[House Report 111-564]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
111th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 111-564
======================================================================
DEPARTMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION, AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2011
_______
July 26, 2010.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Olver, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
MINORITY VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 5850]
The Committee on Appropriations submits the following
report in explanation of the accompanying bill making
appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, and
Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2011.
INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT
_______________________________________________________________________
Page Number
Bill Report
Major Themes and Initiatives...............................
2
Title I--Department of Transportation...................... 2
9
Title II--Department of Housing and Urban Development...... 74
114
Title III--Related Agencies................................ 156
160
Title IV--General Provisions............................... 163
166
Major Themes and Initiatives
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) to create
and save 3.5 million jobs, re-energize the economy, and
transform it for long-term growth and stability. Within the
Recovery Act, Congress provided $61.7 billion to stimulate job
creation through investments in the nation's transportation and
housing infrastructure.
To date, the Department of Transportation (DOT) has
committed a total of $37.8 billion or 80 percent of the
Recovery Act funds that were provided for highway, transit,
airport and rail projects. DOT estimates that there are over
12,771 transportation projects currently underway which have
created, on average, more than 41,000 direct jobs each quarter,
with many more created indirectly.
Specifically, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Division Offices have authorized 12,323 projects in all states
and territories for a total of $26 billion, 10,782 of these
projects are currently underway. There are 488 projects under
way on federal lands for a total of $466 million. The Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) has issued grants for 362 airport
rehabilitation and replacement projects totaling $1.093 billion
and has 345 projects currently underway to make improvements to
FAA air traffic control facilities and equipment. The Federal
Transit Administration (FTA) has awarded 1,024 grants totaling
more than $8.7 billion which includes $423.2 million in ``flex-
fund'' transfers from FHWA for transit projects. To date, 188
Amtrak projects with a value of $1.252 billion are underway and
have been granted a notice to proceed. The Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) has announced high speed rail awards for
82 projects in 32 states. In addition, DOT has announced 51
infrastructure investment (TIGER) grants across the country.
HUD has allocated approximately $13.38 billion, or over
98.2 percent, of its Recovery Act funds, directly to state and
local recipients and is reviewing competitive proposals for the
remaining funds. HUD estimates that these funds created or
retained 20,660 jobs in the first quarter of 2010, and have
served 357,808 low-income persons, primarily through the
provision of housing for homeless families and individuals. In
addition, 188,184 units of low-income housing have been
rehabilitated or developed with Recovery Act funds, thus
spurring the hard-hit construction industry by providing
skilled jobs in all areas of the country. These investments
have already helped communities and families that have
experienced the brunt of the economic downturn. This includes
$2 billion for the Neighborhood Stabilization Fund to purchase
and rehabilitate vacant, foreclosed properties and return them
to productive use as affordable rental housing. Another $1.5
billion has been invested in providing emergency shelter and
rapid re-housing assistance for homeless families. To stimulate
employment in the construction industry, as well as jump start
affordable housing programs, $2.25 billion has been provided to
state housing finance agencies to fund projects stalled by the
current economic recession. Thousands of previously vacant,
uninhabitable public housing units have been renovated and
leased to low-income families through a $4 billion investment
in the Public Housing Capital Fund, and many of these
improvements have been completed in a sustainable fashion.
The Recovery Act has helped create thousands of jobs by
improving and repairing transportation and housing
infrastructure across the nation. However, the infrastructure
needs of our country remain great as evidenced through the
tremendous state of good repair backlog that exists in our
transportation and housing stock. Additionally, as communities
grow and change, there is a continuing need to provide more
capacity and transportation alternatives to help eliminate
congestion on our nation's roads, highways and transit systems.
To that end, the Committee recommendation reflects the ongoing
necessity to provide robust investment in our infrastructure in
order to create jobs; improve the safety and efficiency of our
transportation and housing networks; and to contribute to local
economies.
Building Livable and Sustainable Communities
The Committee is dedicated to exploring opportunities to
strengthen the connection between transportation and housing.
The Committee's jurisdiction allows for the consideration of
federal housing and transportation policy and funding decisions
to be made in the context of larger concerns for affordability,
energy efficiency, and economic vitality. This legislation
touches the lives of families and individuals all across the
nation, and communities are best served when federal policies
and funding decisions are being made in a coordinated,
cooperative fashion.
Since 2007, the Committee has held a series of hearings on
the topic of livability and sustainability, and has insisted on
greater federal collaboration around these issues. The
Committee has received testimony from the Secretaries of the
Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD); government leaders and
transportation officials from the local level; urban planning
experts from policy think tanks and non-profit organizations;
and private sector designers and developers experienced in
green building concepts. The testimony from these leaders and
experts underscored that, when put to practice, sustainability
initiatives improve the lives of working Americans and
families, especially the economically disadvantaged, and the
communities where the investments are made.
For many Americans, transportation and housing costs make
up the largest portion of family budgets. In fact, the average
American household now spends 34 percent of its annual budget
on housing and 18 percent on transportation. Therefore, a
combined total of 52 percent of household budgets are wrapped
up in these two largest expenses. For low-income working
families, the impact is more serious, with transportation
representing almost a third of their costs. All too often, the
economically disadvantaged must live great distances from their
place of work in order to find a home that is affordable. In
those instances, transportation costs rise dramatically when
reasonably priced public transportation alternatives are not
readily accessible. The Committee strongly believes that it is
a worthy goal to encourage better coordination of
transportation and housing investments, which will help reduce
financial burdens on families.
There is also a related environmental benefit realized
through the creation of more livable and sustainable
communities. According to the Department of Transportation's
April 2010 report to Congress, ``Transportation's Role in
Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions'', the transportation
sector currently accounts for 29 percent of greenhouse gas
emissions. Housing contributes to almost 21 percent of total
greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, according to the
most recent statistical summary from the Environmental
Protection Agency. Combined, these two sectors create
approximately 50 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions.
Investments that advance a more seamless connection between
transportation and housing will help reduce impacts on the
environment.
Further, in this time of economic recovery, states, cities
and localities are searching for ways to enhance the vitality
of their regions. Recognizing the unique characteristics of
individual communities and the importance of local decision-
making and planning, the Committee does not advocate a ``one
size fits all'' approach to the concept of sustainability. The
Committee believes that better collaboration between federal
agencies can serve to eliminate bureaucratic red tape which
will, in turn, allow communities to stretch their federal
dollars further and help expedite project development and
completion. When communities integrate their transportation,
housing and energy plans, local resources and family budgets
are best utilized. Through transit-oriented and mixed-use
development, local resources are coordinated and complementary,
not disjointed, which enhances the livability of any locality,
whether a large urban center or a rural downtown.
