues the provision that authorizes the Secretary to insure mortgages under Section 255 of the 

National Housing Act. 

Section 217. The Committee continues the provision that instructs HUD on managing and disposing of any multifamily property that is owned by HUD. 

Section 218. The Committee continues the provision that authorizes the Secretary to waive certain requirements on adjusted income for certain assisted living projects for counties in Michigan. 

Section 219. The Committee continues the provision that provides that the Secretary shall report quarterly on HUD’s use of all 

sole source contracts. 

Section 220. The Committee continues the provision that 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. 

Section 221. The Committee continues the provision that allows 

amounts provided under the Section 108 loan guarantee program 

may be used to guarantee notes or other obligations issued by any 

State on behalf of non-entitlement communities in the State, and 

that regulations shall be promulgated within 60 days of enactment. 

Section 222. The Committee includes the provision that amends 

section 24 of the 1937 Housing Act by extending the HOPE VI program through September 30, 2011. 

Section 223. The Committee continues the provision that instructs HUD that PHAs that own and operate 400 units or fewer 

of public housing are exempt from asset management requirements. 

Section 224. The Committee continues the provision that 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 

QHWRA. 

Section 225. The Committee continues the provision that provides that no employee of the Department shall be designated as 

an allotment holder unless the CFO determines that such allotment holder has received training. 

Section 226. The Committee continues the provision that provides that funding for indemnities is limited to non-programmatic 

litigation and is restricted to the payment of attorney fees only. 

Section 227. The Committee continues the provision that allows 

refinancing of certain section 202 loans. 

Section 228. The Committee continues the provision that makes 

reforms to the Federal Surplus Property Program for the homeless. 

Section 229. The Committee continues the provision that authorizes the Secretary to transfer up to 5 percent of funds appropriated 

under the title ‘‘Personnel Compensation and Benefits.’’ 

Section 230. The Committee continues the provision that allows 

HUD to consider industry standard appraisal practices, including 

the cost of repairs, when determining market value. 

Section 231. The Committee continues the provision that allows 

the Disaster Housing Assistance Programs to be considered a program of the Department of Housing and Urban Development for 

the purpose of income verifications and matching. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
161 

Section 232. The Committee includes a provision that restructures FHA premiums. 

Section 233. The Committee includes a provision providing $2,070,635 to increase the Department’s acquisition workforce capacity and capabilities. 

Section 234. The Committee includes a provision that repeals the 

paragraphs under the heading ‘‘Flexible Subsidy Fund.’’ 

Section 235. The Committee continues the provision that raises 

loan limits for FHA through the end of the fiscal year. 

Section 236. The Committee continues the provision that raises 

the GSE conforming loan limit for fiscal year 2011. 

Section 237. The Committee continues the provision that raises 

the Home Equity Conversion Mortgage loan limit for fiscal year 

2011. 

Section 238. The Committee includes a provision prohibiting 

funds from being used for salaries and expenses of more than 75 

political and Presidential appointees in HUD. The provision also 

requires that none of the personnel covered by this provision may 

be assigned on temporary detail outside HUD. 

TITLE III—RELATED AGENCIES 

ACCESS BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $7,300,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... 7,300,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 7,300,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ – – – 

The United States Access Board was established by section 502 

of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and is the only Federal Agency 

whose primary mission is accessibility for people with disabilities. 

The Access Board is responsible for developing guidelines under 

the Architectural Barriers Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, 

the Telecommunications Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. This responsibility ensures that buildings and facilities, transportation vehicles, telecommunications equipment, electronic and information technology 

used by federal agencies, and medical diagnostic equipment are 

readily accessible to and usable by people with disabilities. The Access Board also provides technical assistance and training on its 

guidelines and standards, as well as a variety of other accessibility 

issues. 

Additionally, the Access Board has responsibilities under the 

Help America Vote Act to serve on the Election Assistance Commission’s Board of Advisors and Technical Guidelines Development 

Committee. In this role, Access Board helps the Election Assistance 

Commission develop voluntary guidelines for voting systems, including guidance regarding accessibility for people with disabilities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $7,300,000 for the operations of the 

Access Board, equal to the budget request and to the level enacted 

in fiscal year 2010. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
162 

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $24,135,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... 25,498,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 25,300,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. 1,165,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ ¥198,000 

Established in 1961, the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) is 

an independent government agency, responsible for the regulation 

of oceanborne transportation in the foreign commerce of the United 

States. FMC policy focuses on 1) maintaining an efficient and competitive international ocean transportation system; and 2) protecting the public from unlawful, unfair, and deceptive ocean transportation practices. The Federal Maritime Commission monitors 

ocean common carriers, marine terminal operators, conferences, 

ports, and ocean transportation intermediaries to ensure they 

maintain just and reasonable practices. Among other activities, 

FMC also maintains a trade monitoring and enforcement program, 

monitors the laws and practices of foreign governments and their 

impacts on shipping conditions in the U.S., and enforces special 

regulatory requirements as they apply to controlled carriers. 

The principal shipping statutes administered by the FMC are the 

Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. 40101–41309), the Foreign Shipping Practices Act of 1988 (46 U.S.C. 42301–42307), Section 19 of 

the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 U.S.C. 42101–42109), and Public Law 89–777 (46 U.S.C. 44101–44106). 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $25,300,000 for the Federal Maritime Commission, which is $1,165,000 above the amount provided 

in fiscal year 2010 and $198,000 below the budget request. 

The reduction from the budget request is due, in part, to not 

fully funding the furniture and equipment request, as this account 

has seen substantial investment in prior years from other program 

savings. The remaining reduction is due to overall budget constraints. 

Of the funds provided, not more than $260,000 can be used for 

performance awards. 

NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK) 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $19,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... $22,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... $22,000,000 

Bill compared to: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. +3,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ – – – 

The Amtrak Inspector General is expected to be an independent, 

objective unit responsible for detecting and preventing fraud, 

waste, abuse, and violations of law and promoting economy, efficiency and effectiveness at Amtrak. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
163 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $22,000,000 for Amtrak’s Office of 

Inspector General (Amtrak OIG), which is $3,000,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and equal to the level proposed in the 

fiscal year 2011 budget. 

As in fiscal year 2010, the Committee continues to fund the Amtrak OIG as a separate entity and denies the budget’s request to 

fund the Amtrak OIG through a direct grant from the Federal Railroad Administration. The Committee created the separate appropriation last year in order to ensure the independence of the Inspector General. The Committee believes it is too early in the new 

process for the Department to eliminate this added autonomy. 

Budget justification.—The Committee directs the Amtrak OIG to 

submit to the Committees on Appropriations a comprehensive 

budget justification for fiscal year 2012 in similar format and substance to those submitted by other agencies of the Federal government and similar to the Amtrak OIG submission last year. 

OIG independence.—The Committee commends the Amtrak OIG 

for its efforts to improve its objectivity and independence and is 

pleased with the initial report from the Council of the Inspectors 

General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE) on the steps that have 

been taken thus far. The Committee recognizes this endeavor will 

require a multi-year approach to change the culture and organization of the Amtrak OIG. The Committee looks forward to periodic 

updates from the Amtrak OIG and documented progress in the 

CIGIE’s one-year review. 

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $98,050,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... 100,400,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 104,232,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. +6,182,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ +3,832,000 

Initially established along with the Department of Transportation (DOT), the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) 

commenced operations on April 1, 1967, as an independent federal 

agency charged by Congress with investigating every civil aviation 

accident in the United States, as well as significant accidents in 

other modes of transportation—railroad, highway, marine and 

pipeline—and issuing safety recommendations aimed at preventing 

future accidents. Although it has always operated independently, 

the NTSB relied on the DOT for funding and administrative support until the Independent Safety Board Act of 1974 (Public Law 

93–633) severed all ties between the two organizations effective 

April of 1975. 

In addition to its investigatory duties, the NTSB is responsible 

for maintaining the government’s database of civil aviation accidents and conducting special studies of transportation safety issues 

of national significance. Furthermore, in accordance with the provisions of international treaties, the NTSB supplies investigators to 

serve as U.S. Accredited Representatives for aviation accidents 

overseas involving U.S.-registered aircraft, or involving aircraft or 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
164 

major components of U.S. manufacture. The NTSB also serves as 

the ‘‘court of appeals’’ for any airman, mechanic or mariner whenever certificate action is taken by the Administrator of the Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) or the U.S. Coast Guard Commandant, or when civil penalties are assessed by the FAA. In addition, the NTSB operates the NTSB Academy in Ashburn, Virginia. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $104,232,000 for the salaries and 

expenses of the NTSB, an increase of $6,182,000 above fiscal year 

2010 and $3,832,000 above the budget request. Of this amount, no 

more than $2,000 may be used for official reception and representation expenses. 

Consistent with the budget request, the Committee provides the 

NTSB with the funds necessary to meet mandatory increases above 

the fiscal year 2010 enacted level, in the following amounts: 

Salaries and benefits .......................................................................... +$1,206,000 

Annualization of fiscal year 2010 positions ...................................... +867,000 

Rent ..................................................................................................... +2,980,000 

Inflation ............................................................................................... +113,000 

Inspector General audits.—The recommendation includes a reduction of $100,000 for the costs associated with the Department 

of Transportation’s Inspector General to conduct the annual audit 

of the NTSB’s financial statements. In an effort to provide greater 

transparency, the Committee has provided these resources directly 

to the Office of Inspector General. 

Expiring leases.—The lease that the NTSB holds on its current 

headquarters office space is due to expire early in fiscal year 2011 

and the agency has been working with the General Services Administration (GSA) on a competitive lease acquisition. In addition, 

the NTSB has leases which are also expiring in fiscal year 2011 for 

four of its regional offices. The Committee recommendation includes $2,416,000, as requested, to cover the moving and build out 

costs associated with these expiring leases. The NTSB is directed 

to keep the Committee informed about the progress made in negotiating the new leases for these offices and the potential cost increases or savings that may result. 

Full-time equivalent staff years (FTE).—As noted in previous 

years, the Committee continues to be concerned about the NTSB’s 

ability to examine wreckage, publish safety briefs, and issue safety 

recommendations in a timely manner from all of the aviation and 

surface transportation accidents that it must investigate. After 

achieving a staffing level of 427 FTE in fiscal year 2003, the agency 

was forced to absorb across-the-board cuts, unfunded pay raises, 

and mandatory increases to contracts and other non-salary related 

administrative expenses that reduced the number of positions that 

could actually be funded to a low of 377 FTE in fiscal year 2007. 

The Committee has worked over the past few years to provide the 

NTSB with additional resources in order to return the agency to its 

previous staffing level. Yet, despite these efforts, the President’s request for fiscal year 2011 forces the agency to cut 13 FTE in order 

to stay within a constrained budget. The Committee rejects this 

proposal and provides the resources necessary to fully fund the 

NTSB’s 415 FTE. In addition, the Committee provides $1,116,000 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
165 

above the request for the half-year costs associated with 10 additional positions for the NTSB to fill its most critical safety and 

technical staffing needs. The resulting staffing level of 425 FTE 

will return the NTSB to the FTE level held during fiscal year 2002 

and will give the agency the personnel needed to adequately investigate transportation-related accidents and meet the agency’s mission requirements. Furthermore, the Committee directs that none 

of these additional funds shall be used for the Academy. 

Modernization of NTSB labs.—In fiscal year 2010, the Com- mittee appropriated $800,000 to the NTSB for equipment to modernize the NTSB’s data recorder laboratory. This funding was intended to be a one-time increase to the agency’s budget. However, 

the NTSB has since developed a five-year capital investment plan 

of $2,855,000 to maintain its laboratories in order to keep current 

capabilities from being lost as technology changes. Given the important role that these laboratories play in determining the probable causes of accidents, the Committee does not believe that the 

NTSB can afford to lose the capability of analyzing data and materials from transportation accidents. The Committee recommendation, therefore, retains the funding provided in fiscal year 2010 for 

the NTSB to modernize and maintain its laboratories in order to 

support the accident investigations conducted by headquarters and 

regional investigators. 

Lease payments.—The Committee continues to note that the 

NTSB violated and continues to be in violation of the Anti-deficiency Act because it did not obtain or have budget authority to 

cover the net present value of the entire 20-year training center 

lease obligation at the time the capital lease agreement was signed 

in 2001. To ensure that the NTSB can satisfy its contractual obligations, the Committee has continued language that allows the 

NTSB to use its fiscal year 2011 appropriation to make the lease 

payments for the Academy. 

NTSB Academy.—The agency is encouraged to continue to seek 

additional opportunities to lease out, or otherwise generate revenue 

from the NTSB Academy, so that the agency can appropriately 

focus its resources on the important investigative work that is central to the agency’s mission. In addition, the agency is again directed to submit detailed information on the costs associated with 

the NTSB Academy, as well as the revenue the facility is expected 

to generate, as part of the fiscal year 2012 budget request. 

NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT CORPORATION

PAYMENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT CORPORATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $233,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... 250,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 285,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. +52,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ +35,000,000 

The Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation was created by the 

Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation Act (title VI of the Housing and Community Development Amendments of 1978). Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation now operates under the trade 

name ‘‘NeighborWorks America.’’ NeighborWorks America helps 

local communities establish working partnerships between resiVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:17 Jul 27, 2010 Jkt 057536 PO 00000 Frm 00165 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR564.XXX HR564

pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
166 

dents and representatives of the public and private sectors. These 

partnership-based organizations are independent, tax-exempt, community-based nonprofit entities, often referred to as 

NeighborWorks organizations. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a funding level of $285,000,000 for 

fiscal year 2011, which represents an increase of $52,000,000 above 

the level enacted in fiscal year 2010. Of this amount, $35,000,000 

is appropriated for continuation of a program began in fiscal year 

2010 for capital grants to rehabilitate or finance the rehabilitation 

of affordable housing units. In total, $113,000,000 is provided for 

the National Foreclosure Mitigation Counseling (NFMC) program, 

which has provided foreclosure counseling for nearly one million 

families to date. This program has also provided training for more 

than 4,000 foreclosure counselors. The data collected from this effort demonstrates that counseled homeowners were about 1.6 times 

as likely to avoid a foreclosure completion than they would have 

been had they not received NFMC program counseling. As the foreclosure crisis continues in this nation, the need for counseling only 

increases, and NeighborWorks has done an admirable job of responding to this need. 

UNITED STATES INTERAGENCY COUNCIL ON HOMELESSNESS

OPERATING EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 ......................................................... $2,450,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ....................................................... 2,680,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 2,680,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2010 .................................................. +230,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................................................ – – – 

The Committee recommends $2,680,000 for operating expenses of 

the Interagency Council on Homelessness, $230,000 above the enacted amount for fiscal year 2010 and equal to the requested 

amount. 

The Committee commends the ICH on its publication of ‘‘Opening 

Doors: The Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness’’ on June 22, 2010. Pulling together 19 Federal agencies and 

thousands of stakeholders across the nation is an admirable feat, 

and shows that the leadership of the ICH is moving the agency in 

the right direction. The plan’s focus on measurable goals, definite 

timetables, and interagency cooperation is exactly what the nation 

needs in this time of challenge and opportunity. The Committee is 

pleased that the ICH is living up to its mission and will work 

alongside this important agency to achieve the goals set forth in 

the plan. 

TITLE IV—GENERAL PROVISIONS, THIS ACT 

Section 401. The Committee continues the provision requiring 

pay raises to be funded within appropriated levels in this Act or 

previous appropriations Acts. 

Section 402. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

pay and other expenses for non-Federal parties in regulatory or adjudicatory proceedings funded in this Act. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
167 

Section 403. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

obligations beyond the current fiscal year and prohibiting transfers 

of funds unless expressly provided in this Act. 

Section 404. The Committee continues the provision limiting consulting service expenditures of public record in procurement contracts. 

Section 405. The Committee continues the provision specifying 

reprogramming procedures by subjecting the establishment of new 

offices and reorganizations to the reprogramming process. 

Section 406. The Committee continues the provision providing 

that fifty percent of unobligated balances may remain available for 

certain purposes. 

Section 407. The Committee continues the provision requiring 

agencies and departments funded in this Act to report on all sole 

source contracts. 

Section 408. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

employee training not directly related to the performance of official 

duties. 

Section 409. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

funds from being used for any project that seeks to use the power 

of eminent domain unless eminent domain is employed only for a 

public use. 

Section 410. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

the transfer of funds made available in this Act to any instrumentality of the United States Government except as authorized by 

this Act or any other appropriations Act. 

Section 411. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

funds in this Act from being used to permanently replace an employee intent on returning to his past occupation after completion 

of military service. 

Section 412. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

funds in this Act from being used unless the expenditure is in compliance with the Buy American Act. 

Section 413. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

funds from being appropriated or made available to any person or 

entity that has been found to violate the Buy American Act. 

Section 414. The Committee continues the provision that prohibits funds for first-class airline accommodations in contravention 

of section 301–10.122 and 301–10.123 of title 41 CFR . 

Section 415. The Committee continues the provision that 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. The Committee continues the provision which prohibits funds in this Act or any prior Act from going to the group 

ACORN or any of its affiliates, subsidiaries, or allied organizations. 

