```

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

                                                       Calendar No. 482
111th Congress                                                   Report
  2d Session                   SENATE                           111-230
=======================================================================
 
TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                       APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2011 
                                _______
                                

                 July 23, 2010.--Ordered to be printed

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

                                _______
                                

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

                              R E P O R T

                    [To accompany S. 3644]

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

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

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

                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

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

                     PROGRAM, PROJECT, AND ACTIVITY

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

                        REPROGRAMMING GUIDELINES

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

                  CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET JUSTIFICATIONS

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

                                TITLE I

                      DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

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

                        Office of the Secretary

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

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

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

                   IMMEDIATE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

                IMMEDIATE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SECRETARY

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

                     OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

       OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION FOR POLICY

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

       OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR BUDGET AND PROGRAMS

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

       OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

          OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

                        OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

                         EXECUTIVE SECRETARIAT

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

         OFFICE OF SMALL AND DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS UTILIZATION

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

        OFFICE OF INTELLIGENCE, SECURITY, AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

                OFFICE OF THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

                    TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT GRANTS

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

                      FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT CAPITAL

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

                       CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

                         OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

           TRANSPORTATION PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND DEVELOPMENT

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

                          WORKING CAPITAL FUND

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

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

               MINORITY BUSINESS RESOURCE CENTER PROGRAM

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

                       MINORITY BUSINESS OUTREACH

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

                        PAYMENTS TO AIR CARRIERS

                    (AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

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

  ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION

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

                    Federal Aviation Administration

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Fiscal year--
                                                        --------------------------------------     Committee
                                                            2010 enacted      2011 estimate      recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations.............................................     $9,350,028,000     $9,793,000,000     $9,818,000,000
Facilities and equipment...............................      2,936,203,000      2,970,000,000      2,970,000,000
Research, engineering, and development.................        190,500,000        190,000,000        198,750,000
Grants-in-aid for airports (obligation limitation).....      3,515,000,000      3,515,000,000      3,515,000,000
Rescission of grants-in-aid for airports contract             -394,000,000  .................  .................
 authority.............................................
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total............................................     15,596,731,000     16,468,000,000     16,501,750,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               OPERATIONS

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

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

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

                        AIR TRAFFIC ORGANIZATION

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

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

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

                            AVIATION SAFETY

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

                        FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

                    (AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

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

       ACTIVITY 1: ENGINEERING, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION

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

   ACTIVITY 2: PROCUREMENT AND MODERNIZATION OF AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL 
                               FACILITIES

En Route Programs

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

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

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

Terminal Programs

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

Flight Service Programs

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

                 LANDING AND NAVIGATIONAL AIDS PROGRAM

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

                     OTHER ATC FACILITIES PROGRAMS

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

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

Support Programs

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

          ACTIVITY 4: FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT MISSION SUPPORT

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

                 RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, AND DEVELOPMENT

                    (AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

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

                 ADVANCED STRUCTURAL/STRUCTURAL SAFETY

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

                   UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS RESEARCH

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

                        SAFETY SYSTEM MANAGEMENT

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

   NEXTGEN ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH--AIRCRAFT TECHNOLOGIES, FUELS AND 
                                METRICS

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

                       GRANTS-IN-AID FOR AIRPORTS

                (LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

                      (LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

                    (AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

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

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

       ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

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

                     Federal Highway Administration

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

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

                 LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

                          FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

                      (LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

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

                     FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS PROGRAMS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                          FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

                (LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

                        PLANNING CAPACITY GRANTS

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

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

       ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

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

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

              Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

              MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY OPERATIONS AND PROGRAMS

                (LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

                      (LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

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

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

                           OPERATING EXPENSES

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

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

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

                            PROGRAM EXPENSES

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

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

                      MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY GRANTS

                (LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

                      (LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

                         (INCLUDING RESCISSION)

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                      MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY GRANTS

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

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

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

                          MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

                              (RESCISSION)

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

                 NATIONAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY PROGRAM

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

                              (RESCISSION)

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

 ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION--FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMNINSTRATION

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

             National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

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

                        OPERATIONS AND RESEARCH

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        OPERATIONS AND RESEARCH

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

                        national driver register

                (LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

                      (LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

                (LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

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

                       LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS

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

                 NATIONAL DRIVER REGISTER MODERNIZATION

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

                     HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANTS

                (LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

                      (LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                     HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANTS

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

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

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

      ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY 
                             ADMINISTRATION

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

                    Federal Railroad Administration

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

                         SAFETY AND OPERATIONS

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

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

                   RAILROAD RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

       RAILROAD REHABILITATION AND IMPROVEMENT FINANCING PROGRAM

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

                   RAILROAD SAFETY TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

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

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

          THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK)

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

    OPERATING GRANTS TO THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION

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

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

  CAPITAL AND DEBT SERVICE GRANTS TO THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER 
                              CORPORATION

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

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

                       ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

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

                     Federal Transit Administration

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

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

                        ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

                         FORMULA AND BUS GRANTS

                  (LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORITY)

                      (LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                RESEARCH AND UNIVERSITY RESEARCH CENTERS

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

                       CAPITAL INVESTMENT GRANTS

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

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

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

       GRANTS FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTIONS

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

      GRANTS TO THE WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

       ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

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

             Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                       OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