In order to achieve the goals of sustainability outlined
above, inter-agency collaboration is the key to breaking down
traditional silos and the formulation of good policy decisions.
The Committee is pleased that based on past recommendations of
this Subcommittee, the Department of Transportation and the
Department of Housing and Urban Development have formed the
Interagency Partnership for Sustainable Communities, along with
the Environmental Protection Agency. This alliance aims to
integrate green practices and sustainability into baseline
standards for development. The Sustainable Community
Initiative, funded in HUD by the Committee last year, provided
$150,000,000 to promote this type of teamwork. Thus far, the
Partnership has resulted in an unprecedented amount of
cooperation among Federal partners, including inter-agency
review teams for Notices of Funding Availability. The Committee
is pleased that the fiscal year 2011 budget includes funding
for livability proposals from the Department of Transportation
and looks forward to continued cooperation amongst these
agencies, and others, as appropriate. Therefore, the Committee
includes $527,000,000 for livability initiatives within DOT and
$150,000,000 for sustainability programs within HUD.
Government Accountability To Eliminate Waste, Fraud and Abuse
The federal government must maximize taxpayer dollars by
investing in programs that improve lives and promote economic
growth. Misuse of these funds is unacceptable and a disservice
to the American people. The Committee has taken steps to ensure
that any waste, fraud, or abuse of taxpayer dollars is dealt
with and related policies are examined to better utilize these
resources. The Committee has performed this important oversight
role through the use of hearings, reviews by the Government
Accountability Office (GAO), the Committee on Appropriations'
Surveys and Investigations staff, and directives in its annual
appropriation Act, including the accompanying report, to
promote strong project management and leadership at the
agencies under its jurisdiction, with an emphasis on the
Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
This year, the Committee has focused on a number of
programs that may be susceptible to waste, fraud, and abuse, as
well as significant management issues for which the agencies
must remain accountable. For example, oversight of the Federal
Aviation Administration includes ensuring that critical safety
equipment is deployed within a reasonable time frame; that air
traffic controller training initiatives are managed properly;
that actual safety technician staffing levels remain at the
mutually agreed upon minimums throughout the entirety of the
year. The importance of timely and reliable financial data
cannot be understated, especially in a program as large and as
complicated as the Federal-aid highway program. The Committee
believes that accurate financial information is a critical
aspect of the FHWA's oversight role and has directed the agency
to embark on a review of its financial management system in
order to ensure that it has the information necessary to
encourage efficient and cost-effective decision making from
state and local governments. At the Maritime Administration
(MARAD), conscientious management of the U.S. Merchant Marine
Academy (the Academy) is necessary to ensure a high quality
education for the next generation of merchant mariners.
Therefore the Committee requires MARAD to submit a
comprehensive spend plan before all funds will be released to
the Academy. Additionally, in light of the serious concerns
over the last several months surrounding unintended
acceleration in vehicles, the Committee has highlighted
oversight of electronic vehicle controls as a key management
issue for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
In other operating divisions of DOT, the Committee requests
targeted inquiries from GAO and the DOT Inspector General, as
well as regular reporting requirements to the Committee. For
instance, the Committee has directed GAO to conduct a follow-up
to its 2007 audit of the FHWA's emergency relief program to
determine if the agency is doing everything within its
authority to recapture unused program funds and tighten
eligibility standards to guarantee that limited program
resources are used effectively. Additionally, the Committee
focuses on eliminating mismanagement of funds provided for
information technology (IT) investments by requiring the
Inspector General to monitor the progress of the DOT's IT
improvement initiatives; and directing GAO to review the
expenditures of the Financial Management Capital account.
The Committee believes critical areas of management focus
at DOT must be the high speed rail and infrastructure
investment programs first funded in the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act. The Committee considers the investments made
by these programs to be critical to the nation's infrastructure
and economic recovery. However, the Committee is adamant about
the immense need for comprehensive oversight of these programs.
The Committee expects the Department to have thorough grant
management processes in place for these programs including key
implementation milestones and related cost estimates. In
addition, the Committee has directed DOT to provide regular
updates to the Committee on the progress of these grants.
Within HUD, the Committee has focused this year's bill and
report on strengthening the core programs of the Department and
eliminating large carryover balances by requiring the issuance
of Notices of Funding Availability (NOFAs) within strict
timeframes. Further, the Committee is mandating administrative
reforms in the Housing for the Elderly program and in the
Housing for Persons with Disabilities program through the
accompanying report. HUD's programs are too vital to low-income
populations to have funding that does not get obligated or
expended in a timely fashion. Further, the Committee requires a
GAO-approved spend plan for any information technology
development at HUD before any major investments may be made.
Due to funding lapses in the salaries and expenses accounts,
the Committee is conducting additional oversight in this
account and is now requiring quarterly staffing reports from
the Department.
Expiring Authorizations for Transportation Programs
At the time the Committee began consideration of this bill
to fund programs for fiscal year 2011, many of the
transportation agencies under its jurisdiction were without
long-term authorizations--the most recent surface
transportation authorization Act, the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for
Users (SAFETEA-LU), expired on September 30, 2009; the
authorization for the National Transportation Safety Board
expired on September 30, 2008; the most recent aviation
authorization Act, Vision 100--Century of Aviation
Reauthorization Act, expired on September 30, 2007; and even
the most recent pipeline safety Act, the Pipeline Inspection,
Protection, Enforcement, and Safety Act of 2006, is set to
expire on September 30, 2010, unless action is taken before
then. These bills provide budget authority and contract
authority authorizations for most Federal aviation, highway,
highway safety, transit, motor carrier safety, and pipeline
safety programs and are critical to providing Federal
investment in our transportation infrastructure and maintaining
the safety of these systems. The role of the appropriations
process with respect to these programs is to appropriate budget
authority or to set obligation limitations on contract
authority so that overall Federal spending stays within
legislated targets. Lack of long-term authorizations creates
uncertainty, erodes stability, and makes it difficult for
states and transportation agencies to plan for current as well
as future investments. Many of these programs are currently
operating based on short-term extensions, but even those are
set to expire soon. The current surface transportation
extension will expire on December 31, 2010, and the current
aviation extension expires on July 3, 2010, which will mark the
fourteenth time the program will need to be extended since
Vision 100 expired. Progress on a long-term surface
transportation authorization bill has been hindered by the
insolvency of the highway trust fund and the lack of a viable
funding source to sustain our transportation investment needs
into the future.