Section 417. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

for-profit earmarks. 

Section 418. The Committee includes a provision prohibiting the 

use of funds to establish or maintain a computer network unless 

such network blocks the viewing, downloading, and exchanging of 

pornography, except for law enforcement investigation, prosecution 

or adjudication activities. 

Section 419. The bill prohibits the obligation of funds in this Act 

in contravention of the new certification requirement established 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
168 

by section 6(b) of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996, which is to be included in revisions to the Federal Acquisition Regulation pursuant 

to that section. The revised FAR will require a certification from 

each prospective contractor that it does not engage in any activity 

for which sanctions may be imposed under section 5 of the Iran 

Sanctions Act of 1996. Section 6(b) of the Iran Sanctions Act of 

1996 was added by section 102(b) of the recent Comprehensive Iran 

Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

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

CHANGES IN THE APPLICATION OF EXISTING LAW

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following statements are submitted describing the effect of provisions in the accompanying bill which directly 

or indirectly change the application of existing law. 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Language is included under Office of the Secretary, ‘‘Salaries and 

expenses’’ specifying certain amounts for individual offices of the 

Office of the Secretary and official reception and representation expenses, and specifying transfer authority among offices. 

Language is included under Office of the Secretary, ‘‘Salaries and 

expenses’’ which would allow crediting the account with up to 

$2,500,000 in user fees; prohibits establishment of Assistant Secretary of Public Affairs. 

Language is included under the Office of the Secretary, ‘‘Livable 

Communities’’ to coordinate livability and sustainability initiatives; 

develop performance standards and metrics; and provide grants to 

State, local and non-profit organizations. Grants and technical assistance shall be for improved performance measurement capabilities, alternatives analysis, training and workshops. 

Language is included under the Office of the Secretary, ‘‘National 

Infrastructure Investment’’ which provides funds for competitive 

grants to state and local governments to make investments in the 

Nation’s transportation infrastructure. 

Language is included under the Office of the Secretary, ‘‘Financial Management Capital’’ which provides funds to upgrade DOT’s 

financial systems and processes. 

Language is included under the Office of the Secretary, ‘‘Cyber 

Security Initiatives’’ which provides funds to close DOT’s existing 

cyber security and privacy performance gaps; adapt DOT’s security 

posture to a Web 2.0 environment; transition from a reactive to a 

proactive security posture; and achieve the goals of Federal cyber 

security strategic plans and initiatives. 

Language is included for the Office of Civil Rights, which is responsible for advising the Secretary on civil rights and equal opportunity issues and ensuring the full implementation of the civil 

rights laws and departmental civil rights policies in all official actions and programs. 

Language is included under the Office of the Secretary, ‘‘Transportation planning, research, and development’’ which provides 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
169 

funds for conducting transportation planning, research, systems development, development activities and making grants, and makes 

funds available until expended. 

Language is included that limits operating costs and capital outlays of the Working Capital Fund for the Department of Transportation; provides that services shall be provided on a competitive 

basis, except for non-DOT entities; restricts the transfer for any 

funds to the Working Capital Fund with approval; and limits special assessments or reimbursable agreements levied against any 

program, project or activity funded in this Act to only those assessments or reimbursable agreements that are presented to and approved by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. 

Language is included under the Office of the Secretary, ‘‘Minority 

business resource center’’ which limits the amount of loans that 

can be subsidized, and provides funds for administrative expenses. 

Language is included under Office of the Secretary, ‘‘Minority 

business outreach’’ specifying that funds may be used for business 

opportunities related to any mode of transportation, and limits the 

availability of funds. 

Language is included under the Office of the Secretary, ‘‘Payments to air carriers’’ that provides funds from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, allows the Secretary of Transportation to consider 

subsidy requirements when determining service to a community, 

and allows the Secretary to repay any funds borrowed from the 

Federal Aviation Administration to fund the essential air service 

program. 

Section 101 prohibits the Office of the Secretary of Transportation from approving assessments or reimbursable agreements 

pertaining to funds appropriated to the modal administrations in 

this Act, unless such assessments or agreements have completed 

the normal reprogramming process for Congressional notification. 

Section 102 prohibits the use of funds to implement an essential 

air service local cost participation program. 

Section 103 allows the Secretary of Transportation or his designee to engage with states to consider proposals related to the reduction of motorcycle fatalities. 

Language is included under the Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Operations’’ that provides funds for operations, safety activities, 

staff offices and research activities related to commercial space 

transportation, administrative expenses for research and development, establishment of air navigation facilities, the operation (including leasing) and maintenance of aircraft, subsidizing the cost 

of aeronautical charts and maps sold to the public, lease or purchase of passenger motor vehicles for replacement; funds for certain aviation program activities; and specifies transfer authority 

among offices. 

Language is included under the Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Operations’’ permitting transfer of funds, as specified. 

Language is included requiring a controller workforce plan by 

March 31 of each fiscal year required by section 221 of Public Law 

108–176 and reduces the appropriation by $100,000 for each day 

the report is late. 

Language is included requiring a similar March 31 report on 

flight standards and aircraft certification staff and reduces the appropriation by $100,000 for each day the report is late. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
170 

Language is included under the Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Operations’’ permitting the use of funds to enter into a grant 

agreement with a nonprofit standard setting organization to develop aviation safety standards. 

Language is included under the Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Operations’’ that prohibits the use of funds for new applicants of 

the second career training program. 

Language is included under the Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Operations’’ that prohibits funds to plan, finalize, or implement 

any regulation that would promulgate new aviation user fees not 

specifically authorized by law after the date of enactment of this 

Act. 

Language is included under the Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Operations’’ that credits funds received from States, counties, municipalities, foreign authorities, other public authorities, and private sources for expenses incurred in the provision of agency services. 

Language is included under the Federal Aviation Administration, ‘‘Operations’’ that provides $9,500,000 for the contract tower cost 

sharing program. 

Language is included under the Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Operations’’ that prohibits funds for conducting and coordinating 

activities on aeronautical charting and cartography through the 

Working Capital Fund. 

Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Facilities and equipment’’ that provides funds for acquisition, establishment, technical support services, improvement by contract 

or purchase, and hire of air navigation and experimental facilities 

and equipment; engineering and service testing, construction and 

furnishing of quarters and related accommodations at remote localities; and the purchase, lease, or transfer of aircraft. 

Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Facilities and equipment’’ that provides funds from the Airport 

and Airway Trust Fund and limits the availability of funds. 

Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Facilities and equipment’’ that allows certain funds received for 

expenses incurred in the establishment and modernization of air 

navigation facilities to be credited to the account. 

Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Facilities and equipment’’ that requires the Secretary of Transportation to transmit a comprehensive capital investment plan for the 

Federal Aviation Administration. 

Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Research, engineering, and development’’ that provides funds from 

the Airport and Airway Trust Fund for research, engineering, and 

development, including construction of experimental facilities and 

acquisition of necessary sites by lease or grant; and limits the 

availability of funds. 

Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Research, engineering, and development’’ that allows certain funds 

received for expenses incurred in research, engineering and development to be credited to the account. 

Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Grants-in-aid for airports’’ that provides funds from the Airport 

and Airway Trust Fund for airport planning and development; 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
171 

noise compatibility planning and programs; procurement, installation, and commissioning of runway incursion prevention devices 

and systems; grants authorized under section 41743 of title 49, 

U.S.C.; and inspection activities and administration of airport safety programs; and limits the availability of funds. 

Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Grants-in-aid for airports’’ that limits funds available for the planning or execution of programs with obligations in excess of 

$3,515,000,000. 

Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Grants-in-aid for airports’’ that prohibits funds for the replacement of baggage conveyor systems, reconfiguration of terminal baggage areas, or other airport improvements that are necessary to install bulk explosive detection systems. 

Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, ‘‘Grants-in-aid for airports’’ that provides $99,622,000 for administration. 

Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, ‘‘Grants-in-aid for airports’’ that specifies $15,000,000 for the airport cooperative research program, $27,217,000 for the airport 

technology research program. 

Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Grants-in-aid for airports’’ that rescinds contract authority above 

the obligation limitation. 

Section 110 limits the number of technical workyears at the Center for Advanced Aviation Systems Development to 600 in fiscal 

year 2011. 

Section 111 prohibits FAA from requiring airport sponsors to provide the agency ‘‘without cost’’ building construction, maintenance, 

utilities and expenses, or space in sponsor-owned buildings, except 

in the case of certain specified exceptions. 

Section 112 allows reimbursement for fees collected and credited 

under 49 U.S.C. 45303. 

Section 113 allows reimbursement of funds for providing technical assistance to foreign aviation authorities to be credited to the 

operations account. 

Section 114 prohibits funds in the Act from being used to change 

weight restrictions or prior permission rules at Teterboro Airport 

in Teterboro, New Jersey. 

Section 115 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 as proposed by the House and Senate. 

Section 116 prohibits the use of funds for premium pay under 

subsection 5546(a) of title 5, U.S.C. to any FAA employee unless 

said employee worked during the corresponding timeframe. 

Section 117 prohibits funds in the Act from being used to buy 

store gift cards with Government issued credit cards as proposed 

by the House and Senate. 

Language is included under the Federal Highway Administration, ‘‘Limitation on administrative expenses’’ that limit the 

amount to be paid, together with advances and reimbursements received, for the administrative expenses of the agency, including an 

amount for financial system upgrades subject to conditions. In adVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:17 Jul 27, 2010 Jkt 057536 PO 00000 Frm 00171 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR564.XXX HR564

pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
172 

dition to this limitation, an amount is specified that is to be made 

available to the Appalachian Regional Commission for administrative expenses. 

Language is included under the Federal Highway Administration, ‘‘Federal-aid highways’’ that limits the obligations for Federalaid highways and highway safety construction programs; limits the 

amount available for the implementation or execution of programs 

for transportation research, which shall not apply to any authority 

previously made available for obligation; and allows the Secretary 

to charge, collect and spend fees for loan applications and that such 

amounts are in addition to administrative expenses and are not 

subject to any obligation limitation or limitation on administrative 

expenses under section 608 of title 23, U.S.C., and which are available until expended. 

Language is included under the Federal Highway Administration, ‘‘Federal-aid highways’’ that liquidates contract authority. 

Section 120 distributes obligation authority among federal-aid 

highway programs. 

Section 121 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 prohibits tolling in Texas, with exceptions. 

Section 124 reallocates $200,000,000 from other programs to support the FHWA’s livable communities program, as requested. 

Section 125 clarifies funding for various projects which were included in previous appropriations Acts. 

Section 126 clarifies funding for various projects which were included in section 1702 of Public Law 109–59. 

Section 127 clarifies funding for various projects which were included in section 1602 of Public Law 105–178. 

Section 128 rescinds unobligated balances associated with demonstration or high priority projects which were funded in previous 

appropriations Acts. 

Section 129 rescinds unobligated balances made available for 

highway related safety grants in prior appropriations Acts. 

Section 130 permanently rescinds unobligated contract authority 

authorized for administrative expenses of the FHWA that will not 

be available for obligation because of the limitation on administrative expenses imposed in this Act and prior Acts. 

Language is included under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration, ‘‘Motor Carrier Safety Operations and Programs’’ 

that provides a limitation on obligations and liquidation of contract 

authorization, including specifying amounts available for research 

and technology programs and commercial motor vehicle operator’s 

grants; and prohibits funds for outreach and education from being 

transferred. 

Language is included under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration, ‘‘Motor carrier safety grants’’ that provides a limitation on obligations and liquidation of contract authorization, including specifying amounts available for the commercial driver’s license improvements program, border enforcement grants program, 

the performance and registration information system management 

program, the commercial vehicle information systems and networks 

deployment program, the safety data improvement program, and 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
173 

the commercial driver’s license information system modernization 

program; and specifies amount for new entrant audits. 

Language is included under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration, ‘‘Motor Carrier Safety’’ that rescinds unobligated 

balances from prior appropriations Acts. 

Language is included under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration, ‘‘Motor Carrier Safety Program’’ that rescinds unobligated balances from prior appropriations Acts. 

Section 135 continues a provision subjecting funds appropriated 

in this Act to the terms and conditions of section 350 of Public Law 

107–87 and Section 6901 of Public Law 110–28, including a requirement that the secretary submit a report on Mexico-domiciled 

motor carriers. 

Language is included under National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, ‘‘Operations and research’’ that limits the availability 

of funds and prohibits the planning or implementation of any rulemaking on labeling passenger car tires for low rolling resistance. 

Language is included under National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, ‘‘Operations and research’’ that provides a limitation 

on obligations, limits the availability of funds, and provides a liquidation of contract authorization from the highway trust fund. 

Language is included under the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration ‘‘National driver register’’ that provides a limitation 

on obligations and a liquidation of contract authorization from the 

highway trust fund. 

Language is included under the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration ‘‘National driver register modernization’’ that limits 

the availability of funds. 

Language is included under the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration ‘‘Highway traffic safety grants’’ that provides a limitation on obligations, limits the availability of funds, specifies the 

amounts for certain safety grant programs and provides a liquidation of contract authorization from the highway trust fund. 

Language is included under the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration that reallocates funds from the seat belt performance grants program to fund a new distracted driving grant program and allows a portion of the funding to be used for the development, production, and use of broadcast and print media in support of efforts to prevent distracted driving. 

Language is included under National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, ‘‘Highway traffic safety grants’’ prohibiting the use of 

funds for construction, rehabilitation or remodeling costs or for office furniture for state, local, or private buildings. 

Language is included under National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, ‘‘Highway traffic safety grants’’ that limits funding for 

an evaluation for the high visibility enforcement program. 

Language is included under National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, ‘‘Highway traffic safety grants’’ limiting the amount 

of funds available for technical assistance to states under section 

410. 

Section 140 provides funding for travel and related expenses for 

state management reviews and highway safety core competency development training. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
174 

Section 141 exempts obligation authority that was made available in previous public laws for multiple years from limitations on 

obligations for the current year. 

Section 142 rescinds unobligated contract authority authorized 

from the highway trust fund for NHTSA’s highway safety grant 

programs that will not be available for obligation because of limitations on obligations imposed on those funds in this Act or previous 

appropriations Acts. 

Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration, 

‘‘Safety and operations’’ limiting the availability of funds. 

Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration, 

‘‘Railroad research and development’’ limiting the availability of 

funds. 

Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration, 

‘‘Railroad safety technology program’’ to provide funds for grants to 

passenger, commuter and freight rail carriers, railroad suppliers, 

and State and local governments for projects that have a public 

benefit of improved railroad safety and efficiency. 

Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration, 

‘‘Railroad rehabilitation and improvement financing program’’ authorizing the Secretary to issue fund anticipation notes necessary 

to pay obligations under sections 511 and 513 of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act. 

Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration, 

‘‘Railroad rehabilitation and improvement program’’ that prohibits 

new direct loans or loan guarantee commitments using federal 

funds for credit risk premium under section 502 of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act. 

Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration, 

‘‘Capital assistance for high speed rail corridors and intercity passenger rail service’’ to provide funds for passenger rail infrastructure grants for intercity passenger rail, high-speed passenger rail 

and reducing congestion or facilitating ridership growth along passenger rail corridors. 

Language is included under the Federal Railroad Administration, 

‘‘Operating subsidy grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation’’ that allows the Secretary of Transportation to make 

quarterly grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation; 

allows the Secretary to approve funding only after receiving and reviewing a grant request for each train route; ensures that each 

grant request is accompanied by a detailed financial analysis, revenue projection, and capital expenditure projection; requires the 

Corporation to achieve savings through operational efficiencies; requires the Inspector General of the Department of Transportation 

to provide quarterly reports to the Congress on estimates of the 

savings due to operational reforms; requires the Corporation to 

submit to Congress the status of its plan to improve the financial 

performance of food and beverage service as well as first class service, including sleeper car service as well as a report on progress 

compared with its targets provided in its fiscal year 2007 plan; requires the Corporation to submit a detailed business plan that includes targets for ridership, revenues, and capital and operating 

expenses as well as monthly reports regarding the status of the 

business plan; requires that contracts entered into by the Corporation will be governed by the laws of the District of Columbia; reVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:17 Jul 27, 2010 Jkt 057536 PO 00000 Frm 00174 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR564.XXX HR564

pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
175 

quires the Corporation to follow the provisions of the direct loan 

agreement; and prohibits funds to support any route with a discounted fare of more than 50 percent off the normal peak fare, unless the operating loss is the result of a discount covered by a 

State. 

Language is included under the Federal Railroad Administration, 

‘‘Capital and Debt Service Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation’’ that allows the Secretary of Transportation to 

make grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation for 

the maintenance and repair of capital infrastructure and debt service; allows the Secretary to retain some funds to be used for oversight; bars funds under this section to be used for operating losses; 

restricts the use of funds unless they have been approved by the 

Secretary or are contained in the Corporation’s business plan; provides financial incentives that can be used for capital improvements if the Corporation demonstrates operational savings and 

meets ridership and revenue targets; provides funds for the development and implementation of a managerial cost accounting system; and requires the establishment of a common definition for 

‘‘state of good repair’’ on the Northeast Corridor. 