                    (HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND)

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

                        Maritime Administration

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                       MARITIME SECURITY PROGRAM

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

                        OPERATIONS AND TRAINING

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

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

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

                             SHIP DISPOSAL

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                             SHIP DISPOSAL

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

                     ASSISTANCE TO SMALL SHIPYARDS

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

              MARITIME GUARANTEED LOAN (TITLE XI) PROGRAM

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

           ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION

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

         Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

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

                          OPERATIONAL EXPENSES

                         (PIPELINE SAFETY FUND)

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

                       HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                       HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

                            PIPELINE SAFETY

                         (PIPELINE SAFETY FUND)

                    (OIL SPILL LIABILITY TRUST FUND)

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

                     EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS GRANTS

                     (EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUND)

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

           Research and Innovative Technology Administration

                        RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

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

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

                  Bureau of Transportation Statistics

                      (LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

                      Office of Inspector General

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

                      Surface Transportation Board

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

            General Provisions--Department of Transportation

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

                                TITLE II

              DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

                          Executive Direction

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

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

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

               Administration, Operations, and Management

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

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

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

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

                  Personnel Compensation and Benefits

                       PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING

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

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

                   COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

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

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

                                HOUSING

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

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

         OFFICE OF THE GOVERNMENT NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION

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

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

                    POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH

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

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

                   FAIR HOUSING AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

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

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

            OFFICE OF HEALTHY HOMES AND LEAD HAZARD CONTROL

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

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

                     TRANSFORMING RENTAL ASSISTANCE

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

                       Public and Indian Housing

                     TENANT-BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

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

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

                      PUBLIC HOUSING CAPITAL FUND

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

                     PUBLIC HOUSING OPERATING FUND

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

     REVITALIZATION OF SEVERELY DISTRESSED PUBLIC HOUSING [HOPE VI]

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

                          CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

                  NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

                  NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANT

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

           INDIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

      NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

                   Community Planning and Development

          HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS [HOPWA]

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

                       community development fund

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

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

    The Neighborhood Initiatives are as follows:

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

         COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LOAN GUARANTEES PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

                       BROWNFIELDS REDEVELOPMENT

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

                  HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

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

                          program description

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

        SELF-HELP AND ASSISTED HOMEOWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

                       HOMELESS ASSISTANCE GRANTS

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

                            Housing Programs

                    PROJECT-BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

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

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

                          PROJECT DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

                        HOUSING FOR THE ELDERLY

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

                 HOUSING FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

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

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

                     HOUSING COUNSELING ASSISTANCE

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

                         ENERGY INNOVATION FUND

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

                    OTHER ASSISTED HOUSING PROGRAMS

                       RENTAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

                            RENT SUPPLEMENT

                              (RESCISSION)

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

                         FLEXIBLE SUBSIDY FUND

                          (TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

                  MANUFACTURED HOUSING FEES TRUST FUND

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

                     Federal Housing Administration

               mutual mortgage insurance program account

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

                GENERAL AND SPECIAL RISK PROGRAM ACCOUNT

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

                          program description

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

                        committee recommendation

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

                Government National Mortgage Association

guarantees of mortgage-backed securities loan guarantee program account

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2010: Limitation on guaranteed loans

                                                        $500,000,000,000

Budget estimate, 2011: Limitation on guaranteed loans

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

                          program description

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

                    Policy Development and Research

                        research and technology

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

                          program description

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

                        committee recommendation

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

                   Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity

                        fair housing activities

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

                          program description

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

                        committee recommendation

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

            Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control

                         LEAD HAZARD REDUCTION

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

                     Management and Administration

                          WORKING CAPITAL FUND

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

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

                       TRANSFORMATION INITIATIVE

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

                       Administrative Provisions

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

                               TITLE III

                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                              Access Board

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

                      Federal Maritime Commission

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

                National Railroad Passenger Corporation

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

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

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

                  National Transportation Safety Board

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

                 Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation

          PAYMENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT CORPORATION

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

           United States Interagency Council on Homelessness

                           OPERATING EXPENSES

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

                                TITLE IV

                      GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS ACT

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

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

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

                 Title I--Department of Transportation

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

         Title II--Department of Housing and Urban Development

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

                      Title III--Related Agencies

    National Transportation Safety Board

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

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

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

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

                      TITLE 12--BANKS AND BANKING

                      Chapter 13--National Housing

Sec. 1709. Insurance of mortgages

(a) Authorization

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

(c) Premium charges

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

                TITLE 42--THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE

                     Chapter 8--Low-Income Housing

           Subchapter I--General Program of Assisted Housing

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

(a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

(m) Funding

    (1) Authorization of appropriations

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

(o) Sunset

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

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

             TITLE II--INTERAGENCY COUNCIL ON THE HOMELESS

SEC. 209. TERMINATION.

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

       CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005, PUBLIC LAW 108-447

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

                TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

                            Housing Programs

                        [FLEXIBLE SUBSIDY FUND]

                         [(TRANSFER OF FUNDS)]

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

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

SEC. 1702. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

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

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

                                                          

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

    (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (c) Table.--The table referred to in subsections (a) and 
(b) is as follows:

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

                                                          

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

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

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

                                                                                              

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

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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

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

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

                               TITLE III

              DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

                            Housing Programs

                        [FLEXIBLE SUBSIDY FUND]

                         [(TRANSFER OF FUNDS)]

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

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

                      TITLE I--HIGHWAY PROVISIONS

SEC. 105. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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

                        BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL

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

         DISCLOSURE OF CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS

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

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

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

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

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

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


```