Further complicating matters is the fact that the
President's budget that was submitted to the Committee
contained no significant policy recommendations for most of the
programs subject to reauthorization. The President's budget
instead provides only baseline funding levels for most of these
programs. The Committee understands that the Department of
Transportation has embarked on a ``Surface Transportation
Reauthorization Outreach Tour'' as the first step in developing
the Administration's reauthorization proposal. Given the
national and long-term impacts that changes to the
authorization and financing structure of these programs will
have, the Committee believes the Administration must exert
greater leadership in this area and looks forward to seeing the
product of this tour. The Committee strongly believes that now
is the time to transform and modernize our transportation
systems and time is of the essence.
However, because reauthorization actions have not yet been
completed, the Committee has continued the fiscal year 2010
program structure for all of the transportation programs
subject to reauthorization and has, for the most part,
generally assumed that the partial year funding levels provided
by the current extension Acts will be extended and annualized
for fiscal year 2011.
Operating Plan and Reprogramming Procedures
The Committee continues to have a particular interest in
being informed of reprogrammings which, although they may not
change either the total amount available in an account or any
of the purposes for which the appropriation is legally
available, represent a significant departure from budget plans
presented to the Committee in an agency's budget justifications
and supporting documents, the basis of this appropriations Act.
The Committee directs the departments, agencies,
corporations and offices funded within this bill, to notify the
Committee prior to increasing any program, activity, object
classification or element in excess of $5,000,000 or 10
percent, whichever is less. Likewise, the Committee directs the
same entities noted above to not decrease any program,
activity, object classification or element by $5,000,000 or 10
percent, whichever is less. Additionally, the Committee expects
to be promptly notified of all reprogramming actions which
involve less than the above-mentioned amounts. If such actions
would have the effect of significantly changing an agency's
funding requirements in future years, or if programs or
projects specifically cited in the Committee's reports are
affected by the reprogramming, it must be approved by the
Committee regardless of the amount proposed to be moved.
Furthermore, the Committee must be consulted regarding
reorganizations of offices, programs, and activities prior to
the planned implementation of such reorganizations.
The Committee also directs that the Department of
Transportation and the Department of Housing and Urban
Development shall submit operating plans, signed by the
respective secretary for the Committee's review within 60 days
of the bill's enactment.
Relationship With Budget Offices
Through the years, the Committee has channeled most of its
inquiries and requests for information and assistance through
the budget offices of the various departments, agencies, and
commissions. The Committee has often pointed to the natural
affinity and relationship between these organizations and the
Committee which makes such a partnership workable. The
Committee reiterates its longstanding position that while the
Committee reserves the right to call upon all offices in the
departments, agencies, and commissions, the primary conjunction
between the Committee and these entities must normally be
through the budget offices. The Committee appreciates all the
assistance received from each of the departments, agencies, and
commissions during the past year. The workload generated by the
budget process is large and growing, and therefore, a positive,
responsive relationship between the Committee and the budget
offices is absolutely essential to the appropriations process.
Tabular Summary
A table summarizing the amounts provided for fiscal year
2010 and the amounts recommended in the bill for fiscal year
2011 compared with the budget estimates is included at the end
of this report.
Committee Hearings
In addition to the hearings noted above, the Committee also
conducted extensive hearings on the programs and projects
provided for in this bill. Pursuant to House rules, each of
these hearings was open to the public. The Committee received
testimony from cabinet officers, agency heads, inspectors
general, and other officials of the executive branch in areas
under the bill's jurisdiction. In addition, the Committee has
considered written material submitted for the hearing record by
Members of Congress, private citizens, local government
entities, and private organizations. The bill recommendations
for fiscal year 2011 have been developed after careful
consideration of all the information available to the
Committee.
Program, Project, and Activity
During fiscal year 2011, for the purposes of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law
99-177), as amended, with respect to appropriations contained
in the accompanying bill, the terms `program, project, and
activity' shall mean any item for which a dollar amount is
contained in an appropriations Act (including joint resolutions
providing continuing appropriations) or accompanying reports of
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, or
accompanying conference reports and joint explanatory
statements of the committee of conference. This definition
shall apply to all programs for which new budget (obligational)
authority is provided, as well as to capital investment grants
within the Federal Transit Administration. In addition, the
percentage reductions made pursuant to a sequestration order to
funds appropriated for facilities and equipment within the
Federal Aviation Administration shall be applied equally to
each budget item that is listed under said accounts in the
budget justifications submitted to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations as modified by subsequent
appropriations Acts and accompanying committee reports,
conference reports, or joint explanatory statements of the
committee of conference.
TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $102,686,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... 117,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 111,615,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... +8,929,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. -5,385,000
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The bill provides $111,615,000 for the salaries and
expenses of the offices comprising the Office of the Secretary
of Transportation (OST). The Committee's recommendation
includes individual funding for each of these offices as has
been done in prior years. The following table compares the
fiscal year 2010 enacted level to the fiscal year 2011 budget
request and the Committee's recommendation by office:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2010 Fiscal year 2011
enacted request House recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immediate office of the secretary...................... $2,631,000 $2,667,000 $2,667,000
Office of the deputy secretary......................... 986,000 1,000,000 1,000,000
Office of the executive secretariat.................... 1,658,000 1,683,000 1,683,000
Office of the under secretary of transportation for 11,100,000 13,568,000 12,015,000
policy................................................
Official of small and disadvantaged business 1,499,000 1,513,000 1,513,000
utilization...........................................
Office of the chief information officer................ 13,215,000 22,995,000 19,663,000
Office of the assistant secretary for governmental 2,504,000 2,530,000 2,530,000
affairs...............................................
Office of the general counsel.......................... 20,359,000 19,711,000 19,711,000
Office of the assistant secretary for budget and 10,559,000 12,399,000 11,899,000
programs..............................................
Office of the assistant secretary for administration... 25,520,000 25,695,000 25,695,000
Office of public affairs............................... 2,055,000 2,240,000 2,240,000
Office of intelligence and security and emergency 10,600,000 10,999,000 10,999,000
response..............................................
Total.............................................. 102,686,000 117,000,000 111,615,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immediate office of the secretary.--The immediate Office of
the Secretary has primary responsibility to provide overall
planning, direction, and control of departmental affairs. The
Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,667,000 for the
expenses of the immediate Office of the Secretary, which is
$36,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and the same
as the level proposed in the fiscal year 2011 budget request.