The Committee includes new language under Federal Railroad 

Administration, ‘‘Intercity Passenger Rail Program’’ as recommended in the President’s budget that establishes and provides 

funding for an Intercity Passenger Rail Grant program. 

Section 150 retains a provision that ceases the availability of 

Amtrak funds if the railroad contracts for services outside the 

United States for any service performed by a full-time or part-time 

Amtrak employee as of July 1, 2006. 

Section 151 retains a provision, which allows FRA to receive and 

use cash or spare parts to repair and replace damaged automated 

track inspection cars and equipment in connection with the automated track inspection program. 

Language is included under Federal Transit Administration, ‘‘Administrative Expenses’’ specifying an amount for administrative expenses and travel; prohibiting a permanent office of transit security; directing the submission of the annual report on new starts; 

provides funds for fixed guideway oversight activities if authorized; 

and provides funds for transit operating assistance, if authorized. 

Language is included under Federal Transit Administration, 

‘‘Formula and Bus Grants’’ that provides a limitation on obligations 

from the Highway Trust Fund, liquidation of contract authorization 

for the operating expenses of the agency, limits the availability of 

funds, and rescinds unobligated balances. 

Language is included under Federal Transit Administration, ‘‘Research and University Centers’’ that limits the availability of funds 

and specifies the amounts for certain offices and programs. 

Language is included under Federal Transit Administration, 

‘‘Capital Investment Grants’’ that limits the availability of funds, 

specifies certain amounts for specific projects, and rescinds unobligated balances. 

Language is included under Federal Transit Administration, 

‘‘Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority’’ for capital and 

preventive maintenance expenditures and requires the Secretary to 

determine that WMATA has placed the highest priority on safety 

investments. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
176 

Section 160 exempts previously made transit obligations from 

limitations on obligations. 

Section 161 allows unobligated funds for projects under ‘‘Capital 

Investment Grants’’ and bus and bus facilities under ‘‘Formula and 

Bus Grants’’ in prior year appropriations Acts to be used in this fiscal year. 

Section 162 allows for the transfer of prior year appropriations 

from older accounts to be merged into new accounts with similar, 

current activities. 

Section 163 unobligated funds for projects under ‘‘Capital Investment Grants’’ to be used in this fiscal year for activities eligible in 

the year the funds were appropriated. 

Section 164 requires that Section 5309 unobligated funds or recoveries available for reallocation shall be directed to projects eligible to use the funds for their originally intended purpose. 

Language is included under the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation that authorizes expenditures, contracts, and commitments as may be necessary. 

Language is included under the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation ‘‘Operations and Maintenance’’ that provides 

funds derived from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. 

Language is included under Maritime Administration, ‘‘Maritime 

Security Program’’ that limits the availability of funds. 

Language is included under Maritime Administration, ‘‘Operations and Training’’ that provides dedicated funds for salaries and 

benefits of employees of the United States Merchant Marine Academy, capital improvements at the United States Merchant Marine 

Academy, and the State Maritime Schools Schoolship Maintenance 

and Repair; and limits the availability of some funds. 

Language is included under Maritime Administration, ‘‘Ship Disposal’’ that limits the availability of funds. 

Language is included under Maritime Administration, ‘‘Maritime 

Guaranteed Loan (Title XI) Program Account’’ that provides for the 

transfer to Operations and Training and rescinds unobligated balances. 

Section 170 allows the Maritime Administration to furnish utilities and services and make repairs to any lease, contract, or occupancy involving government property under the control of MARAD 

and rental payments shall be covered into the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts. 

Language is included under Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration, ‘‘Operational expenses’’ which specifies the 

amount derived from the pipeline safety fund and requires that 

$1,000,000 be transferred to the pipeline safety account to fund 

pipeline safety information grants to communities. 

Language is included under Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration, ‘‘Hazardous materials safety’’ which limits 

the availability of a certain amount and allows up to $800,000 in 

fees collected under 49 U.S.C. 5108(g) to be deposited in the general fund of the Treasury as offsetting receipts. 

Language is included under Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration, ‘‘Hazardous materials safety’’ that credits 

certain funds received for expenses incurred for training and other 

activities incurred in performance of hazardous materials exemptions and approval functions. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
177 

Language is included under Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration, ‘‘Pipeline safety’’ which specifies the 

amounts derived from the pipeline safety fund and the oil spill liability trust fund and limits their period of availability. 

Language is included under Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration, ‘‘Pipeline safety’’ that requires the agency to 

fund the one-call state grant program. 

Language is included under Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration, ‘‘Emergency Preparedness Grants’’ which 

specifies the amount derived from the emergency preparedness 

fund, limits the availability of some funds, and prohibits funds 

from being obligated by anyone other than the Secretary or his designee. 

Language is included under Research and Innovative Technology 

Administration, ‘‘Research and development’’ that limits the availability of funds and credits to the appropriation funds received 

from States and other sources for expenses incurred for training. 

Language is included under Office of Inspector General, ‘‘Salaries 

and expenses’’ that provides the Inspector General with all necessary authority to investigate allegations of fraud by any person 

or entity that is subject to regulation by the Department of Transportation and the authority to investigate unfair or deceptive practices and unfair methods of competition by domestic and foreign air 

carriers and ticket agents. 

Language is included under Office of Inspector General, ‘‘Salaries 

and expenses’’ that specifies an amount from the highway trust 

fund to fund the annual audit of the highway trust fund financial 

statements. 

Language is included under Surface Transportation Board, ‘‘Sala- ries and expenses’’ allowing the collection of $1,250,000 in fees established by the Chairman of the Surface Transportation Board; 

and providing that the sum appropriated from the general fund 

shall be reduced on a dollar-for-dollar basis as such fees are received. 

Section 180 allows the Department of Transportation to use 

funds for 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 to 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, and prohibits political and Presidential personnel assigned on temporary detail outside 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 from releasing personal information, including social security 

number, medical or disability information, and photographs from a 

driver’s license or motor vehicle record, without express consent of 

the person to whom such information pertains; and prohibits the 

withholding of funds provided in this Act for any grantee if a state 

is in noncompliance with this provision. 

Section 185 allows funds received by the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, and the Federal RailVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:17 Jul 27, 2010 Jkt 057536 PO 00000 Frm 00177 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR564.XXX HR564

pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
178 

road Administration from states, counties, municipalities, other 

public authorities, and private sources to be used for expenses incurred for training may be credited to each agency’s respective accounts. 

Section 186 stipulates that funds provided or limited in this Act 

for the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, and the Federal Railroad Administration shall be for the 

eligible programs, projects and activities in the corresponding 

amounts identified in the committee report accompanying this Act. 

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 funds in Title I of this Act from being 

issued for any grant unless the Secretary of Transportation notifies 

the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations not less than 

three full business days before any discretionary grant award, letter of intent, or full funding grant agreement totaling $1,000,000 

or more is announced by the department or its modal administrations. 

Section 189 allows funds received from rebates, refunds, and 

similar sources to be credited to Department of Transportation appropriations. 

Section 190 allows amounts from improper payments to a third 

party contractor that are lawfully recovered by the Department of 

Transportation to be available to cover expenses incurred in recovery of such payments. 

Section 191 stipulates that the Committees on Appropriations 

solely approve or deny any funds provided or limited in this Act 

that are subject to a reprogramming action that requires notice to 

be provided to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. 

Section 192 prohibits the Surface Transportation Board from 

charging or collecting filing fees for rate complaints in an amount 

in excess of the authorized amount under section 1914 of title 28, 

United States Code. 

Section 193 authorizes the Department’s Working Capital Fund 

to provide payments in advance to vendors under provision included in Executive Order 13150 and section 3049 of Public Law 

109–59. 

Section 194 provides $7,622,655 for additional acquisition workforce capacity and capabilities. 

TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN 

DEVELOPMENT 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Management and Administration’’ which designates 

funds for ‘‘Executive Direction’’ and ‘‘Administration, Operations 

and Maintenance.’’ 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Personnel Compensation and Benefits’’ which designates funds for ‘‘Public and Indian Housing,’’ ‘‘Community Planning and Development,’’ ‘‘Housing,’’ ‘‘Office of the Government National Mortgage Association,’’ ‘‘Policy Development and Research,’’ 

‘‘Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity’’ and ‘‘Office of Healthy 

Homes and Lead Hazard Control.’’ 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
179 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Tenant-Based Rental Assistance’’ which specifies 

funds for certain programs, activities and purposes and limits the 

use and availability of certain funds; specifies the methodology for 

allocation of renewal funding; directs the Secretary to the extent 

possible to prorate each public housing agency’s (PHA) allocation; 

directs the Secretary to notify PHAs of their annual budget not 

later than 60 days after enactment of the Act; directs that those 

PHAs participating in Moving to Work shall be funded according 

to that agreement; provides the criteria to allocate a portion of Administrative Fees; specifies the amounts available to the Secretary 

to allocate to PHAs that need additional funds and for fees; specifies the amount for additional rental subsidy due to unforeseen 

emergencies and portability; provides for the transfer of funds to 

the ‘‘Transformation Initiative;’’ provides that additional tenant 

protection rental assistance costs be funded by prior year unobligated balances; provides funding for incremental vouchers for 

homeless veterans; provides incremental funding for eligible Disaster Housing Assistance Program (DHAP) families; provides funding for two competitive demonstration programs addressing needs 

of those homeless and at risk of homelessness; and directs that all 

funds shall be only for activities related to the provision of tenantbased rental assistance authorized under section 8. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Housing Certificate Fund’’ which rescinds prior year 

funds; and allows the Secretary to use recaptures to fund projectbased contracts and contract administrators. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Public Housing Capital Fund’’ which limits the 

availability of funds; limits the delegation of certain waiver authorities and prohibits funds from being used for certain activities; 

specifies the total amount available for certain activities; directs 

HUD to issue a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) not later 

than 60 days after enactment of the Act; and specifies the amount 

for grants, support services, service coordinators and congregate 

services, to support the costs of administrative and judicial receiverships, and to support the ongoing Public Housing Financial and 

Physical Assessment activities of the Real Estate Assessment Center. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Public Housing Operating Fund’’ which sets the 

basis for the allocation of funds and prohibits the use of funds 

under certain conditions. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Revitalization of Severely Distressed Public Housing 

(HOPE VI)’’ which limits the availability of funds; specifies the 

amount for technical assistance and contract expertise; and directs 

HUD to issue a NOFA not later than 60 days after enactment of 

the Act. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Native American Housing Block Grants’’ which limits the availability of funds; specifies the formula for allocation; 

specifies the amounts for technical assistance and capacity building 

to support the inspection of Indian housing units, administrative 

expenses, to subsidize the total principal amount of any notes, and 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
180 

the cost of guaranteed notes, which are defined in section 502 of 

the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant’’ which limits 

the availability of funds and specifies the amount for training and 

technical activities. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund Program Account’’ which limits the availability of funds; specifies how to define 

the costs of modifying loans; specifies the amount and availability 

of funds to subsidize total loan principal; and provides a dedicated 

amount for administrative expenses. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Native Hawaiian Loan Guarantee Fund Program 

Account’’ which limits the availability of funds; specifies how to define the costs of modifying loans; and specifies the amount and 

availability of funds to subsidize total loan principal. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS’’ 

which limits availability of funds and sets forth certain requirements for the allocation and renewal of funds and contracts. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Community Development Fund’’ which limits the 

use and availability of certain funds; specifies the allocation of certain funds; specifies the amount made available for grants to federally-recognized Indian tribes, emergencies, Economic Development 

Initiatives with certain restrictions, and Neighborhood Initiatives 

with certain restrictions and the Sustainable Communities Initiative. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Community Development Loan Guarantees Program 

Account’’ which limits the availability of funds; specifies how to define the costs of modifying loans; and specifies the amount and 

availability of funds to subsidize total loan principal. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Brownfields Redevelopment’’ which limits the availability of funds and directs HUD to issue a NOFA not later than 

60 days after enactment of the Act. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Home Investment Partnerships Program’’ which 

limits the availability of funds; specifies the allocation of certain 

funds for certain purposes; and directs HUD to notify formula 

grantees no later than 60 days after enactment of the Act. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Self-Help and Assisted Homeownership Opportunity 

Program’’ which limits the availability of funds; specifies the allocation of certain funds for certain purposes; and directs HUD to issue 

a NOFA not later than 60 days after enactment of the Act. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Homeless Assistance Grants’’ which limits the availability of funds; specifies the allocation of certain funds for certain 

purposes; specifies matching requirements; directs the Secretary to 

renew contracts under certain conditions; requires grantees to integrate homeless programs with other social service providers. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
181 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Project-Based Rental Assistance’’ which limits the 

availability of funds and specifies the allocation of certain funds for 

certain purposes. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Housing for the Elderly’’ which limits the availability of funds; specifies the allocation of certain funds; designates 

certain funds to be used only for certain grants; allows the Secretary to waive certain provisions governing contract terms; and 

provides for the transfer of funds to the Working Capital Fund. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Housing for Persons with Disabilities’’ which limits 

the availability of funds; specifies the allocation of certain funds; 

allows funds to be used to renew certain contracts; and allows the 

Secretary to waive certain provisions governing contract terms. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Housing Counseling Assistance’’ which limits the 

availability of funds and specifies amounts to be used for administrative contract services. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Rental Housing Assistance’’ which limits the availability of funds and rescinds funds. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Payment to Manufactured Housing Fees Trust 

Fund’’ which limits the availability of funds and permits fees to be 

assessed, modified, and collected, and permits temporary borrowing 

authority from the General Fund of the Treasury. 

Language is included under the Department of Housing and 

Urban Development, ‘‘Mutual Mortgage Insurance Program Account’’ which sets a loan principal limitation; limits the obligations 

to make direct loans; specifies funds for specific purposes; allows 

for the transfer of certain funds; allows for additional contract expenses as guaranteed loan commitments exceed certain levels. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘General and Special Risk Program Account’’ which 

sets a loan principal limitation; limits the obligations to make direct loans; specifies funds for specific purposes; and allows for the 

transfer of funds. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Government National Mortgage Association’’ which 

limits new commitments to issue guarantees. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Policy Development and Research’’ which limits the 

availability of funds and specifies authorized uses. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity’’ which limits 

the availability of funds; authorizes the Secretary to assess and collect fees; and places restrictions on the use of funds for lobbying 

activities. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes’’ 

which limits the availability of funds; specifies the amount of funds 

for specific purposes; specifies the treatment of certain grants; and 

directs HUD to issue a NOFA not later than 60 days after enactment of the Act. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
182 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Management and Administration: Working Capital 

Fund’’ which limits the availability and purpose of funds, including 

funds transferred. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Office of Inspector General’’ which specifies the use 

of funds and directs that the IG shall have independent authority 

over all personnel issues within the office. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Transformation Initiative’’ (TI) which limits the 

availability of funds; specifies the purposes of funds; identifies the 

accounts and amounts from which TI can receive transfers; and directs HUD to submit a plan regarding the use of TI funds to the 

Committees on Appropriations. 

Section 201 relates to the division of financing adjustment factors. 

Section 202 prohibits available funds from being used to investigate or prosecute lawful activities under the Fair Housing Act. 

Section 203 corrects an anomaly in the HOPWA formula that results in the loss of funds for certain States. 

Section 204 requires funds appropriated to be distributed on a 

competitive basis in accordance with the Department of Housing 

and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989. 

Section 205 concerns the availability of funds subject to the Government Corporation Control Act and the Housing Act of 1950. 

Section 206 concerns the allocation of funds in excess of the 

budget estimates. 

Section 207 concerns the expenditure of funds for corporations 

and agencies subject to the Government Corporation Control Act. 

Section 208 requires the Secretary to provide quarterly reports 

on uncommitted, unobligated and excess funds in each departmental program and activity. 

Section 209 extends a technical amendment included in the fiscal 

year 2000 appropriations Act relating to the allocation of HOPWA 

funds in the Philadelphia and Raleigh-Cary metropolitan areas. A 

proviso is added to allow a state to administer the HOPWA program in the event that a local government is unable to undertake 

the HOPWA grants management functions. 

Section 210 requires that the Administration’s budget and the 

Department’s budget justifications for fiscal year 2012 shall be submitted in the identical account and sub-account structure provided 

in this Act. 

Section 211 exempts PHA Boards in Alaska, Iowa, and Mississippi and the County of Los Angeles from public housing resident representation requirements. 

Section 212 authorizes HUD to transfer debt and use agreements 

from an obsolete project to a viable project, provided that no additional costs are incurred, and other conditions are met. 

Section 213 distributes 2010 Native American housing block 

grant funds to the same Native Alaskan recipients as 2005. 

Section 214 prohibits the IG from changing the basis on which 

the audit of GNMA is conducted. 

Section 215 sets forth requirements for eligibility for Section 8 

voucher assistance, and includes consideration for persons with disabilities. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
183 

Section 216 authorizes the Secretary to insure mortgages under 

Section 255 of the National Housing Act. 

Section 217 instructs HUD on managing and disposing of any 

multifamily property that is owned by HUD. 

Section 218 authorizes the Secretary to waive certain requirements on adjusted income for certain assisted living projects for 

counties in Michigan. 