Immediate office of the deputy secretary.--The Office of
the Deputy Secretary has primary responsibility to assist the
Secretary in the overall planning, direction, and control of
departmental affairs. The Deputy Secretary serves as the chief
operating officer of the Department of Transportation. The
Committee recommends $1,000,000 for expenses of the Office of
the Deputy Secretary, which is $14,000 above the fiscal year
2010 enacted level and the same as the level proposed in the
fiscal year 2011 budget.
Executive secretariat.--The Executive Secretariat assists
the Secretary and Deputy Secretary in carrying out their
responsibilities by controlling and coordinating internal and
external documents. The Committee recommends an appropriation
of $1,683,000 for the expenses of the Executive Secretariat,
which is $25,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and
the same as the level proposed in the fiscal year 2011 budget.
Office of the under secretary of transportation for
policy.--The Office of the Under Secretary of Transportation
for Policy serves as the Department's chief policy officer, and
is responsible for the coordination and development of
departmental policy and legislative initiatives; international
standards development and harmonization; aviation and other
transportation-related trade negotiations; the performance of
policy and economic analysis; and the execution of the
Essential Air Service program. The Committee recommends
$12,015,000 for the Office of the Under Secretary of
Transportation for Policy, which is $915,000 above the fiscal
year 2010 enacted level and $1,553,000 below the level proposed
in the fiscal year 2011 budget.
The Committee denies the request for additional full time
equivalent (FTE). The Committee believes the policy office has
a sufficient number of staff to support the Department's policy
needs. The Committee provides half of the funding requested for
staffing the Transportation Counsel at the U.S. Embassy in
Kabul and the Transportation Attache for the U.S. Embassy in
Baghdad and believes the remainder should be provided by the
Department of State.
Office of small and disadvantaged business utilization.--
The Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization is
responsible for promoting small and disadvantaged business
participation in the Department's procurement and grants
programs. The Committee recommends an appropriation of
$1,513,000 for this office, which is $14,000 above the fiscal
year 2010 enacted level and the same as the level proposed in
the fiscal year 2011 budget.
Office of the chief information officer.--The Office of the
Chief Information Officer serves as the principal advisor to
the Secretary on information resources and information systems
management. The Committee recommends an appropriation of
$19,663,000 for the Office of the Chief Information Officer,
which is $6,448,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level
and $3,332,000 below the fiscal year 2011 budget request.
The Committee fully supports the OCIO's efforts to improve
the Department's information technology systems. However, the
Committee does not provide the entire request of 50 new
positions for the Next Generation IT Environment initiative and
Cyber Security initiative in fiscal year 2011. The Committee
fears doubling the staff of the OCIO would create unintended
consequences that would hinder, rather than improve, the
Department's information management. Therefore, the Committee
has provided funding for 13 positions and 6 FTE in this account
and no funding for personnel in the Cyber Security Initiatives.
The Committee directs the Department to allocate these
positions between the two initiatives as appropriate to meet
the stated goals. The Committee will entertain reprogramming
requests if there is a dire need for additional FTE. In
addition, the Committee provides $5,000,000 for the Next
Generation IT Infrastructure initiative. The Committee directs
the Department's Inspector General to assess DOT's progress in
meeting cyber security vulnerabilities and upgrading the
overall IT environment.
Office of the assistant secretary for governmental
affairs.--The Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Governmental Affairs is responsible for coordinating all
Congressional, intergovernmental, and consumer activities of
the Department. The Committee recommends $2,530,000 for the
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs,
which is $26,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and
the same as the level proposed in the fiscal year 2011 budget.
In addition, the bill continues a provision (Sec. 188) that
requires the Department to notify the Committees on
Appropriations no fewer than three business days before any
discretionary grant award, letter of intent, or full funding
grant agreement in excess of $1,000,000 is announced by the
Department or its modal administrations from: (1) any
discretionary program of the Federal Highway Administration
other than the emergency relief program; (2) the airport
improvement program of the Federal Aviation Administration; (3)
any grant from the Federal Railroad Administration; and (4) any
program of the Federal Transit Administration other than the
formula grants and fixed guideway modernization programs. Such
notification shall include the date on which the official
announcement of the grant is to be made and no such
announcement shall involve funds that are not available for
obligation.
Office of the general counsel.--The Office of the General
Counsel provides legal services to the Office of the Secretary
and coordinates and reviews the legal work of the chief
counsels' offices of the operating administrations. The
Committee recommends $19,711,000 for the Office of General
Counsel, which is $648,000 below the fiscal year 2010 enacted
level, and the same as the fiscal year 2011 budget.
Office of the assistant secretary for budget and
programs.--The Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs is
responsible for developing, reviewing, and presenting budget
resource requirements for the Department to the Secretary,
Congress, and the Office of Management and Budget. The
Committee recommends an appropriation of $11,899,000 for the
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs,
which is $1,340,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level
and $500,000 below the level proposed in the fiscal year 2011
budget.
The Committee approves the request for 11 positions and 6
FTE and provides half the funding requested for program
evaluation.
The bill contains a general provision (Sec. 194), as
requested in the budget, which includes an additional
$7,622,655 to increase the Department's acquisition workforce
capacity and capabilities.
Office of the assistant secretary for administration.--The
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration serves as
the principal advisor to the Secretary on department-wide
administrative matters and her responsibilities include
leadership in acquisition reform and human capital. The
Committee recommends an appropriation of $25,695,000 for the
expenses of this office, which is $175,000 above the fiscal
year 2010 enacted level and the same as the level proposed in
the 2011 fiscal year budget.
Office of public affairs.--The Office of Public Affairs is
responsible for the Department's press releases, articles,
briefing materials, publications, and audio-visual materials.
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,240,000 for the
expenses of the Office of Public Affairs, which is $185,000
above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and the same as the
level proposed in the 2011 fiscal year budget.
Office of intelligence, security, and emergency response.--
The Office of Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response
was established in fiscal year 2005 by merging the Secretary's
Office of Intelligence and Security with the Research and
Special Program Administration's Office of Emergency
Transportation. This office is responsible for intelligence,
security policy, preparedness, training and exercises, national
security, and operations. The Committee recommendation includes
$10,999,000 for the Office of Intelligence, Security, and
Emergency Response, which is $399,000 above the fiscal year
2010 enacted level and the same as the level proposed in the
2011 fiscal year budget.
Congressional budget justifications.--The Committee directs
the Department to include the same level of detail that was
provided in the congressional budget justifications submitted
in fiscal year 2011. Further, the Department is directed to
include in the budget justification funding levels for the
prior year, current year, and budget year for all programs,
activities, initiatives, and program elements. Each budget
submitted by the Department must also include a detailed
justification for the incremental funding increases and
additional FTEs being requested above the enacted level, by
program, activity, or program element.