Section 219 provides that the Secretary shall report quarterly on 

HUD’s use of all sole source contracts. 

Section 220 allows the recipient of a section 202 grant to establish a single-asset non-profit entity to own the project and may 

lend the grant funds to such entity. 

Section 221 allows that amounts provided under the Section 108 

loan guarantee program may be used to guarantee notes or other 

obligations issued by any State on behalf of non-entitlement communities in the State, and that regulations shall be promulgated 

within 60 days of enactment. 

Section 222 amends section 24 of the 1937 Housing Act by extending the HOPE VI program through September 30, 2011. 

Section 223 instructs HUD that PHAs that own and operate 400 

units or fewer of public housing are exempt from asset management requirements. 

Section 224 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 QHWRA. 

Section 225 provides that no employee of the Department shall 

be designated as an allotment holder unless the CFO determines 

that such allotment holder has received training. 

Section 226 provides that funding for indemnities is limited to 

non-programmatic litigation and is restricted to the payment of attorney fees only. 

Section 227 allows refinancing of certain section 202 loans. 

Section 228 makes reforms to the Federal Surplus Property Program for the homeless. 

Section 229 authorizes the Secretary to transfer up to 5 percent 

of funds appropriated under the title ‘‘Personnel Compensation and 

Benefits.’’ 

Section 230 allows HUD to consider industry standard appraisal 

practices, including the cost of repairs, when determining market 

value. 

Section 231 allows the Disaster Housing Assistance Programs to 

be considered a program of the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development for the purpose of income verifications and matching. 

Section 232 restructures FHA premiums. 

Section 233 provides $2,070,635 to increase the Department’s acquisition workforce capacity and capabilities. 

Section 234 repeals the paragraphs under the heading ‘‘Flexible 

Subsidy Fund.’’ 

Section 235 raises loan limits for FHA through the end of the fiscal year. 

Section 236 raises the GSE conforming loan limit for fiscal year 

2011. 

Section 237 raises the Home Equity Conversion Mortgage loan 

limit for fiscal year 2011. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
184 

Section 238 prohibits funds from being used for salaries and expenses of more than 75 political and Presidential appointees in 

HUD. The provision also requires that none of the personnel covered by this provision may be assigned on temporary detail outside 

HUD. 

TITLE III—RELATED AGENCIES 

Language is included for the Access Board, ‘‘Salaries and Expenses’’ that allows for the credit to the appropriation of funds received for publications and training expenses. 

Language is included for the Federal Maritime Commission, 

‘‘Salaries and Expenses’’ that provides funds for services authorized 

by 5 U.S.C. 3109, the hire of passenger motor vehicles, uniforms 

and allowances, and official reception and representation expenses. 

Language is included for the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, Office of Inspector General, ‘‘Salaries and Expenses’’ to 

provide funds for an independent, objective unit responsible for detecting and preventing fraud, waste, abuse, and violations of law 

and promoting economy, efficiency and effectiveness at Amtrak. 

Language is included under National Transportation Safety 

Board, ‘‘Salaries and expenses’’ that provides funds for hire of passenger motor vehicles and aircraft, services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 

3109, uniforms or allowances therefore, and for official reception 

and representation expenses. 

Language is included under National Transportation Safety 

Board, ‘‘Salaries and expenses’’ that allows funds provided in this 

Act to be used to pay for costs associated with a 2001 capital lease. 

Language is included in the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation (NRC), ‘‘Payment to the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation’’ which limits the availability of funds; specifies the allocation of funds to certain activities; and specifies the terms and conditions surrounding NRC activities. 

Language is included for the United States Interagency Council 

on Homelessness, ‘‘Operating Expenses’’ that provides funds for 

salaries, travel, hire of passenger motor vehicles, rental of conference rooms, and the employment of experts and consultants. 

TITLE IV—GENERAL PROVISIONS, THIS ACT 

Section 401 requires pay raises to be funded 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 consulting service expenditures of public 

record in procurement contracts. 

Section 405 specifies reprogramming procedures by subjecting 

the establishment of new offices and reorganizations to the reprogramming process. 

Section 406 provides that fifty percent of unobligated balances 

may remain available for certain purposes. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
185 

Section 407 requires a report from all agencies and departments 

funded under this Act to the Committees on Appropriations on all 

sole source contracts by no later than July 30, 2010. 

Section 408 prohibits federal training not directly related to the 

performance of official duties. 

Section 409 prohibits funds from being used for any project that 

seeks to use the power of eminent domain unless eminent domain 

is employed only for a public use. 

Section 410 prohibits the transfer of funds made available in this 

Act to any instrumentality of the United States Government except 

as authorized by this Act or any other appropriations Act. 

Section 411 prohibits funds in this Act from being used to permanently replace an employee intent on returning to his past occupation after the completion of military service. 

Section 412 prohibits funds in this Act from being used unless 

the expenditure is in compliance with the Buy American Act. 

Section 413 prohibits funds from being appropriated or made 

available to any person or entity that has been found to violate the 

Buy American Act. 

Section 414 prohibits funds for first-class airline accommodations 

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 in this Act or any prior Act from 

going to the group ACORN or any of its affiliates, subsidiaries, or 

allied organizations. 

Section 417 prohibits for-profit earmarks. 

Section 418 prohibits the use of funds to establish or maintain 

a computer network unless such network blocks the viewing, 

downloading, and exchanging of pornography, except for law enforcement investigation, prosecution or adjudication activities. 

Section 419 prohibits the obligation of funds in this Act in contravention of the new certification requirement established by section 6(b) of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996, which is to be included 

in revisions to the Federal Acquisition Regulation pursuant to that 

section. The revised FAR will require a certification from each contractor that it does not engage in any activity for which sanctions 

may be imposed under section 5 of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996. 

Section 6(b) of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 was added by section 

102(b) of the recent Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, 

and Divestment Act of 2010. 

APPROPRIATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following table lists the appropriations in 

the accompanying bill which are not authorized by law: 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
186 

APPROPRIATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW 

[Dollars in thousands] 

Program Last year of 

authorization Authorization level Appropriations in last year of authorization 

Amount of program 

or new fees 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration: 

Operations ..................................... 2009 $9,042,467 $9,042,067 $9,793,000 

Facilities and Equipment .............. 2009 2,742,095 2,742,095 3,000,000 

Research, Engineering and Development ...................................... 2009 171,000 171,000 198,000 

Grants-in-Aid for Airports ............. 2009 3,900,000 3,514,500 3,515,000 

Federal Highway Administration: 

Federal-aid Highways ................... 2010 42,942,152 41,107,000 45,217,700 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration: 

Motor Carrier Safety Operations 

and Programs ........................... 2010 239,828 239,828 259,878 

Motor Carrier Safety Grants .......... 2010 307,000 310,070 310,070 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: 

Operations and Research—General Fund .................................. 2009 157,400 127,000 148,127 

Operations and Research—Highway Trust Fund ......................... 2010 107,329 105,500 110,073 

National Driver Register ............... 2010 4,078 4,000 4,170 

National Driver Register Modernization .................................. .............................. .............................. .............................. 2,530 

Highway Traffic Safety Grants ...... 2010 626,047 619,500 626,328 

Federal Railroad Administration: 

Grade Crossings on Designated 

Corridors ................................... 2010 15,000 15,000 15,000 

High Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail ............................... 2011 750,000 .............................. 1,400,000 

Federal Transit Administration: 

Administrative Expenses ............... 2010 98,911 98,911 130,698 

Formula & Bus Grants .................. 2010 8,360,565 8,343,171 8,961,348 

Research and University ............... 2010 69,750 65,670 65,376 

Capital Investment Grants ........... 2010 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 

Maritime Administration: 

Operations and Training ............... 2010 152,900 149,750 169,353 

Ship Disposal ................................ 2010 15,000 15,000 10,000 

Maritime Security .......................... 2010 174,000 174,000 174,000 

Title XI ........................................... 2010 64,000 9,000 3,688 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration: 

Operational Expenses .................... .............................. .............................. .............................. 22,383 

Hazardous Materials Safety .......... 2009 32,000 32,000 40,434 

Research and Innovative Technology 

Administration: 

Research and Development .......... .............................. .............................. .............................. 18,900 

Surface Transportation Board: 

Surface Transportation Board ....... 1998 12,000 25,597 29,999 

TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

Rental Assistance: 

Section 8 Contract Renewals and 

Administrative Expenses .......... 1994 8,446,173 4,558,106 9,376,000 

Section 441 Contracts .................. 1994 109,410 150,000 ..............................

Section 8 Preservation, Protection, 

and Family Unification ............. 1994 759,259 541,000 ..............................

Contract Administrators ................ .............................. .............................. .............................. 315,000 

Public Housing Capital Fund ........ 2003 3,000,000 2,712,255 2,500,000 

Public Housing Operating Fund .... 2003 2,900,000 3,576,600 4,829,000 

Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund ... 2007 1 SSAN 6,000 9,000 

Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant .. 2005 .............................. 8,928 10,000 

Native Hawaiian Loan Guarantee Fund 2005 .............................. 992 1,044 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
187 

APPROPRIATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW—Continued 

[Dollars in thousands] 

Program Last year of 

authorization Authorization level Appropriations in last year of authorization 

Amount of program 

or new fees 

Housing Opportunity for Persons with 

Aids .................................................... 1994 156,300 156,000 350,000 

Community Development Fund: 

Community Development Block 

Grant ......................................... 1994 4,168,000 4,400,000 3,998,255 

Economic Development Initiatives .............................. .............................. .............................. 76,645 

Neighborhood Initiatives ............... .............................. .............................. .............................. 12,200 

Home Program: 

Home Investment Partnership ...... 1994 2,173,612 1,275,000 1,825,00 

Down Payment Assistance Initiative ............................................ 2007 200,000 24,750 ..............................

HOPE VI .................................................. 2010 1 SSAN 198,000 200,000 

Brownfields Redevelopment ................... .............................. .............................. .............................. 17,500 

Self-Help and Assisted Homeownership 

Opportunity: 

Capacity Building ......................... 1994 25,000 20,000 53,000 

Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program .......................... 2000 .............................. 20,000 82,000 

National Housing Development 

Corporation ............................... .............................. .............................. .............................. ..............................

Housing for the Elderly ................. 2003 .............................. 778,195 825,000 

Housing for Persons with Disabilities ........................................... 2003 .............................. 248,886 300,000 

FHA General and Special Risk Program 

Account: 

Limitation on Guaranteed Loans .. 1995 .............................. (20,885,072) 20,000,000 

Limitation on Direct Loans ........... 1995 .............................. (220,000) 20,000 

Credit Subsidy ............................... 1995 .............................. 188,395 ..............................

Administrative Expenses ............... 1995 .............................. 197,470 ..............................

GNMA Mortgage Backed Securities Loan 

Guarantee Program Account: 

Limitations on Guaranteed Loans 1996 (110,000,000) (110,000,000) 500,000,000 

Administrative Expenses ............... 1996 .............................. 9,101 10,902 

Policy Development and Research 1994 36,470 35,000 50,000 

Fair Housing Activities, Fair Housing Program .............................. 1994 26,000 25,000 72,000 

Lead Hazard Reduction Program .. 1994 250,000 150,000 140,000 

Salaries and Expenses .................. 1994 1,029,496 916,963 1,379,070 

Transformation Initiative ....................... .............................. .............................. .............................. 220,741 

TITLE III—RELATED AGENCIES 

Access Board ......................................... 2003 .............................. 5,194 7,300 

Federal Maritime Commission ............... 2008 22,575 22,072 25,300 

National Transportation Safety Board ... 2008 92,625 84,499 104,232 

1 SSAN: Such sums as necessary. 

TRANSFER OF FUNDS

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following statement is submitted describing 

the transfers of funds provided in the accompanying bill. 

APPROPRIATION TRANSFERS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL

UNDER TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Account from which the transfer is made Account to which the transfer is made Amount 

Office of the Secretary ............................ Office of the Secretary .......................... ≤ 2% of certain funds subject to conditions 

Federal Aviation Administration ............. Federal Aviation Administration ............ ≤ 2% of certain funds subject to conditions 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
188 

Account from which the transfer is made Account to which the transfer is made Amount 

FHWA: Limitation on administrative expenses.Appalachian Regional Commission ....... $3,300,000 

Pipeline & Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration.

Pipeline Safety ....................................... $1,000,000 

MARAD: Operations & Training ............... Maritime Guaranteed Loan (Title XI) 

Program Account.

$3,688,000 

UNDER TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN

DEVELOPMENT

Account from which the transfer is made Account to which the transfer is made Amount 

FHA MMI Program Account ..................... Working Capital Fund ............................ $71,500,000 

Any HUD Account* .................................. Transformation Initiative ....................... ≤1% 

* Accounts from which funds may not be transferred: Project-Based Rental Assistance, Native Hawaiian Loan Guarantee Fund, Indian Hous- ing Loan Guarantee Fund, Public Housing Capital Fund, Native American Housing Block Grants, Housing for the Elderly, Housing for Persons with Disabilities, G1/SR1 Fund, HOME, Homeless Assistance Grants, Brownfields, HOPE VI, Section 108 Loan Guarantees, Self-Help and As- sisted Homeownership Opportunity Program, and Fair Housing Activities. 

RESCISSIONS

Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the 

Rules of the House of Representatives, the following table is submitted describing the rescissions recommended in the accompanying bill: 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration ...................................................... ¥35,772,424 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Motor Carrier 

Safety ............................................................................................... ¥7,330,000 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, National Motor 

Carrier Safety Program .................................................................. ¥15,076,000 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Highway Traffic Safety Grants ............................................................................. ¥7,907,000 

TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Rent Supplement ................................................................................ ¥$40,600,000 

COMPARISON WITH THE BUDGET RESOLUTION

Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires an explanation of compliance with section 

308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control 

Act of 1974 (Public Law 93–344), as amended, which requires that 

the report accompanying a bill providing new budget authority contain a statement detailing how that authority compares with the 

reports submitted under section 302 of the Act for the most recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal 

year from the Committee’s section 302(a) allocation. 

[In millions of dollars] 

302b allocation This bill 

Budget authority Outlays Budget authority Outlays 

Discretionary .......................................... 67,400 136,446 67,400 1 136,444 

Mandatory .............................................. 0 0 0 0 

1 Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
189 

FIVE-YEAR OUTLAY PROJECTIONS

In compliance with section 308(a)(1)(B) of the Congressional 

Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93– 

344), as amended, the following table contains five-year projections 

associated with the budget authority provided in the accompanying 

bill as provided to the Committee by the Congressional Budget Office. 

[In millions of dollars] 

2011 ............................................................................................................. 1 49,459 

2012 ............................................................................................................. 37,335 

2013 ............................................................................................................. 15,992 

2014 ............................................................................................................. 7,200 

2015 and future years ................................................................................ 9,264 

1 Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

ASSISTANCE TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the Congressional 

Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93– 

344), as amended, the Congressional Budget Office has provided 

the following estimates of new budget authority and outlays provided by the accompanying bill for financial assistance to state and 

local governments. 

[In millions of dollars] 

Budget authority Outlays 

Financial assistance to State and local governments for 2011 .................................................... 36,144 1 32,065 

1 Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY

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

Each report of a committee on a bill or joint resolution of a public 

character shall include a statement citing the specific powers 

granted to the Congress in the Constitution to enact the law proposed by the bill or joint resolution. 

The Committee on Appropriations bases its authority to report 

this legislation from clause 7 of section 9 of Article I of the Constitution of the United States of America which states: 

No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence 

of Appropriations made by law * * * 

Appropriations contained in this Act are made pursuant to this 

specific power granted by the Constitution. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following is a statement of general performance goals and objectives for which this measure authorizes funding: 

The Committee on Appropriations considers program performance, including a program’s success in developing and attaining 

outcome-related goals and objectives, in developing funding recommendations. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
190 

COMPLIANCE WITH RULE XIII, CL. 3(e) (RAMSEYER RULE) 

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

* * * * * * * 

SECTION 1702 OF THE SAFE, ACCOUNTABLE, FLEXIBLE, 

EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT: A LEGACY 

FOR USERS 

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 

* * * * * * * 

1366 NY øImprove Long and Short Beach Road, Southampton¿ Road and bridge improvements 

and storm water mitigation in the Town of 

Southampton .................................................... $2,100,000 

* * * * * * * 

2252 WI øRealign U.S. 8 near Cameron, Barron County¿ Operational safety studies, final design 

and/or construction of intersection operational and safety improvements for USH 53 

between Rice Lake and Superior, Wisconsin $1,600,000 

* * * * * * * 

SECTION 1602 OF THE TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT 

FOR THE 21ST CENTURY 

SEC. 1602. 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)(13) of 

the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century) for fiscal years 

1998 through 2003 to carry out each such project: 

No. State Project description (Dollars in 

millions) 

1. Georgia .................. I–75 advanced transportation management system in Cobb County .................. 1.7 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
191 

No. State Project description (Dollars in 

millions) 

* * * * * * * 

414. Massachusetts ....... øEnvironmental studies, preliminary engineering and design of North-South Connector in Pittsfield to improve access to 

I–90¿ Engineering, design and construction of the North Street, Pittsfield, 

streetscaping project ................................. 1.5 

* * * * * * * 

815. Minnesota .............. øConstruct grade separated interchange 

at south junction of TH 371/Brainerd 

bypass¿ Highway 10 relocation, City of 

Wadena ..................................................... 0.75 

* * * * * * * 

NATIONAL HOUSING ACT 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE II—MORTGAGE INSURANCE 

* * * * * * * 

INSURANCE OF MORTGAGES

SEC. 203. (a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(c)(1) * * * 

(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, each 

mortgage secured by a 1- to 4-family dwelling that is an obligation 

of the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund shall be subject to the following requirements: 

(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: 

ø(i) For any mortgage involving an original principal obligation (excluding any premium collected under subparagraph (A)) that is less than 90 percent of the appraised 

value of the property (as of the date the mortgage is accepted for insurance), for the first 11 years of the mortgage 

term. 