OST currently includes a helpful discussion in its
justification of changes from the current year to the request.
To ensure that each adjustment is identified, the Committee
directs OST in future congressional justifications to include
detailed information in tabular format, which identifies
specific changes in funding from the current year to the budget
year for each office, including each office within OST.
Operating plan.--The Committee directs the Department to
submit an operating plan for fiscal year 2011 signed by the
Secretary for review by the Committees on Appropriations within
60 days of the bill's enactment. The operating plan should
include funding levels for the various offices, programs, and
initiatives detailed down to the object class or program
element covered in the budget justification and supporting
documents, documents referenced in the House and Senate
appropriations reports, and the statement of the managers.
General provisions.--The Committee notes that in the past
many general provisions included in the President's budget
request were not justified, addressed, nor presented in any DOT
justification. Therefore, the Committee continues to direct DOT
to justify each general provision proposed either in its
relevant modal congressional justification or in the OST
congressional justification.
Bill language.--The bill continues language that permits up
to $2,500,000 of fees to be credited to the Office of the
Secretary for salaries and expenses.
LIVABLE COMMUNITIES
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... $20,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 20,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... +20,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. - - -
The goal of the livable communities program is to promote
livable communities through investment in transportation
infrastructure to decrease transportation costs; improve access
to jobs and services; promote healthy communities; improve air
quality; protect the natural environment; and enhance the
unique characteristics of communities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $20,000,000 for the livable
communities program, which is $20,000,000 above the fiscal year
2010 enacted level and the same as the level proposed in the
fiscal year 2011 budget.
Grant to states and localities.--The Committee includes
$12,000,00 for grants and technical assistance targeted at
improving states, regions, and localities' ability to plan and
execute transportation investments in support of livability and
sustainability goals.
Uniform benchmarks.--The Committee includes $4,000,000 to
develop uniform benchmarks for assessing the effectiveness of
livability-oriented interventions, including performance
measures of livability outcomes to determine how various
federal infrastructure investments impact livability.
Establishing the office of livable communities.--The
Committee includes $4,000,000 to establish the Office of
Livable Communities and to support administrative and technical
oversight activities for the livable communities program. The
Committee expects the Office of Livable Communities to
coordinate livability efforts among all of the modes and with
external partners. Ultimately, the Committee will hold the
Office of Livable Communities accountable for all of the
Department's livable community initiatives.
Partnership for sustainable communities.--The Committee is
pleased by the collaboration between the Department of
Transportation, the Department of Housing and Urban Development
and the Environmental Protection Agency in the Partnership for
Sustainable Communities. The Committee urges this partnership
to bring in other Departments and Agencies as appropriate. The
Committee recognizes the difficulties of making large
bureaucracies work together and commends this partnership on
its ability to affect change in the short time since its
inception.
NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $600,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... - - -
Recommended in the bill............................... 400,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... -200,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. +400,000,000
The national infrastructure investment program was created
in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) to provide
grants to state and local governments to improve the Nation's
transportation infrastructure. The infrastructure investment
program awards funds on a competitive basis to grantees
selected because of the significant impact they will have on
the Nation, a metropolitan area, or region.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $400,000,000 for the national
infrastructure investment program, which is $200,000,000 below
the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and $400,000,000 above the
level proposed in the fiscal year 2011 budget. The Committee,
recognizing that the applications for the $2.5 billion provided
in ARRA totaled $56.9 billion, continues this program for
fiscal year 2011. The Committee is pleased by the innovation
and enthusiasm this program has created and believes the
national infrastructure investment program incentivizes
thinking in terms of intermodalism.
The Committee urges the Secretary to give consideration to
innovative projects that support investment in freight rail and
inland ports. In addition, as no funding is provided for the
rail line relocation and improvement program in fiscal year
2011, the Committee urges traditional rail line relocation
applicants to apply, if their projects correlate to the
national infrastructure investment program.
The primary purpose of the national infrastructure
investment program is to advance projects that will improve the
efficiency and safety of the nation's transportation network.
To date, the program has focused exclusively on surface
transportation projects. The Committee believes that the
program should not ignore potential infrastructure investments
that might serve to benefit and transform the nation's air
transportation system as well. The Committee recommendation
allows the Secretary to use up to 10 percent of the funds
provided for this program to conduct a demonstration of NextGen
air traffic control capabilities.
The Committee continues to require the Secretary to provide
funding in an equitable appropriately balanced geographic
distribution in order to address the needs of urban and rural
communities. Additionally, the Committee continues to require
the Secretary to give priority to projects that require a
contribution of Federal funds in order to complete an overall
financing package.
Grant award size.--The Committee continues to set minimum
and maximum grant size, and to set a limitation on the amount
of funding that may be awarded to any individual State.
Rural areas.--The Committee requires the Secretary to
provide no less than $100,000,000 for projects located in rural
areas. Since a smaller investment may constitute a significant
improvement for rural communities, the bill lowers the minimum
rural grant size to $1,000,000. In addition, the Committee
allows the Secretary to provide a waiver for the local match
requirement for such projects.
Credit assistance.--The Committee allows up to $60,000,000
of the funding provided for surface transportation
infrastructure to be used to pay for the subsidy and
administrative costs of projects eligible for credit assistance
under the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation
Act (TIFIA).
Planning activities.--The Committee allows up to
$20,000,000 of the funding provided for surface transportation
infrastructure to be used for the planning, preparation or
design of eligible projects. This funding will improve the
capacity of state, local, and regional governments to develop
significant transportation solutions, including innovative and
multijurisdictional projects that do not fit easily into
existing federal programs.
Administration of the program.--The bill allows the
Secretary to use $16,000,000 of the funding for administrative
and oversight activities, and to transfer portions of this
funding to the appropriate modal administrations as needed. The
Committee believes that the modal administrations offer
valuable expertise that has been acquired through years of
experience, and the Committee encourages the Secretary to take
advantage of this resource within the Department. The Committee
believes this program must be a critical area of management
focus at DOT. The Committee considers the investments made by
this program to be critical to the nation's infrastructure and
economic recovery. Therefore, the Committee is adamant about
the immense need for comprehensive oversight of this program.
The Committee expects the Department to have thorough grant
management processes in place for this program including key
implementation milestones and related oversight cost estimates.
Therefore, the Committee directs OST to submit a report on the
oversight and grants management process of the infrastructure
investment program to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations by March 27, 2011.