ø(ii) For any mortage involving an original principal obligation (excluding any premium collected under subparagraph (A)) that is greater than or equal to 90 percent of 

such value, for the first 30 years of the mortgage term; except that notwithstanding the matter preceding clause (i), 

for any mortgage involving an original principal obligation 

(excluding any premium collected under subparagraph (A)) 

that is greater than 95 percent of such value, the annual 

premium collected during the 30-year period under this 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
192 

clause shall be in an amount not exceeding 0.55 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).¿ 

(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. 

* * * * * * * 

INSURANCE OF HOME EQUITY CONVERSION MORTGAGES FOR ELDERLY

HOMEOWNERS

SEC. 255. (a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(g) LIMITATION ON INSURANCE AUTHORITY.—øThe aggregate number of mortgages insured under this section may not exceed 

275,000.¿ In no case may the benefits of insurance under this section exceed the maximum dollar amount limitation established 

under section 305(a)(2) of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation Act for a 1-family residence. 

* * * * * * * 

SECTION 24 OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSING ACT OF 

1937 

SEC. 24. 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. 

* * * * * * * 

(o) SUNSET.—No assistance may be provided under this section 

after øSeptember 30, 2010.¿ September 30, 2011. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
193 

DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING 

AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT 

AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005 

(division I of Public Law 108–447) 

DIVISION I—DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND 

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005 

* * * * * * * 

HOUSING PROGRAMS

* * * * * * * 

FLEXIBLE SUBSIDY FUND

(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.¿ 

* * * * * * * 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006 

(title III of division A of Public Law 109–115) 

DIVISION A—TRANSPORTATION, TREASURY, HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT, THE JUDICIARY, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006 

That the following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 

Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Departments of 

Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the 

Judiciary, and independent agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes, namely: 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE III 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

* * * * * * * 

HOUSING PROGRAMS

* * * * * * * 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
194 

FLEXIBLE SUBSIDY FUND

(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.¿ 

* * * * * * * 

SECTION 209 OF THE MCKINNEY-VENTO HOMELESS 

ASSISTANCE ACT 

SEC. 209. TERMINATION. 

The Council shall cease to exist, and the requirements of this 

title shall terminate, on øOctober 1, 2006¿ October 1, 2012. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
195 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRIInsert offset folio 033 here HR564.023
196 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRIInsert offset folio 034 here HR564.024
197 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRIInsert offset folio 035 here HR564.025
198 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRIInsert offset folio 036 here HR564.026
199 

CONGRESSIONAL EARMARKS

The following table is submitted in compliance with clause 9 of 

rule XXI, and lists the congressional earmarks (as defined in paragraph (e) of clause 9) contained in the bill or in this report. Neither 

the bill nor the report contain any limited tax benefits or limited 

tariff benefits as defined in paragraphs (f) or (g) of clause 9 of rule 

XXI. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
200 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

[Presidentially Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Project Amount 

Requester(s) 

Administration House 

FTA CIG Access to the Region’s Core, NJ $200,000,000 The President Holt; Pallone; Pascrell; Sires; Rothman FTA CIG BRT Project, CO $24,163,000 The President Polis; Salazar FTA CIG Central Corridor LRT, MN $45,000,000 The President Ellison; McCollum FTA CIG Central Florida Commuter Rail Transit—Initial Operating Segment, FL $40,000,000 The President FTA CIG Central Subway LRT, CA $20,000,000 The President FTA CIG Dulles Corridor Metrorail Project Ext. to Wiehle Ave., DC $96,000,000 The President Connolly (VA); Moran (VA) FTA CIG E Street Corridor sbX BRT, CA $42,630,000 The President Baca FTA CIG East Bay BRT, CA $15,000,000 The President Lee (CA) FTA CIG East Corridor, CO $40,000,000 The President DeGette; Perlmutter FTA CIG Gold Line, CO $40,000,000 The President DeGette; Perlmutter FTA CIG King County BRT, WA $21,274,000 The President FTA CIG Long Island Rail Road East Side Access, NY $215,000,000 The President FTA CIG Mason Corridor BRT, CO $5,450,573 The President FTA CIG MetroRapid BRT, TX $24,229,796 The President FTA CIG Mid Jordan LRT, UT $100,000,000 The President FTA CIG New Britain-Hartford Busway, CT $45,000,000 The President Larson (CT) 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
201 

FTA CIG North Corridor LRT, TX $75,000,000 The President Green, Al; Green, Gene; Jackson Lee (TX) FTA CIG Northwest/Southeast LRT MOS, TX $86,249,717 The President Johnson, Eddie Bernice FTA CIG Nostrand Ave BRT, NY $28,398,554 The President FTA CIG Perris Valley Line, CA $23,490,000 The President FTA CIG Rail Transit Project—East Kapolei to Ala Moana Center, HI $55,000,000 The President Hirono FTA CIG Second Avenue Subway Phase I, NY $197,182,000 The President Maloney FTA CIG Southeast Corridor LRT, TX $75,000,000 The President Green, Al; Green, Gene; Jackson Lee (TX) FTA CIG University Link LRT Extension, WA $110,000,000 The President FTA CIG Van Ness Avenue BRT, CA $15,000,000 The President FTA CIG Weber County to Salt Lake City Commuter Rail, UT $80,000,000 The President FTA CIG West Corridor LRT, CO $40,179,000 The President DeGette 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

[Congressionally Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

DoT, OST TPR&D Chicago Aviation Education Initiative, IL $250,000 Rush DoT, OST TPR&D Great Lakes Maritime Research Institute, MN / WI $1,000,000 Obey DoT, OST TPR&D New England Freight Rail Infrastructure Study, MA $300,000 Olver FAA AIP Auburn-Lewiston Municipal Airport Phase 1 Runway 4/22 Safety Area Improvements/Extension, ME $750,000 Michaud FAA AIP Augusta Airport Runway Reconstruction and Safety Area Improvements, ME $500,000 Pingree (ME) FAA AIP Charlotte Monroe Executive Airport Ramp, Taxiway and Related Improvements, NC $1,000,000 Kissell 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
202 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION—Continued 

[Congressionally Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

FAA AIP Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport (CHO) Extension of Runway 21, VA $500,000 Perriello FAA AIP Denver International Airport F7 Taxiway Construction, CO $700,000 DeGette FAA AIP Grand Forks Regional Airport (GFK) Passenger Terminal—Phase III, ND $750,000 Pomeroy FAA AIP Montrose Regional Airport Taxiway Bravo Extension, CO $500,000 Salazar FAA AIP Outagamie County Regional Airport Taxiway, Apron, and Signage Improvements, WI $750,000 Kagen FAA AIP Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport Taxiway Alpha, AZ $1,000,000 Pastor (AZ); Mitchell FAA AIP Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport Papa (P) and Related Improvements, AZ $1,000,000 Mitchell FAA AIP Sawyer County Airport Land Acquisition and Landing System Improvements, WI $1,750,000 Obey FAA AIP Southwest Georgia Regional Airport Apron and Various Improvements, GA $500,000 Bishop (GA) FAA AIP Stinson Municipal Airport Taxilane Extension, TX $1,000,000 Rodriguez FAA AIP Virginia Highlands Airport Design and Land Acquisition, VA $750,000 Boucher FAA F&E Kingston Regional Airport ILS Upgrades, NC $500,000 Butterfield FHWA Delta Arkansas River Trail, AR $500,000 Snyder FHWA Delta Blytheville Overpass, AR $1,000,000 Berry FHWA Delta Higdon Ferry Road Widening, Hot Springs, AR $1,000,000 Ross FHWA Delta Holly Springs Road Project, DeSoto County, MS $1,250,000 Childers FHWA Delta I-555 Floodway Access Road, Poinsett County, AR $1,500,000 Berry 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
203 

FHWA Delta Northwest Tennessee Regional Port Authority, TN $500,000 Tanner FHWA Delta Old Taylor Road Roundabouts, MS $500,000 Childers FHWA Delta Reconstruction and Widening of U.S. 627 Bridge over Interstate 75, Madison County, KY $750,000 Chandler FHWA Delta Ridge Road Extension, Pearl River County, MS $750,000 Taylor FHWA Delta South Three Notch Street Improvement Project, AL $750,000 Bright FHWA Delta Washington Street Bridge Replacement, Vicksburg, MS $1,500,000 Thompson (MS) FHWA FB Berkeley Ferry Service, CA $500,000 Pelosi; Lee (CA) FHWA FB Commuter Ferry, MA $1,000,000 Capuano FHWA FB Ferry Landing in Pt. Mackenzie, AK $1,000,000 Young (AK) FHWA FB Ferry Terminal Dock for Statue of Liberty/Ellis Island, NY $600,000 Nadler (NY) FHWA FB Friday Harbor Ferry Terminal Pedestrian Access and Safety Improvements, WA $230,000 Larsen (WA) FHWA FB Golden Gate Ferry-Sausalito Ferry Facility Ramps and Gangways, CA $500,000 Woolsey FHWA FB Long Branch Pier and Ferry Terminal Design, Engineering, and Project Management, NJ $1,000,000 Pallone FHWA FB Port of Port Angeles Ferry Terminal Repairs, WA $1,000,000 Dicks FHWA FB Refurbishing, Enhancing, and Improving the Safety of the North and South Lynchburg Ferry Landings, TX $700,000 Green, Gene FHWA FB Salem Wharf Pier Project, MA $1,000,000 Tierney FHWA FB Vallejo Ferry Maintenance Facility, Vallejo, CA $750,000 Miller, George FHWA FB Vessel and Terminal Sewage Pump-out Systems Installation, Cape Cod, MA $1,000,000 Delahunt FHWA FL Blackstone River Bikeway, RI $1,000,000 Kennedy FHWA FL BRAC-Related Improvements for Harford County, MD $1,500,000 Ruppersberger; Kratovil 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
204 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION—Continued 

[Congressionally Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

FHWA FL BRAC-Related Improvements, Anne Arundel County, MD $1,500,000 Kratovil; Ruppersberger; Sarbanes FHWA FL BRAC-Related Improvements, Montgomery County, MD $500,000 Van Hollen FHWA FL Diaz Ordaz International Border Crossing, TX $500,000 Cuellar FHWA FL Frederick Douglass Bridge Engineering, DC $500,000 Norton; Hoyer FHWA FL Gila County Control Road Improvements, AZ $1,000,000 Kirkpatrick (AZ) FHWA FL Golden Gate National Parks-Park Access, Transit and Trails, CA $1,000,000 Pelosi FHWA FL Great Highway Long-Term Solution Planning, CA $500,000 Speier FHWA FL Hoover Dam Bypass Bridge-Repayment of Debt Service Owed to Arizona, AZ $1,000,000 Pastor (AZ) FHWA FL Low Divide and Rowdy Creek Road Improvement Project, County of Del Norte, CA $750,000 Thompson (CA) FHWA FL Miccosukee Road Resurfacing Project, FL $1,100,000 Meek (FL); Hastings (FL); Wasserman Schultz FHWA FL New Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge Design and Construction Project, DC $2,000,000 Hoyer; Norton FHWA FL Pedestrian Access Bridge Over Dulles Airport Access and Toll Road, VA $1,000,000 Moran (VA) FHWA FL Road Improvements, Wrangell Borough, AK $250,000 Young (AK) FHWA FL Saddle Road Improvements, Island of Hawaii, HI $750,000 Hirono FHWA FL SH 125: Michigan River Bridge, Jackson, CO $750,000 Salazar FHWA FL Southern Nevada Beltway Interchanges, NV $1,000,000 Titus; Berkley FHWA FL State Route 347 Grade Separation, Maricopa, AZ $1,000,000 Grijalva; Pastor (AZ) 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
205 

FHWA FL Stones River National Battlefield Auto Tour Road Expansion and Rehabilitation, Murfreesboro, TN $500,000 Gordon (TN) FHWA FL Swan Mountain Shared Use Pathway, Breckenridge, CO $750,000 Polis FHWA FL Travis Air Force Base North Gate Access Improvements, CA $750,000 Garamendi FHWA FL U.S. 199 Safety Improvements, Cave Junction, OR $300,000 DeFazio FHWA IMD Augusta North Connections-Exit 113, ME $1,000,000 Pingree (ME); Michaud FHWA IMD Avalon Boulevard Interchange Modification at the I-405, Carson, CA $1,000,000 Richardson FHWA IMD City of Moline I-74 Bridge Preconstruction and Construction, IL $1,000,000 Hare FHWA IMD Harrison County I-64 Interchange, IN $1,000,000 Hill FHWA IMD I-294 at I-57 Interchange, IL $1,000,000 Rush FHWA IMD I-390 Interchange, NY $1,250,000 Slaughter FHWA IMD I-5 North Stockton Lane Widening and Improvements Project, CA $1,250,000 McNerney; Cardoza FHWA IMD I-5 Widening from I-605 North to I-710 Environmental Phase, CA $1,000,000 Roybal-Allard; Napolitano FHWA IMD I-5/Kuebler Boulevard Interchange Improvements, OR $1,000,000 Schrader FHWA IMD I-64/22nd Street Interchange Reconfiguration, MO $1,000,000 Clay FHWA IMD I-71 Corridor Access, Cincinnati, OH $1,000,000 Driehaus FHWA IMD I-80/Gilman Street Interchange Improvement Project, Berkeley, CA $1,000,000 Lee (CA) FHWA IMD I-805/La Jolla Village Drive Interchange Project, San Diego, CA $1,000,000 Davis (CA) FHWA IMD I-85 in Davidson and Rowan Counties, NC $1,000,000 Watt FHWA IMD I-94 from East Dickinson Interchange, East-Westbound Lanes Reconstruction, Dickinson, ND $1,000,000 Pomeroy FHWA IMD I-95 Interchange at Yamato Road and Spanish River Boulevard Project, City of Boca Raton, FL $500,000 Klein (FL) 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
206 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION—Continued 

[Congressionally Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

FHWA IMD I-95 Upgrades in Robeson County, NC $1,000,000 McIntyre FHWA IMD I-95/301 Interchange, SC $2,000,000 Clyburn FHWA IMD Interstate 225 and Colfax Avenue Reconfiguration, Aurora, CO $1,250,000 Perlmutter FHWA IMD Interstate 79/Mt. Morris Interchange Improvements, Greene County, PA $1,000,000 Critz FHWA IMD North Stockton I-5 Interchanges and French Camp Interchange/Arch Sperry Road Extension, Stockton, CA $1,000,000 Cardoza; McNerney FHWA IMD Raton South I-25 Interchange Reconstruction, Raton, Colfax County, NM $750,000 Lujan FHWA IMD Rehabilitate I-84 Bridges over Delaware and Neversink Rivers, NY $1,000,000 Hall (NY) FHWA IMD Widening of I-35, Waco, TX $2,000,000 Edwards (TX) FHWA TCSP 2nd Avenue Bridge Reconstruction, City of Cambridge, MN $750,000 Oberstar FHWA TCSP 705 Connector, Morgantown, WV $450,000 Mollohan FHWA TCSP 7th (a) Road Project, IN $650,000 Donnelly (IN) FHWA TCSP Alabama 210/Ross Clark Circle Safety Lighting Project, AL $450,000 Bright FHWA TCSP Ansonia Riverwalk, CT $400,000 DeLauro FHWA TCSP Barre Commons Road Reconstruction and Drainage Improvements, MA $1,050,000 Olver FHWA TCSP Bayamon Circulation Arteries, PR $450,000 Pierluisi FHWA TCSP Berry Hill Road Connector Road Engineering and Right of Way Acquisitions, Pittsylvania County, VA $400,000 Perriello FHWA TCSP Bethany Road Reconstruction and Improvements, Sycamore, IL $650,000 Foster 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
207 

FHWA TCSP Boulder Bikes to Business Project, Boulder, CO $250,000 Polis FHWA TCSP Branford Street and Laurel Canyon Boulevard Flood Improvements, CA $250,000 Berman FHWA TCSP Broad/Main/Front/Hellertown Transportation Enhancements, Phase II, Quakertown, PA $450,000 Murphy, Patrick FHWA TCSP Brooklyn Waterfront Transportation Study, Brooklyn, NY $450,000 Nadler (NY) FHWA TCSP Byberry Road and Bustleton Avenue Intersection Improvements, Philadelphia, PA $700,000 Schwartz FHWA TCSP Capitol Expressway Pedestrian Improvements, CA $240,000 Lofgren, Zoe FHWA TCSP Carbon County Covered Bridge Repair Project, PA $250,000 Kanjorski FHWA TCSP Carlton Avenue Bridge, Brooklyn, NY $900,000 Towns; Clarke FHWA TCSP Chippewa Falls Downtown Reconstruction, WI $730,000 Obey FHWA TCSP Columbus Bicentennial Bikeways-West Side Improvement, Columbus, OH $450,000 Kilroy FHWA TCSP Construct Roadway and Bridges at the Intersection of Coalfields Expressway and King Coal Highway and 

from Dock Creek to Cedar Run, WV 

$900,000 Rahall 

FHWA TCSP Conway Village Main Street Streetscape and Pedestrian Improvements, NH $450,000 Shea-Porter FHWA TCSP Cooley Landing/San Francisco Bay Trail Construction, CA $600,000 Eshoo FHWA TCSP Coolidge Highway Resurfacing Project, MI $750,000 Levin FHWA TCSP CSAH 12 Extension/TH 14 Interchange, MN $650,000 Walz FHWA TCSP Design and Implementation of Transit Improvements at 83rd Street and Roosevelt Avenue, Jackson 

Heights, Queens, NY 

$700,000 Crowley 

FHWA TCSP Downtown Tacoma Streetscapes Improvement Project, WA $1,000,000 Dicks FHWA TCSP E. Stadium Bridges Replacement Project, City of Ann Arbor, MI $450,000 Dingell FHWA TCSP Eastern Gateway, MA $900,000 Neal 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
208 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION—Continued 

[Congressionally Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

FHWA TCSP Edison Road Extension, CT $1,000,000 DeLauro FHWA TCSP Emergency Road Access and Improvement Project, PA $650,000 Carney FHWA TCSP Empire Corridor West High Speed Rail Improvements, Town of Tonawanda, Erie County, NY $270,000 Slaughter; Higgins; Owens FHWA TCSP First Avenue Bridge Replacement, NJ $360,000 Payne FHWA TCSP Glenwood Road Pedestrian Safety Improvements, GA $450,000 Johnson (GA) FHWA TCSP Harbor Brook Flood Control, CT $650,000 Murphy (CT) FHWA TCSP Hays-Travis Trail System, TX $650,000 Doggett FHWA TCSP Holbrook—Traffic Safety Signalization—Kings Road and S. Franklin, MA $300,000 Lynch FHWA TCSP I-75 Walking Bridge, St. Ignace, MI $450,000 Stupak FHWA TCSP Improvements to U.S. Route 15, State Route 45, and St. Mary’s Street in E. Buffalo Township, PA $450,000 Carney FHWA TCSP Intersection Improvements around State Center, Baltimore, MD $650,000 Cummings FHWA TCSP Jefferson Avenue Improvements, City of Detroit, MI $650,000 Kilpatrick (MI) FHWA TCSP Lake Champlain Bridge, NY $400,000 Owens FHWA TCSP Leesburg North Bypass, GA $450,000 Bishop (GA) FHWA TCSP Legacy Farm Roadway and Main Street Improvements, Hopkinton, MA $1,000,000 McGovern FHWA TCSP Locust Avenue Bridge Replacement, City of Rye, NY $600,000 Lowey FHWA TCSP Los Banos Bypass Segment One, Los Banos, Merced County, CA $400,000 Cardoza 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
209 

FHWA TCSP Lowry Avenue Bridge Replacement Phase II, Minneapolis, MN $900,000 Ellison FHWA TCSP Lyons Road Improvements Section IV, Coconut Creek, FL $650,000 Deutch FHWA TCSP Marin-Sonoma Narrows, CA $450,000 Woolsey FHWA TCSP MD5/MD373/Brandywine Interchange Project, Prince George, MD $1,400,000 Hoyer FHWA TCSP Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Phase 2B, CA $650,000 Chu; Schiff FHWA TCSP Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail Project, CA $450,000 Farr FHWA TCSP Nassau County Street and Sidewalk Improvements, NY $450,000 Israel FHWA TCSP Nelson Hill Bridge Replacement, NY $100,000 Murphy (NY) FHWA TCSP New York Avenue Improvement Project-32nd Street to 48th Street, Union City, NJ $450,000 Sires FHWA TCSP Nogales Highway Railroad Bridge Overpass, AZ $900,000 Giffords FHWA TCSP North Main Street Reconstruction, Columbia, SC $900,000 Clyburn FHWA TCSP North Rhett Extension Project, SC $500,000 Brown (SC) FHWA TCSP Norwood Drive Reconstruction, PA $700,000 Altmire FHWA TCSP NW 66th Avenue Reconstruction and Kempton Bridge Replacement, Polk County, IA $450,000 Boswell FHWA TCSP Ogdensburg-Prescott International Bridge Rehabilitation Project, Ogdensburg, NY $700,000 Owens FHWA TCSP Pratt Trail in Salt Lake City, UT $650,000 Matheson FHWA TCSP Raleigh Outer Loop, Wake County, NC $1,500,000 Price (NC) FHWA TCSP Rand Avenue Reconstruction, IL $600,000 Costello FHWA TCSP Reconstruction of Congress Street Bridge, Bridgeport, CT $450,000 Himes FHWA TCSP Rehabilitation of Beacham Street, MA $550,000 Markey (MA) 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
210 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION—Continued 

[Congressionally Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

FHWA TCSP Repair and Resurfacing of Critical Streets, Belle Glade, Palm Beach County, FL $900,000 Hastings (FL) FHWA TCSP Roadway Improvements-Route 70, Medford, NJ $450,000 Adler (NJ) FHWA TCSP Roadway Restoration, Village of Ardsley, NY $500,000 Lowey FHWA TCSP Rosemead Boulevard Underpass Repair Project, Pico Rivera, CA $450,000 Napolitano FHWA TCSP Route 1 Corridor Improvements Capital Project, MD $650,000 Sarbanes; Cummings FHWA TCSP Route 1/Route 123 Interchange (Phase I), VA $500,000 Connolly (VA) FHWA TCSP Route 29/250 Bypass Interchange Improvements, Engineering, Design, and Construction, Albemarle 

County, VA 

$500,000 Perriello 

FHWA TCSP Route 35/202 at Pine Grove Court and Stony Street, NY $250,000 Hall (NY) FHWA TCSP Route 6 and Silver Cross Boulevard Intersection Widening and Roadway Improvement, New Lenox, IL $450,000 Halvorson FHWA TCSP Route 82 Reconstruction and Widening, North Royalton, OH $650,000 Sutton FHWA TCSP Rutland Creek Path, VT $650,000 Welch FHWA TCSP Sacramento Intermodal Transportation Facility, CA $500,000 Matsui FHWA TCSP Safety Improvements on South Meadow Road, Clinton, MA $250,000 McGovern FHWA TCSP Scott Ranch Road Extension, AZ $250,000 Kirkpatrick (AZ) FHWA TCSP SE Main Avenue, 20th, 21st Street Underpass and Ancillary Improvements, City of Moorhead, MN $450,000 Peterson FHWA TCSP Seiberling Way Bridge Replacement, OH $450,000 Ryan (OH) FHWA TCSP Sellwood Bridge Replacement Project, Multnomah County, OR $650,000 Blumenauer; Schrader; Wu 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
211 

FHWA TCSP Sharpes Ferry Bridge, FL $900,000 Grayson FHWA TCSP Shot Pouch Creek Trail, SC $650,000 Spratt FHWA TCSP Sidewalk Construction in Ashland, Cherryland and Castro Valley Communities, Alameda County, CA $200,000 Lee (CA) FHWA TCSP Southeast Connector Final Design, Des Moines, IA $650,000 Boswell FHWA TCSP SR 510 Yelm Loop Project, WA $250,000 Smith (WA) FHWA TCSP SR 54, McDonough Road to U.S. 19/41 in Clayton County, GA $650,000 Scott (GA) FHWA TCSP Stansbury Transportation Improvements, KY $650,000 Yarmuth FHWA TCSP Structural Bridge Repairs, Fort Lauderdale, FL $250,000 Klein (FL) FHWA TCSP Telegraph Road Realignment, CA $450,000 Sanchez, Linda FHWA TCSP Transportation Corridor Study, Greencastle/Putnam County, IN $450,000 Ellsworth FHWA TCSP U.S. 34 Akron East Chip Seal, CO $1,000,000 Markey (CO) FHWA TCSP U.S. 50/Watt Avenue Interchange Modification, CA $400,000 Matsui FHWA TCSP U.S. Highway 101 High Occupancy Vehicle Widening Project, Carpinteria Creek Bridge, Carpinteria, Santa 

Barbara County, CA 

$650,000 Capps 

FHWA TCSP Unser Boulevard Extension, NM $1,000,000 Heinrich FHWA TCSP U.S. 401 in Cumberland, Harnett and Wake Counties, NC $650,000 Etheridge FHWA TCSP U.S. 281/FM493 Overpass, Hidalgo County, TX $450,000 Hinojosa FHWA TCSP Vesta Street Overpass, San Diego, CA $450,000 Davis (CA) FHWA TCSP Veterans Medical City Connector, FL $650,000 Kosmas FHWA TCSP Village of Barrington Route 14 Underpass, IL $550,000 Bean FHWA TCSP Walk Winthrop and the HarborWalk, MA $750,000 Markey (MA) 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
212 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION—Continued 

[Congressionally Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

FHWA TCSP Warrensville/Van Aken Transit Oriented, OH $450,000 Fudge FHWA TCSP Washington Boulevard Traffic Signal Modernization, Commerce, CA $650,000 Roybal-Allard FHWA TCSP Westchase District Intermodal Transit and Pedestrian Access Improvements, TX $450,000 Green, Al FHWA TCSP Widening of Route 50 in Chillicothe, Ross County, OH $450,000 Space FRA Grade Crossings Empire Corridor West High Speed Rail Improvements, Cayuga County, NY $360,000 Arcuri; Murphy (NY); Owens; Tonko FRA Grade Crossings Empire Corridor West High Speed Rail Improvements, Oneida County, NY $625,000 Murphy (NY); Arcuri; Tonko FRA Grade Crossings Improvement to Safety Devices at Highway/Railway Grade Crossings, WI $750,000 Baldwin FRA Grade Crossings Traffic Separation Studies in Durham and Wake County, NC $500,000 Price (NC) FRA Research Northern Lights Express Intercity Passenger Rail Study, MN $500,000 Oberstar FTA AA Atlanta BeltLine, Inc. Tier 2 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/Preliminary Engineering, GA $700,000 Lewis (GA) FTA AA Glassboro Camden Line EIS Project, NJ $750,000 Andrews FTA AA Interstate 94 Transit Corridor, Ramsey and Washington Counties, MN $750,000 McCollum FTA AA LYNX Bus Rapid Transit Alternative Analysis, FL $500,000 Brown, Corrine FTA AA Naval Station Norfolk Light Rail Study, VA $250,000 Nye FTA AA OCTA Santa Ana-Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Construction, Santa Ana, CA $250,000 Sanchez, Loretta FTA AA Orange Line Extension Preliminary Engineering, IL $475,000 Lipinski FTA AA Phoenix West (Formerly I-10 West) Light Rail Extension, Phoenix, AZ $1,000,000 Pastor (AZ) 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
213 

FTA AA Red Line Extension, IL $1,500,000 Jackson (IL) FTA AA South Central Avenue Light Rail Feasibility Study, Phoenix, AZ $750,000 Pastor (AZ) FTA Bus Chicago Union Station Improvements, IL $500,000 Davis (IL); Gutierrez FTA Bus PVTA Regional Transit Traveler Information Systems Project, MA $1,000,000 Olver FTA Bus Aberdeen Intermodal Transit Center, MD $750,000 Ruppersberger FTA Bus ACE Boulder Highway Rapid Transit Project, NV $2,000,000 Titus; Berkley FTA Bus Bay Town Trolley Multi-Modal Facility, FL $500,000 Boyd FTA Bus Bergen Intermodal Improvements, NJ $2,000,000 Rothman (NJ); Pascrell FTA Bus Berkshire Regional Transit Authority, MA $1,000,000 Olver FTA Bus Bloomington Hybrid Buses, IN $250,000 Hill FTA Bus Brownsville Multi-Modal Terminal Facility, TX $500,000 Ortiz FTA Bus Bus and Bus Facilities, VI $1,000,000 Christensen FTA Bus Bus Replacement, Westchester County, NY $2,000,000 Lowey; Engel FTA Bus Capital Area Transit Bus and Bus Facilities, PA $700,000 Holden FTA Bus Chatham Area Transit Bus Replacement, GA $1,000,000 Barrow FTA Bus Chicago Ridge Metra Station Improvements, IL $190,000 Lipinski FTA Bus City of Rialto Metrolink Parking Lot Improvement, CA $700,000 Baca FTA Bus City of San Bernardino Intermodal Transit Center, CA $500,000 Baca FTA Bus City of Sante Fe Transit Department Bus Purchase, NM $250,000 Lujan FTA Bus Colorado Transit Coalition Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities, CO $5,000,000 Polis; DeGette; Markey (CO); Perlmutter; Salazar 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
214 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION—Continued 

[Congressionally Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

FTA Bus Coralville Intermodal Center, IA $700,000 Loebsack FTA Bus Corpus Christi Regional Transportation Authority, TX $500,000 Ortiz FTA Bus COTA Electronic Fare Payment System, Columbus, OH $1,300,000 Kilroy FTA Bus Cypress Park Transit Bus and Bus Facilities, Los Angeles, CA $400,000 Becerra FTA Bus Dallas Area Rapid Transit Bus CNG Procurement, TX $800,000 Johnson, Eddie Bernice FTA Bus DAV Vehicles, Northport, NY $500,000 Bishop (NY) FTA Bus Dutchess County Mass Transit Facility Project, NY $500,000 Hinchey FTA Bus El Paso New Operations/Maintenance Facility, TX $1,500,000 Reyes FTA Bus Fair Lawn Community Shuttle Bus Program, NJ $315,000 Rothman (NJ) FTA Bus Falls Church Bus and Bus Facilities, VA $725,000 Moran (VA) FTA Bus Flint MTA Conversion of Paratransit Facilities to CNG, MI $750,000 Kildee FTA Bus Goldsboro Union Station, NC $500,000 Butterfield FTA Bus Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority Clifton Boulevard Transit Enhancements, OH $750,000 Kucinich FTA Bus Greater Cleveland Warrensville/Van Aken Multi-Modal Facility, OH $550,000 Fudge FTA Bus Greater Southeast Transit Terminal, Houston, TX $500,000 Jackson Lee (TX) FTA Bus GRTC Downtown Multimodal Center, Richmond, VA $500,000 Scott (VA) FTA Bus IndyGo Transit Bus Replacement Project, IN $1,000,000 Carson (IN) 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
215 

FTA Bus Joliet Multimodal Transportation Center, IL $550,000 Halvorson FTA Bus JTA Regional Transit Authority Multi-Modal Facility, FL $500,000 Brown, Corrine FTA Bus LexTran Vehicle Maintenance Facility Improvements, KY $600,000 Chandler FTA Bus Littleton Intermodal Parking Facility, MA $1,200,000 Tsongas FTA Bus Los Angeles Boyle Heights DASH Bus, CA $420,000 Roybal-Allard FTA Bus Los Angeles Florence-Firestone/Walnut Park Transit Vehicles, CA $300,000 Sanchez, Linda; Roybal-Allard FTA Bus Los Angeles Midtown DASH Community Circulator Bus Expansion Project, CA $1,000,000 Watson FTA Bus Los Lunas Intermodal Transportation Center, NM $1,000,000 Teague FTA Bus MARTA Bus, Bus Facilities and Security Improvements, GA $3,000,000 Johnson (GA); Lewis (GA); Scott (GA) FTA Bus METRO Bus and Bus Facilities, Houston, TX $1,000,000 Jackson Lee (TX); Green, Gene; Green, Al FTA Bus Milwaukee County Buses, WI $1,000,000 Moore (WI) FTA Bus Montebello Bus Lines and Norwalk Transit Agency Bus Replacement Project, CA $500,000 Napolitano FTA Bus Monterey-Salinas Transit Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Security Systems Upgrade, CA $800,000 Farr FTA Bus Municipal Transit Operators Coalition Clean Fuel Bus Purchase, CA $2,000,000 Waters; Harman; Watson FTA Bus Mustang Park and Ride Structure, Scottsdale, AZ $500,000 Mitchell FTA Bus New Center Intermodal Transportation Facility, Wayne, MI $1,350,000 Kilpatrick (MI) FTA Bus Newburyport Intermodal Parking Facility, MA $500,000 Tierney FTA Bus Pace Paratransit Vehicles, IL $1,400,000 Foster; Bean; Davis (IL); Gutierrez; Jackson (IL); 

Quigley; Schakowsky 

FTA Bus Port Authority Allegheny County Hybrid Buses, PA $600,000 Doyle FTA Bus Port of Galveston Transit Terminal Parking, TX $1,250,000 Paul 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
216 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION—Continued 