Application process.--As with all funds awarded as grants
at the Secretary's discretion, the Committee expects the
Secretary to maintain an application process that is
transparent, fair, and accessible to all interested parties.
The Secretary must publish a set of project selection criteria
no sooner than 60 days after enactment of the bill. The
Committee expects the Secretary to publicize the criteria to
all possible grant applicants, and to adhere rigorously and
consistently to the published criteria in measuring all
applications.
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT CAPITAL
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $5,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... 21,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 18,500,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... +13,500,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. -2,500,000
The Financial Management Capital program continues funding
for a multi-year project to upgrade DOT's financial systems and
processes. The project will implement Treasury Department and
Office of Management and Budget requirements.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
This Committee recommends $18,500,000 for financial
management capital program, which is $13,500,000 above the
fiscal year 2010 enacted level and $2,500,000 below the fiscal
year 2011 budget request.
The Committee denies the request for FTE in this account.
The Committee believes the Department has a sufficient number
of staff in the office of budget to fulfill the needs of this
initiative. The Committee reduces overall funding in this
account without prejudice due to budget constraints. Over the
last two years, the Committee has demonstrated its support for
this initiative by providing $10 million.
The Committee directs the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) to review the cost, schedule and performance of this
project. The assessment should include information on the
status of the project's schedule, budget, and expenditures as
well as a prioritization of project risks and their mitigation
efforts.
CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVES
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... $30,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 28,188,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... +28,188,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. -1,812,000
The Department's OCIO is requesting a one-time
appropriation to close the Department's most serious cyber
security gaps. These funds will be used to close DOT's existing
cyber security and privacy performance gaps; adapt DOT's
security posture to a Web 2.0 environment; transition from a
reactive to a proactive security posture; and achieve the goals
of Federal cyber security strategic plans and initiatives.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $28,188,000 for the cyber security
initiatives, which is $28,188,000 above the fiscal year 2010
enacted level and $1,812,000 below the level proposed in the
fiscal year 2011 budget. The Committee provides these funds for
a one-time investment in the cyber security of the Department.
The Committee directs the Department to submit quarterly
reports on the progress made with these funds and expects that
all resources will be part of the OCIO or working capital fund
by the end of fiscal year 2013.
The Committee fully supports the OCIO's efforts to improve
the Department's information technology systems. However, the
Committee denies the Department's request for 25 positions and
13 FTE. The Committee fears doubling the staff of the OCIO
would create unintended consequences that would hinder rather
than improve the Department's information management.
Therefore, the Committee has provided funding for 12 positions
in the OCIO and no funding for personnel in this account. The
Committee directs the Department to allocate these positions
between the two initiatives as appropriate to achieve the
stated goals. The Committee will entertain reprogramming
requests if there is a dire need for additional FTE. The
Committee directs the Department's Inspector General to assess
DOT's progress in meeting cyber security vulnerabilities and
upgrading the overall IT environment.
OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $9,667,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... 9,767,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 9,767,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... +100,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. - - -
The Office of Civil Rights is responsible for advising the
Secretary on civil rights and equal opportunity issues, and
ensuring the full implementation of the civil rights laws and
departmental civil rights policies in all official actions and
programs. This office is responsible for enforcing laws and
regulations that prohibit discrimination in federally operated
and federally assisted transportation programs and enabling
access to transportation providers. The Office of Civil Rights
also handles all civil rights cases affecting Department of
Transportation employees.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $9,767,000 for the office of civil
rights, which is $100,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted
level and the same as the level proposed in the fiscal year
2011 budget.
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND DEVELOPMENT
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $16,168,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... 9,819,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 9,819,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... -8,349,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. - - -
This appropriation finances research activities and studies
related to the planning, analysis, and information development
used in the formulation of national transportation policies and
plans. It also finances the staff necessary to conduct these
efforts. The overall program is carried out primarily through
contracts with other federal agencies, educational
institutions, nonprofit research organizations, and private
firms.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $9,918,000 for
transportation planning, research and development, which is
$8,349,000 below the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and equal
to the level proposed in the fiscal year 2011 budget.
The Committee directs funding to be allocated to the
following projects:
Great Lakes Maritime Research Institute, MN/WI........ $1,000,000
New England Freight Rail Infrastructure Study, MA..... 300,000
Chicago Aviation Education Initiative, IL............. 250,000
WORKING CAPITAL FUND
Limitation, fiscal year 2010.......................... ($147,596,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... - - -
Recommended in the bill............................... (148,096,000)
Bill compared with:
Limitation, fiscal year 2010...................... (+500,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. (+148,096,000)
The working capital fund was created to provide common
administrative services to the operating administrations and
outside entities that contract for the fund's services. The
working capital fund operates on a fee-for-service basis and
receives no direct appropriations; it is fully self-sustaining
and must achieve full cost recovery.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a limitation of $148,096,000 on
the working capital fund. The Committee recommends raising the
limitation $500,000 over the fiscal year 2010 enacted level.
Operating administrations' usage of working capital fund.--
The Committee directs the Department in its fiscal year 2011
congressional justifications to account for increases or
decreases in individual modes working capital fund billings to
be requested or anticipated by the mode, rather than the
working capital fund managers. In addition, the Committee
directs the Department to include a master table of all
estimated transfers from each mode for the previous, current
and next budget year in its fiscal year budget justification
for the working capital fund.
MINORITY BUSINESS RESOURCE CENTER PROGRAM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation on
Appropriation guaranteed loans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010... $923,000 ($18,367,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.. 913,000 (18,367,000)
Recommended in the bill........... 913,000 (18,367,000)
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year -10,000 (- - -)
2010.............................
Budget request, fiscal year (- - -) (- - -)
2011.............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Through the Short Term Lending Program, the minority
business resource center assists disadvantaged, minority, and
women-owned businesses with obtaining short-term working
capital for DOT and DOT-funded transportation-related
contracts. The program enables qualified businesses to obtain
loans at two percentage points above the prime interest rate
with DOT guaranteeing up to 75 percent of the loan.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $913,000 for the minority business
resource center, which is $10,000 below the fiscal year 2010
enacted level and equal to the fiscal year 2011 budget request.
The Committee recommends a limitation on guaranteed loans of
$18,367,000, the same as the budget request and the fiscal year
2010 enacted level.