[Congressionally Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

FTA Bus Potomac Yard-Crystal City Transit Way, VA $1,250,000 Moran (VA) FTA Bus Replacement Buses for Urban Transit Systems in the Triangle, NC $2,500,000 Price (NC); Etheridge; Miller (NC) FTA Bus Riverview Corridor Bus Acquisition and Facilities, MN $750,000 McCollum FTA Bus Rochester Intermodal Transportation Center, NY $2,500,000 Slaughter FTA Bus SEPTA 69th Street Terminal, PA $500,000 Sestak FTA Bus SEPTA Levittown Station Intermodal Improvements, PA $600,000 Murphy, Patrick FTA Bus South Hampton Roads Satellite Transit Operating Facility, VA $1,500,000 Nye FTA Bus Southern Maryland Commuter Bus Initiative, MD $1,500,000 Hoyer FTA Bus Stark Area Buses Regional Transit Authority, OH $800,000 Boccieri FTA Bus Suffolk County Bus and Bus Facilities, NY $750,000 Bishop (NY) FTA Bus Tennessee Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities, TN $1,000,000 Davis (TN) FTA Bus Transit Center, California State University, Northridge, CA $500,000 Sherman FTA Bus Unified Government Transit Buses and Bus Facilities, KS $800,000 Moore (KS) FTA Bus Union Passenger Terminal, LA $1,250,000 Cao FTA Bus Union Station Intermodal Center, DC $500,000 Norton FTA Bus Vacaville Intermodal Station-Phase 2, Vacaville, CA $750,000 Miller, George FTA Bus VIA Bus Fleet Modernization, TX $2,400,000 Rodriguez; Gonzalez 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
217 

FTA Bus VIA Fredericksburg Road Bus Rapid Transit Corridor, TX $1,000,000 Gonzalez FTA Bus Washington Avenue Port Plaza and Intermodal Center, WA $1,000,000 Dicks FTA Bus Watts DASH Community Circulator Bus Project, CA $200,000 Richardson FTA CIG Baltimore Red Line, MD $1,500,000 Cummings; Sarbanes FTA CIG BART Silicon Valley Project, CA $2,000,000 Honda; Lofgren, Zoe FTA CIG Crenshaw/LAX Transit Project, CA $750,000 Harman; Schiff; Waters; Watson FTA CIG Downtown Transit Corridor Program, Downtown Circulator -- The Wave, FL $1,750,000 Wasserman Schultz; Hastings (FL) FTA CIG Green Line Extension to Route 16 from Tufts, MA $500,000 Capuano FTA CIG Houston Commuter Rail Service in Harris and Fort Bend County (US 90A), TX $1,000,000 Green, Al; Green, Gene; Jackson Lee (TX) FTA CIG Purple Line, MD $1,500,000 Edwards (MD); Van Hollen FTA CIG Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART), CA $1,000,000 Woolsey FTA CIG South Shore Commuter Rail Capital Reinvestment Plan, NICTD, IN $1,000,000 Visclosky FTA CIG Stamford Urban Transitway, CT $1,000,000 Himes FTA CIG West Eugene EmX, OR $1,000,000 DeFazio FTA Research City of College Station Public Transportation Initiative, TX $150,000 Edwards (TX) FTA Research CTAA Job links, DC $2,400,000 Olver FTA Research Project Transit, Philadelphia, PA $1,000,000 Fattah FTA Research Queens College Barriers to Public Transportation Survey, NY $250,000 Weiner 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
218 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

[Congressionally Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Recipient Project Amount Requester(s) 

HUD EDI American Legion Post 139, CA Rehabilitation and Renovation of an American Legion Hall $95,000 Schiff HUD EDI American Red Cross, Cincinnati Area Chapter, OH Construction and Build Out of a Regional Red Cross Hub $750,000 Driehaus HUD EDI Appalachia Service Project, TN Home Repair Program for Low-Income Families $350,000 Davis (TN) HUD EDI ARC Community Services, MA Renovate a Building that Provides Services for Individuals with Developmental Disabilities $300,000 Olver HUD EDI Ashunti Residential Management Systems Inc., IL Renovation of Existing Facilities $600,000 Davis (IL) HUD EDI Atlanta Center for Civil and Human Rights, GA Construction of a Civil Rights Museum and Visitor Center in Downtown Atlanta $500,000 Lewis (GA) HUD EDI Black Economic Union of Greater Kansas City, MO Planning, Design, Renovation and Revitalization of a Historic Building $1,000,000 Cleaver HUD EDI Blue Springs Hoke County CDC, NC Acquisition of Land for an Affordable Housing Initiative $500,000 Kissell HUD EDI Boys Town of Chicago, IL Construction of Housing for Low-Income Youth $500,000 Gutierrez HUD EDI Bristol Boys and Girls Club Association, CT Planning, Design and Construction of a Boys and Girls Club $1,000,000 Larson (CT) HUD EDI Brooke County Commission, WV Development and Construction of a Park and Memorial $400,000 Mollohan HUD EDI Brooklyn Navy Yard Development Corporation, NY Design and Construction of a Facility $500,000 Velazquez; Towns HUD EDI Bucks County Housing Development Corporation, PA Construction of Affordable Housing for Disabled Veterans $500,000 Murphy, Patrick HUD EDI CAMBA, Inc., NY Construction of Supportive Housing $1,000,000 Clarke HUD EDI Chabad of the Valley, CA Renovation of a Facility $250,000 Sherman HUD EDI Charles City County, VA Construction of a Library Facility $500,000 Scott (VA) 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
219 

HUD EDI Charles County, Department of Community Services, MD Renovation of Low-Income Housing $300,000 Hoyer HUD EDI Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc., AZ Building Rehabilitation for a Workforce Readiness Center $400,000 Pastor (AZ) HUD EDI Children’s Museum of Tampa, FL Construction of a Facility $750,000 Castor (FL) HUD EDI City of Albany, NY Construction and Renovation of a Facility $750,000 Tonko HUD EDI City of Astoria, OR Construction of a Park $800,000 Wu HUD EDI City of Burbank, CA Planning, Design and Construction of a Library $100,000 Schiff HUD EDI City of Canton, OH Infrastructure Improvement and Streetscaping for Mahoning Road Economic Development Project $500,000 Boccieri HUD EDI City of Chicago, IL Construction of Veterans Housing $750,000 Quigley HUD EDI City of Cleburne, TX Construction of the Lake Pat Cleburne Trail System $250,000 Edwards (TX) HUD EDI City of Cortland, NY Engineering, Preparation and Construction of a Community Center $400,000 Arcuri HUD EDI City of Creedmoor, NC Planning and Design for a Community Center $500,000 Miller (NC) HUD EDI City of Dubuque, IA Renovation of Buildings to Create Affordable Workforce Housing $750,000 Braley (IA) HUD EDI City of Durham, NC Streetscaping of Fayetteville Street Corridor Project $500,000 Price (NC) HUD EDI City of Ecorse, MI Demolition of Blighted Buildings $1,000,000 Kilpatrick (MI) HUD EDI City of Enterprise, AL Demolition, Planning, Construction, and Renovation of Downtown Business District $500,000 BrightHUD EDI City of Fort Lauderdale, FL Streetscaping in Underserved Communities $500,000 Hastings (FL) HUD EDI City of Fullerton, CA Demolition, Planning, Design and Construction of a Community Center $500,000 Sanchez, Loretta HUD EDI City of Gary, IN Demolition of Buildings and Neighborhood Redevelopment $500,000 Visclosky HUD EDI City of Glens Falls, NY Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation of a Community Service Center $500,000 Murphy (NY) 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
220 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

[Congressionally Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Recipient Project Amount Requester(s) 

HUD EDI City of Gonzales, LA Park Improvements $250,000 Melancon HUD EDI City of Grants, NM Planning, Design, Construction and Build Out of a Library $750,000 Teague HUD EDI City of Green Bay, WI Demolition of a Blighted Building $1,000,000 Kagen HUD EDI City of Inkster, MI Construction of a Senior Center $550,000 Dingell HUD EDI City of La Joya, TX Construction of Youth Facilities $500,000 Cuellar HUD EDI City of Lawndale, CA Design and Construction of a Community Center $500,000 Waters HUD EDI City of Mount Rainier, MD Planning and Design of a Library $350,000 Van Hollen HUD EDI City of New Bedford, MA Demolition and Construction of an ADA-Compliant Pedestrian Bridge $750,000 Frank (MA) HUD EDI City of Port Orchard, WA Parcel Acquisition and Project Design $500,000 Dicks HUD EDI City of River Rouge, MI Demolition of Blighted Buildings $500,000 Kilpatrick (MI) HUD EDI City of Salem, OR Construct Waterline Improvements $500,000 Schrader HUD EDI City of Stevens Point, WI Environmental Remediation and Development within the City of Stevens Point $750,000 Obey HUD EDI City of Toledo, OH Ohio Broadway Street Corridor Enhancement $1,000,000 Kaptur HUD EDI City of Tucson, AZ Stabilization and Renovation of the Historic Marist College Building $500,000 Grijalva HUD EDI City of Warren, MI Facility and Security Improvements to Senior Apartments $750,000 Levin HUD EDI City of Winter Park, FL Acquisition of Land for Expansion of a Park $250,000 Kosmas HUD EDI City of Worcester, MA Gardner-Kilby-Hammond Neighborhood Revitalization $450,000 McGovern 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
221 

HUD EDI Community Advocates, Inc., WI Acquisition and Remodeling of a Facility $250,000 Moore (WI) HUD EDI Community Development Corporation of South 

Berkshire, MA 

Redevelopment of the Former Searles Bryant School Complex in Great Barrington $600,000 Olver 

HUD EDI Community Food Bank, Inc., AZ Installation of Solar Panels $200,000 Giffords HUD EDI Community Hospitals of Central California Foundation, dba Community Medical Foundation, CA Design, Construction, Engineering, Furnishings and Equipment $750,000 Costa HUD EDI Comprehensive Community Action, Inc., RI Renovations including Energy Efficient Upgrades $250,000 Langevin HUD EDI Concourse House, HDFC, NY Renovation of a Facility $150,000 Serrano HUD EDI Connecticut Food Bank, Inc., CT Renovation of a Facility $1,000,000 DeLauro HUD EDI Coos County Historical Society, OR Planning, Development and Construction of a Facility $500,000 DeFazio HUD EDI Covenant House, LA Acquisition of Land for a Low-Income Youth Initiative $250,000 Cao HUD EDI Davis Street Community Center, Inc., CA Building Acquisition $500,000 Stark HUD EDI Domestic Abuse Intervention Services, Inc., WI Construction of a Domestic Violence Shelter $300,000 Baldwin HUD EDI East Hartford Housing Authority, CT ADA Upgrades to and Renovation of a Community Center $500,000 Larson (CT) HUD EDI Emlenton Borough, PA Redevelopment of a Former Industrial Site $150,000 Dahlkemper HUD EDI Essex County Family Justice Center, NJ Renovations of Essex County Family Justice Center $700,000 Payne; Pascrell; 

Sires 

HUD EDI Family Service Association of San Antonio, TX Renovation and Upgrades of a Roof, HVAC and Other Facilities $500,000 Gonzalez HUD EDI Friends of the Waterboro Public Library, ME Construction of a Community Center $500,000 Pingree (ME) HUD EDI Glenridge Senior Citizen Multi-Service & Advisory 

Center, Inc, NY 

Construction of a Community Center $230,000 Velazquez 

HUD EDI Hilltown Community Development Corporation, MA Development of Energy-Efficient Affordable Senior Housing $300,000 Olver


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
222 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

[Congressionally Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Recipient Project Amount Requester(s) 

HUD EDI Historic Seattle, WA Restoration and Preservation of Washington Hall $475,000 McDermott HUD EDI Island Municipality of Rota, MP Design and Renovation of a Facility $500,000 Sablan HUD EDI Isles, Inc., NJ Construction of a Green Job Training Center $300,000 Holt HUD EDI Josephine Solomon Ellis Foundation—CDC, PA Construction of Low-Income Housing $500,000 Brady (PA) HUD EDI Joseph’s Home, Inc., NY Rehabilitation of a Community Room for Veterans $350,000 Engel HUD EDI Kips Bay Boys & Girls Club, NY Construction, Renovations and Equipment $75,000 Crowley HUD EDI Kittay House, Jewish Home Lifecare, Inc, NY Building Renovation and Repairs $200,000 Serrano HUD EDI Lake Eufaula Association, OK Construction of a Facility $400,000 Boren HUD EDI Lawrence Economic Development Corporation, OH Redevelopment of a Park $700,000 Wilson (OH) HUD EDI Liberty House Shelter Inc, NH Building Acquisition for Housing for Homeless Veterans $250,000 Shea-Porter HUD EDI Los Angeles County Department of Parks and 

Recreation, CA 

Construction of a Park $300,000 Schiff 

HUD EDI Lutheran Social Service of Minnesota, MN Renovation of Homes for the Disabled $225,000 Oberstar; Ellison HUD EDI Luzerne County Commissioners, PA Infrastructure Improvements at the Crestwood and Hanover Industrial Parks $750,000 Kanjorski HUD EDI Martin House Restoration Corporation, NY Restoration and Improvements to the Historic Darwin Martin House Home and Complex $1,000,000 Higgins; Slaughter HUD EDI Middlesex Community College, MA Planning, Design and Renovation of a Historic Building $300,000 Tsongas HUD EDI Morehouse College, GA Construction of a Facility to Display the Papers of Martin Luther King, Jr. $500,000 Lewis (GA) 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
223 

HUD EDI Mount Washington Community Development Corporation, PA Planning and Construction of a Trail $100,000 Doyle HUD EDI Municipality of Yauco, PR Construction of a Children’s Playground $150,000 Pierluisi HUD EDI Museum for African Art, NY Streetscaping $500,000 Rangel HUD EDI My Sister’s House, CA Renovation of Asian and Pacific Islander Domestic Violence Survivor Home $250,000 Matsui HUD EDI National Civil Rights Museum, TN Renovation of a Facility $750,000 Cohen HUD EDI Nepperhan Community Center, Inc., NY Renovation of a Community Center $200,000 Engel HUD EDI New River Community and Technical College, WV Acquisition and Renovation of a Building to be Used as Technical Training Center $600,000 Rahall HUD EDI Niles Township Government, IL Renovation of a Facility for the Niles Township Food Pantry $250,000 Schakowsky HUD EDI Northern Illinois Food Bank, IL Construction of a Facility $300,000 Foster HUD EDI Old Sturbridge Village, MA Renovation of Historic Buildings $135,000 Neal HUD EDI Paul J. Cooper Center for Human Services, Inc., NY Building Acquisition, Renovation, Expansion and Build out of a Facility $300,000 Towns HUD EDI People in Progress, Inc., CA Acquisition of a Building for Homeless Veterans $380,000 Berman HUD EDI Porter County Government, IN Streetscaping $500,000 Visclosky HUD EDI Positive Workforce INC., NY Completion of a Job Training Facility $250,000 Rangel HUD EDI Project Angel Food, CA Installation of a Roof and Solar Energy Panels $150,000 Becerra HUD EDI ProLiteracy, NY Planning, Design and Construction of a Building $1,000,000 Maffei HUD EDI Providence Community Action Program, RI Renovation and Rehabilitation of a Community Center $750,000 Langevin HUD EDI Rebuilding Together Broward County, Inc., FL Renovations to Low-Income Housing $250,000 Wasserman Schultz HUD EDI Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, MN Planning, Design and Construction of a Multi-Purpose Facility $1,000,000 Peterson


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
224 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

[Congressionally Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Recipient Project Amount Requester(s) 

HUD EDI Redevelopment Authority of the County of Westmoreland, PA Redevelopment of a Brownfield Site $250,000 Critz HUD EDI Rum River Health Services, Inc., MN Construction of Temporary and Permanent Supportive Housing Units $500,000 Oberstar HUD EDI Senior Services of Snohomish County, WA Construction and Equipment for a Service Delivery Facility $500,000 Larsen (WA)HUD EDI Southern Queens Park Association, Inc., NY Modernization and Improvements to Roy Wilkins Complex $800,000 Meeks (NY) HUD EDI St. Louis Development Corporation, MO Development of Road and Stormwater Infrastructure for Carondelet Commons Business

Park Development 

$750,000 Carnahan 

HUD EDI Suwannee County Board of County Commissioners, 

FL 

Engineering, Design and Construction of a Library $500,000 Boyd 

HUD EDI The Children’s Aid Society’s Goodhue Center, NY Acquisition of Land for a Park $1,000,000 McMahon HUD EDI The Children’s Campus of Kansas City, Inc., KS Facility Upgrades $200,000 Moore (KS) HUD EDI The Neighborhood House Charter School, MA Planning and Construction of a Facility $300,000 Lynch HUD EDI The Resurrection Project, IL Planning, Design, and Construction of a Residence Hall for Low-Income Youth $500,000 Gutierrez HUD EDI Three Square Food Bank, NV Construction of a Solar Power Array $750,000 Berkley; Titus HUD EDI Tibbits Opera House, MI Renovation and Restoration of a Facility $150,000 Schauer HUD EDI Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Governments, 

OH 

Construction of a Facility $2,500,000 Kaptur 

HUD EDI Town of Braintree, MA Restoration and Rehabilitation of the Original Thayer Library $500,000 Lynch HUD EDI Town of Hempstead, Department of Planning & 

Economic Development, NY 

Streetscaping $750,000 McCarthy (NY) 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
225 

HUD EDI Town of Islip, NY Restoration and Renovation of Veteran Facilities $500,000 Israel HUD EDI Town of Madison, WI Construction of the Novation Technology Campus Redevelopment Project $500,000 Baldwin HUD EDI Town of North Castle, NY Streetscaping $200,000 Lowey HUD EDI Town of Seymour, CT Construction of a Community Center $100,000 DeLauro HUD EDI Town of South Boston, VA Renovations and Development of a Community Center $750,000 Perriello HUD EDI Town of Sprague, CT Renovation of a Senior Housing Complex $750,000 Courtney HUD EDI Town of Steilacoom, WA Construction and Expansion of a Community Center $500,000 Smith (WA) HUD EDI Township of Moorestown, NJ Reconstruction of a Library $750,000 Adler (NJ) HUD EDI Tubman African American Museum, GA Construction of a Facility $500,000 Marshall HUD EDI Ulster County, NY Rehabilitation and Stabilization of a National Historic Landmark $350,000 Hinchey HUD EDI Union City Family Support Center, PA Renovation of a Facility $200,000 Dahlkemper HUD EDI Variety Boys and Girls Club, CA Demolition and Reconstruction of a Facility $200,000 Roybal-Allard HUD EDI Veterans Green Jobs, CO Planning, Design and Renovation of a Disabled Veterans Green Jobs Training Center $500,000 Salazar HUD EDI Veterans Museum of Mid Ohio Valley, WV Acquisition, Construction and Renovation of a Veterans Museum $300,000 Mollohan HUD EDI Veterans of Foreign Wars, William F. Taylor Post 

9486, NY 

Renovation of a Veterans Facility $70,000 Bishop (NY) 

HUD EDI Vienna Town Council, VA Streetscaping $500,000 Connolly (VA) HUD EDI Village of North Riverside, IL Construction and Build Out of a Park $135,000 Lipinski HUD EDI Village of Port Washington, NY Revitalization of Manhasset Bay Waterfront $750,000 Ackerman HUD EDI Whitman Walker Clinic, Inc., DC Planning, Design and Construction $400,000 Norton HUD EDI Williamsburg County, SC Construction of a Community Center $1,000,000 Clyburn 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
226 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

[Congressionally Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Recipient Project Amount Requester(s) 

HUD EDI Woodward Development Corporation, OH Renovation of a Building in Downtown Mount Vernon $750,000 Space HUD EDI Wynnefield Overbrook Revitalization Corporation 

(WORC), PA 

Streetscaping and Infrastructure for WORC Commercial Center $500,000 Brady (PA); Fattah 

HUD EDI YMCA of San Diego County, CA Planning, Design and Construction of a Housing and Community Center $1,500,000 Filner HUD EDI YMCA of San Francisco, Bayview Hunters Point 

branch, CA 

Renovation Costs Associated with Expansion of a Community Center $600,000 Pelosi 

HUD EDI YMCA of San Francisco, Chinatown YMCA branch, 

CA 

Construction of Transitional Housing Units for Domestic Violence Victims $500,000 Pelosi 

HUD EDI York County Community Development Corporation, 

SC 

Construction of a Neighborhood Community Center $700,000 Spratt 

HUD EDI Youngstown Edison Incubator Corporation dba 

Youngstown Business Incubator, OH 

Renovation of a Facility $700,000 Ryan (OH) 

HUD EDI YWCA of Northwest Georgia, GA Construction and Renovation of a Domestic Violence Shelter and Outreach Facility $250,000 Scott (GA) HUD EDI YWCA of Silicon Valley, CA Renovation of a Domestic Violence Shelter $350,000 Honda HUD EDI YWCA Southeastern Massachusetts, MA Building Expansion and Construction $475,000 Frank (MA) HUD EDI Zavala County, TX Construction and Renovation of Facilities for Senior Citizens $300,000 Rodriguez HUD NI City and County of San Francisco, Mayor’s Office of 

Housing, CA 

For Critical Infrastructure and Housing Development Work $1,250,000 Pelosi 

HUD NI City of Jackson, MI Demolition of Buildings and Neighborhood Redevelopment $1,500,000 Schauer HUD NI City of Wausau Community Development Area, WI Acquisition and Remediation of Blighted Properties $2,000,000 Obey 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
227 

HUD NI Community Legal Services of Mid-Florida, FL Housing Counseling and Foreclosure Modification $500,000 Grayson HUD NI Greenfield Community College, MA Renovation of Buildings $1,000,000 Olver HUD NI Los Angeles Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc., 

CA 

Counsel and Assist Homeowners Facing Foreclosures $500,000 Becerra 

HUD NI National Council of La Raza, DC Capitalization of a Revolving Loan Fund to be Used for Nationwide Community Development Activities $1,000,000 Gutierrez; Hinojosa HUD NI New Hampshire Food Bank, NH Expansion of Food Assistance Programs $1,000,000 Shea-Porter HUD NI Shelter Network of San Mateo County, CA Shelter Network’s Maple Street Project $200,000 Speier HUD NI United Way for Southeastern Michigan, MI Foreclosure Prevention Program $1,500,000 Conyers HUD NI Wisconsin Indianhead Technical College, WI Construction of a Training Center $1,750,000 Obey 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND HUD 

[Technical Corrections] 

Project Project Requester(s) 

I-80 Exits 298/299 Improvements, Monroe County, PA Kanjorski Chetek-area Transportation System Improvements, Chetek, WI Obey Pacific Way Bridge, County of Marin, CA Woolsey Signal at Flamingo/Highway 1, County of Marin, CA Woolsey Design and construction of improvements to Route 28 corridor adjacent to the I-495/Route 28 interchange in Wareham, MA Frank Cabot North Interchange, AR Berry Construction and upgrades at four grade crossings in Olmsted Falls, OH Kucinich Reconstruction and reconfiguration of the northbound off-ramp from Interstate 95 to Bartow/Baychester Avenue, Bronx, NY CrowleyNewton County Eastside High School to County Library Trail, GA Marshall 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
228 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND HUD—Continued 

[Technical Corrections] 

Project Project Requester(s) 

Road and bridge improvements and storm water mitigation in the Town of Southampton, NY Bishop, Timothy Operational safety studies, final design and/or construction of intersection operational and safety improvements for USH 53 between Rice Lake and Superior, WI Obey Engineering, design and construction of the North Street, Pittsfield, streetscaping project, MA Olver Highway 10 relocation, City of Wadena, MN Oberstar Renovation of blighted structures to enhance downtown development in the City of Wilson, NC Butterfield New York State Department of Environmental Conservation for planning and design of the Catskill Visitor Interpretative Center, NY Hinchey Charles County Department of Human Services for acquisition and rehabilitation of a facility, Port Tobacco, MD Hoyer 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
229 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) 

AUTHORITY

The following table provides a detailed summary, for each department and agency, comparing the amounts recommended in the 

bill with fiscal year 2010 enacted amounts and budget estimates 

presented for fiscal year 2010. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
230 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRIInsert offset folio 037 here HR564.003
231 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRIInsert offset folio 38 here HR564.004
232 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRIInsert offset folio 39 here HR564.005
233 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRIInsert offset folio 40 here HR564.006
234 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRIInsert offset folio 41 here HR564.007
235 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRIInsert offset folio 42 here HR564.008
236 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRIInsert offset folio 43 here HR564.009
237 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRIInsert offset folio 44 here HR564.010
238 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRIInsert offset folio 45 here HR564.011
239 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRIInsert offset folio 46 here HR564.012
240 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRIInsert offset folio 47 here HR564.013
241 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRIInsert offset folio 48 here HR564.014
242 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRIInsert offset folio 49 here HR564.015
243 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRIInsert offset folio 50 here HR564.016
244 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRIInsert offset folio 51 here HR564.017
245 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRIInsert offset folio 52 here HR564.018
246 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRIInsert offset folio 53 here HR564.019
247 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRIInsert offset folio 54 here HR564.020
248 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRIInsert offset folio 55 here HR564.021
249 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRIInsert offset folio 56 here HR564.022
(250) 

MINORITY VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVES LEWIS, LATHAM, 

WOLF, CARTER AND LATOURETTE 

This year for the first time since the enactment of the 1974 Congressional Budget Act, the Democrat controlled U.S. House of Representatives failed to consider and pass a budget. According to the 

nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, the House has passed 

a budget every year since the Congressional Budget Act first took 

effect for fiscal year 1976. This represents a historic and unprecedented failure by the Democrat controlled Congress to meet a basic 

responsibility on fiscal issues: to annually adopt a spending plan 

that sets priorities for spending, revenues, deficits and debt for at 

least the next five years. 

Instead, the Democrat majority resorted to a tortuous procedural 

sleight-of-hand to evade a direct vote in order to ‘‘deem’’ the adoption of a one-year resolution that provided the Appropriations Committee a top line discretionary amount for FY 2011 while failing to 

provide a designation for overseas military contingencies despite 

promising for years that they would never fund the war in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere as an emergency or outside the regular 

budget process. This unwillingness to pass a real budget was only 

necessary because of the explosion of debt and deficits unleashed 

by the reckless spending of Congressional Democrats and the President. 

The Fiscal Year 2011 Transportation and Housing and Urban 

Development (THUD) bill is $500 million below the Fiscal Year 

2010 spending level. However, before we all congratulate ourselves 

on being below last year, we need to remember that the increase 

from Fiscal Year 2009 to Fiscal Year 2010 represented a whopping 

23% increase in real spending. The relative ease with which the 

Chairman was able to plus up many accounts over and above last 

year and even the President’s request shows how much ‘‘extra’’ 

money is floating around these two agencies. This is no way to assure the American people that we are good stewards of their tax 

dollars and are committed to reducing the deficit. We need to take 

a good hard look at what programs are appropriately funded and 

operated by the Federal government and what activities should remain at a local or state level. After that, we need to ask ourselves 

how much can we afford to spend? In both subcommittee and full 

committee consideration of the THUD bill, Republicans offered up 

a modest cost reducing amendment which cut a mere 3 cents on 

the dollar. How can the Democrats be serious about protecting our 

economy and our nation’s financial health if they can’t even agree 

to cut 3 cents on the dollar? Our amendment was defeated on a 

party-line vote. 

Republicans also supported an amendment to help ensure the 

solvency of the Highway Trust Fund. As the majority so eloquently 

and accurately noted on page 9 of the Committee’s report to accomVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:17 Jul 27, 2010 Jkt 057536 PO 00000 Frm 00250 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR564.XXX HR564

pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
251 

pany the Fiscal Year 2010 bill, the unsustainable highway spending levels set by the 2005 SAFETEA-LU law mandated new spending commitments from the Highway Account of the Highway Trust 

Fund at levels that averaged $6.9 billion per year in excess of the 

actual tax receipts that were expected to be deposited in the Account over fiscal years 2006–2009 (based on the forecasts at the 

time SAFETEA-LU was written). As the majority’s report noted 

last year, ‘‘The resulting overspending has, not surprisingly, led the 

highway account that serves as the sole funding source for the 

highway program on a downward spiral to insolvency.’’ These 

unsustainable spending levels had an entirely predictable result: 

Congress has voted to bail out the Highway Account three times 

in the last two years—$8.0 billion transferred from the General 

Fund in September 2008, $7.0 billion transferred from the General 

Fund in August 2009, and $14.7 billion transferred just four 

months ago in the March 2010 HIRE Act. 

This year, new Highway Account obligations under the Fiscal 

Year 2010 Appropriations Act are expected to exceed forecasted 

Highway Account receipts by $11.5 billion. Under the Congressional Budget Office’s March 2010 baseline, total new Fiscal Year 

2011 spending commitments from the Highway Account are expected to exceed Highway Account revenues by $10.9 billion. Regrettably, the Committee’s proposed bill makes this unsustainable 

trend even more unsustainable. 

The Democrat Majority will increase this ‘‘sustainability gap’’ by $4.1 billion to $15.0 billion. Chairman Obey touts that this level of 

spending is warranted by the over $17 billion in contract authority 

that rests with the states. Unfortunately, for the states, the Highway Trust Fund cannot pay the bills and Chairman Obey has already tried to use that contract authority to pay for his other 

spending priorities. Instead of putting highway spending on a path 

that can come closer to being supported by the federal taxes paid 

by highway users, the majority’s bill does exactly what the 2005 

SAFETEA-LU law did—it provides unsustainable highway spending increases that are irresponsible in the absence of new revenues 

to pay for the extra spending. Again, the Republican attempt to 

keep the Highway Trust Fund solvent was defeated on a party-line 

vote. 

Another area of concern is the excessive level of obligation limitation provided for the transit programs. Contract authority for the 

Federal Transit Administration’s Formula and Bus Grants account 

has only been provided by the HIRE Act through the first three 

months of fiscal 2011. The Congressional Budget Office established 

the contract authority baseline for this account at $8,360,565,000, 

or four times the three-month spending level set in the HIRE Act. 

The proposed appropriations bill provides an obligation limitation 

on the account for Fiscal Year 2011 of $8,961,348,000, or 

$601,783,000 more than the contract authority authorized. The 

Committee’s obligation limitation assumes that the Transportation 

and Infrastructure Committee will provide almost $601 million in 

contract authority above the baseline level in Fiscal Year 2011. 

However, the allocations made by the FY 2010 Congressional budget resolution (S. Con. Res. 13) are still binding on all House committees (except Appropriations), and the Transportation and InfraVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:17 Jul 27, 2010 Jkt 057536 PO 00000 Frm 00251 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR564.XXX HR564

pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
252 

structure Committee has no room under its allocation to create 

$601 million per year in additional contract authority without repealing contract authority for additional programs. Not only can 

the Transit Account not afford this level of spending, but the legal 

authority to engage in this level of spending simply doesn’t exist. 

It seems disingenuous for the majority to provide $601 million in 

‘‘budgetary resources’’ that is completely dependent on other committees of Congress enacting a law that either violates their own 

budget allocation or else requires cuts in other spending programs 

that have not been identified by this Committee. 

The Fiscal Year 2011 budget request was heavy with programs 

aimed at ‘‘livability’’ and ‘‘sustainability’’, almost all of which are 

funded in this proposed bill. We share a number of concerns with 

these new and untested programs. First, the initiatives funded by 

these programs as described by HUD and DOT involve activities 

that are rightly part of the jurisdiction of state and local governments and metropolitan planning organizations. Activities such as 

local and regional planning, zoning, data gathering, and public outreach have no business in the Federal budget. Furthermore, the 

Federal government should stand back and allow these locallyelected officials to make the decisions that reflect the best practices 

for their communities and the will of the residents. Second, we are 

dismayed at the lack of a plan or solid definition of what HUD and 

DOT are trying to achieve with these new programs. The fact that 

this bill provides one office in DOT alone with $12 million for 

grants to help localities ‘‘plan,’’ $4 million to ‘‘develop uniform 

benchmarks for assessing the effectiveness of livable-oriented interventions, including performance measures of livability outcomes,’’ 

and $4 million to establish an Office of Livable Communities in a 

cabinet-level department should raise a red flag on the necessity of 

this program and the benefits we as a nation will receive from this 

investment. The millions of dollars already spent and proposed for 

spending are too scarce and primarily borrowed from the taxpayers 

and foreign governments. We should not be funding local activities, 

or vague programs with borrowed money. 

We remain concerned over the viability of the Home Equity 

Mortgage Conversion Program (HECM). This program began in 

1987 under assumptions that house values would continually increase and offset risk to the program. As more and more borrowers 

use the program as a way to generate income or replace depleted 

savings and retirement accounts, coupled with falling home values, 

the program will continue to require increasingly large taxpayer 

subsidies going forward. In order to continue this program in a fiscally prudent manner that protects the taxpayer, serious reforms 

are needed. Further, more program participants are at risk for 

foreclosure as housing prices fall. We are hopeful that we can work 

with the Administration and the Majority to ensure that reforms 

can be made that will sustain the program without the need of additional taxpayer subsidy in the future. 

There are a few areas where Chairman Olver should be commended. We agree with his decision to decline funding for the 

Choice Neighborhood proposals, the proposal to reform rental assistance, the catalytic investment competition grants, and the $4 

billion proposal to create the National Infrastructure Innovation 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI
253 

and Finance Fund. Many of these ideas are still in the development 

stage and require authorization and in the case of the infrastructure fund, the Administration has not even put forth a legislative 

proposal. 

In the end, based on the dire financial and deficit situation our 

nation is in, and our commitment to our constituents and taxpayers, we must oppose this THUD bill as written. We sincerely 

hope that Chairman Obey and the House Leadership will see fit to 

consider this bill under a traditional open rule so that all members, 

not just Republicans, will have a chance to improve upon the Committee’s proposed bill. 

JERRY LEWIS. TOM LATHAM. FRANK R. WOLF. JOHN R. CARTER. STEVEN C. LATOURETTE. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with CRI