MINORITY BUSINESS OUTREACH
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $3,074,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... 3,395,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 3,395,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... +321,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. - - -
The Minority Business outreach program provides contractual
support to small and disadvantaged businesses by providing
information dissemination and technical and financial
assistance to empower these businesses to compete for
contracting opportunities with DOT and DOT-funded contracts or
grants for transportation related projects.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $3,395,000 for minority business
outreach, which is $321,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted
level and the same as the level proposed in the fiscal year
2011 budget.
PAYMENTS TO AIR CARRIERS
(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $150,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... 132,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 146,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... -4,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. +14,000,000
The Essential Air Service program (EAS) was created by the
Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 as a ten-year measure to
continue air service to communities that had received air
service prior to deregulation. The program currently provides
subsidies to air carriers serving small communities that meet
certain criteria.
The Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of
1996 authorized the collection of ``overflight fees.''
Overflight fees are a type of user fee collected by the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) from aircraft that neither take
off from, nor land in, the United States. The Act permanently
appropriated these fees for authorized expenses of the FAA and
stipulated that the first $50,000,000 of annual fee collections
must be used to finance the EAS program. If there is a
shortfall in fees, the law requires the FAA to make up the
difference from other available funds.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
For fiscal year 2011, the Committee recommends a total EAS
program funding level of $196,000,000. This consists of a
general fund appropriation of $146,000,000, and $50,000,000 to
be derived from overflight fee collections. The Committee's
recommendation is $4,000,000 below the fiscal year 2010 enacted
level and $14,000,000 above the fiscal year 2011 request.
The Committee rejects the Department's proposal to limit
the EAS program to only those communities being served as of
October 1, 2010 and therefore provides additional funding to
the budget request. The Committee recognizes the EAS program
needs reform and recommends the issue of capping participants
be examined through the authorization process.
Based on current DOT estimates, the Committee believes the
funding level is sufficient to maintain air service to all
communities currently being served by the EAS program. However,
in the event of a shortfall, the bill continues language
allowing the Secretary to transfer such sums as necessary from
any available amounts appropriated to or directly administered
by the Office of the Secretary.
The Committee continues language to ensure the prompt
availability of funds for obligation to air carriers providing
service under the EAS program. The Committee has also continued
language that allows the Secretary to take into consideration
the subsidy requirements of carriers when selecting between
carriers competing to provide service to a community.
The bill includes a provision (Sec. 102) prohibiting the
use of funds to implement an essential air service program that
requires local participation.
NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE INNOVATION AND FINANCE FUND
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... $4,000,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... - - -
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. -4,000,000,000
For the second year, the President's budget includes a
legislative proposal to create a national infrastructure fund
to invest in large capital infrastructure projects that promise
significant national or regional economic benefits. Through the
National Infrastructure Innovation and Finance Fund (I Fund),
Federal funds would be delivered through a variety of credit
and grant mechanisms designed to not only provide Federal
resources but also attract and coordinate state, local, and
private co-investment.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee provides no funding for this fund as it is
not authorized. The Committee is intrigued with the idea of a
mechanism to prioritize and finance national investments in
infrastructure. The Committee urges the Administration to
rethink this proposal to include a broader scope beyond
transportation infrastructure. The Committee believes in taking
a new direction in Federal infrastructure investment,
specifically one that supports regionally and nationally
significant, high-value projects that cross programmatic silos
and are funded through a merit-based selection process.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION
Section 101. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting the Office of the Secretary of Transportation from
approving assessments or reimbursable agreements pertaining to
funds appropriated to the operating administrations in this
Act, unless such assessments or agreements have completed the
normal reprogramming process for Congressional notification.
Section 102. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting the use of funds to implement an essential air
service local cost share participation program.
Section 103. The Committee continues the provision allowing
the Secretary or his designee to work with States and State
legislators to consider proposals related to the reduction of
motorcycle fatalities.
Section 104. The Committee includes a provision that
increases transparency in the National Infrastructure
Investments program by requiring DOT to post on the
Department's web site, prior to announcing of grant awards, any
requests or applications for program funding and, within five
days of announcing awards, the criteria used in the selection
process. Additionally, the DOT OIG is required to review ten
percent of grant recipients under this program.
Federal Aviation Administration
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is responsible
for the safety and development of civil aviation and the
evolution of a national system of airports. The Federal
Government's regulatory role in civil aviation began with the
creation of an Aeronautics Branch within the Department of
Commerce pursuant to the Air Commerce Act of 1926. This Act
instructed the Secretary of Commerce to foster air commerce;
designate and establish airways; establish, operate, and
maintain aids to navigation; arrange for research and
development to improve such aids; issue airworthiness
certificates for aircraft and major aircraft components; and
investigate civil aviation accidents. In the Civil Aeronautics
Act of 1938, these activities were subsumed into a new,
independent agency named the Civil Aeronautics Authority.
After further administrative reorganizations, Congress
streamlined regulatory oversight in 1957 with the creation of
two separate agencies, the Federal Aviation Agency and the
Civil Aeronautics Board. When the Department of Transportation
began its operations on April 1, 1967, the Federal Aviation
Agency was renamed the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
and became one of several modal administrations within the
department. The Civil Aeronautics Board was later phased out
with enactment of the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, and
ceased to exist at the end of 1984. FAA's mission expanded in
1995 with the transfer of the Office of Commercial Space
Transportation from the Office of the Secretary, and decreased
in December 2001 with the transfer of civil aviation security
activities to the new Transportation Security Administration.
Similar to the surface transportation programs, the FAA's
programs have gone through a series of short-term extensions.
The aviation programs are currently authorized through July 3,
2010. In order to provide greater stability and predictability
to the agency's programs and operations, the Committee is
hopeful that a multi-year authorization will be enacted in the
near future.
OPERATIONS
(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $9,350,028,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... 9,793,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 9,793,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... +442,972,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. - - -
This appropriation provides funds for the operation,
maintenance, communications, and logistical support of the air
traffic control and air navigation systems. It also covers
administrative and managerial costs for the FAA's regulatory,
international, medical, engineering and development programs as
well as policy oversight and overall management functions.
The operations appropriation includes the following major
activities: (1) operation on a 24-hour daily basis of a
national air traffic system; (2) establishment and maintenance
of a national system of aids to navigation; (3) establishment
and surveillance of civil air regulations to assure safety in
aviation; (4) development of standards, rules and regulations
governing the physical fitness of airmen as well as the
administration of an aviation medical research program; (5)
administration of the acquisition, research and development
programs; (6) headquarters, administration and other staff
offices; and (7) development, printing, and distribution of
aeronautical charts used by the flying public.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $9,793,000,000 for FAA operations
which is the same level requested in the budget and
$442,972,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level.
A comparison of the fiscal year 2011 budget request to the
Committee recommendation by budget activity is as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2010 Fiscal year 2011 Committee
Budget activity enacted request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air traffic organization............................... $7,299,299,000 $7,630,628,000 $7,630,628,000
Aviation safety........................................ 1,234,065,000 1,293,986,000 1,304,486,000
Commercial space transportation........................ 15,237,000 15,747,000 16,747,000
Financial services..................................... 113,681,000 114,784,000 114,784,000
Human resources........................................ 100,428,000 103,297,000 103,297,000
Region and center operations........................... 341,977,000 366,354,000 361,354,000
Staff offices.......................................... 196,063,000 212,255,000 208,994,000
Information services................................... 49,278,000 55,949,000 53,360,000
Adjustments............................................ ................. ................. -650,000
--------------------------------------------------------
Total.............................................. 9,350,028,000 9,793,000,000 9,793,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Justification of general provisions.--The Committee
continues its direction to provide a justification for each
general provision proposed in the FAA budget and therefore
expects the fiscal year 2012 budget to include adequate
information on each proposed general provision.
Organizational structure.--The Committee commends the
Administrator's efforts to break down organizational silos that
exist between the FAA's various lines of business. In an era
when budgetary resources are only going to become more
constrained and competitive, it will be necessary for the FAA
to increase its overall efficiency and to reduce or eliminate
duplicative functions. In that regard, the Committee directs
the Administrator to conduct a review of the FAA's
organizational structure to identify staff functions that are
duplicative and could be handled more centrally. The Committee
supports the core mission functions of the agency, and is by no
means suggesting any sort of wholesale reorganization. The
Committee reminds the FAA that any reorganization must follow
the reprogramming requirements specified in section 405 of this
Act.
Use of FAA aircraft.--The FAA possesses and operates a
number of aircraft which are used by a variety of federal
agencies to carry out executive branch functions. The Committee
understands that the rates FAA charges for the use of the
agency's aircraft are out of date and may not adequately cover
the operating costs associated with the use of these aircraft.
The Committee directs FAA to update its rates consistent with
the OMB Circular No. A-126, Attachment A. The Committee directs
FAA to report to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations within 60 days of enactment as to the status of
the agency's compliance with the OMB Circular.
TRUST FUND SHARE OF FAA BUDGET
The bill derives $3,900,000,000 of the total operations
appropriation from the airport and airway trust fund. The
balance of the appropriation ($5,893,000,000) will be drawn
from the general fund of the Treasury. Under these provisions,
roughly 65 percent of FAA's entire budget will be borne by air
travelers and industries using those services. The remaining 35
percent will be borne by the general taxpayer, regardless of
whether they directly utilize FAA services. The Committee
remains concerned about the increasing share of the FAA's
budget that must be covered by the general fund.
STATE OF THE AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND
The following table depicts the Administration's revenue
and outlay estimates for the airport and airway trust fund as
calculated by the Department of Treasury's Office of Tax
Analysis. Further, the Administration estimates that, at the
end of fiscal year 2011, the uncommitted cash balance in the
trust fund will be approximately $1,431,000,000. The Committee
believes these estimates are overly optimistic since the
Congressional Budget Office estimates that the end of year
uncommitted cash balance will be -$483,000,000.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2009 Fiscal year 2010 Fiscal year 2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trust fund revenue\1\.................................. $10,877,000,000 $12,014,000,000 $12,739,000,000
Trust fund outlays..................................... 11,803,000,000 10,436,000,000 12,730,000,000
Difference............................................. -926,000,000 1,578,000,000 9,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Includes excise taxes, offsetting collections and interest on trust fund cash balance.
AIR TRAFFIC ORGANIZATION
The bill provides $7,630,628,000 for air traffic services
which is equal to the budget request and $331,329,000 above the
fiscal year 2010 enacted level.
Controller workforce, training and staffing.--As a result
of the new contract agreement with the FAA's air traffic
controller workforce, the Committee is pleased with the
increased level of collaboration between the FAA's management
and controller workforce. The agency's success in the area of
safety and in its implementation of NextGen technologies rests
upon strong oversight, careful training, and a productive and
cooperative environment between FAA's management and the
agency's air traffic controllers.
According to the FAA Administrator's testimony before the
Committee on March 18, 2010, the FAA has hired over 7,300 new
air traffic controllers over the last five years. This dramatic
increase in hiring was in response to the fact that thousands
of controllers hired in the 1980's will be eligible to retire
by 2017. While the number of controller retirements appears to
have peaked in fiscal year 2007, it is critical that the agency
continue to hire new controllers at a fiscally responsible and
steady pace in order to avoid another surge in retirements in
the years ahead and to ensure adequate staffing levels as air
traffic activity increases. The Committee notes that FAA's most
recent controller workforce plan indicates that the agency
expects to reduce its controller workforce between 2010 and
2019 by 527, or 3.4 percent. The Committee intends to closely
monitor the agency's controller requirements and therefore has
continued bill language requiring FAA to continue to submit an
air traffic controller workforce plan no later than March 31,
2011.
The Committee recommendation includes funding to hire 915
new controllers in fiscal year 2011. As FAA hires new
controllers, it must also improve its overall training regimen.
The Committee was greatly concerned by the DOT Office of
Inspector General's (OIG) April 2010 review of FAA's screening,
placement and training of newly hired air traffic controllers.
In summary, the OIG's key findings included:
--the FAA is not effectively using its air traffic
selection and training test (AT-SAT) to determine the
appropriate level of facility in which new controllers
are placed;
--the FAA does not use academy training performance
as a criteria in its placement process;
--the agency's final performance verification tests
do not adequately assess whether candidates have the
core skills to succeed; and,
--the 2007 Controller Training and Development
Group's recommendations have not been fully
implemented.
The Committee strongly believes that new controllers should
be placed in facilities that are appropriate for their skill
level. As the following table from the OIG's review
demonstrates, the majority of new controllers in fiscal year
2008 were placed in level 10 through 12 facilities, which are
the agency's busiest and most complicated facilities.
The Committee found FAA's response to the OIG's
recommendations to be not responsive. The Committee does not
dispute that the FAA's air traffic controllers are among the
best in the world and that new controllers receive important
on-the-job training in the field. The Committee, however, does
believe that FAA should better match controller capabilities
with facility level and that the agency should make every
effort to address the OIG's recommendations sooner than
December 31, 2012. The Committee directs FAA to provide a
progress report to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations by March 1, 2011 on the status of additional
evaluation and testing necessary to implement the OIG's
recommendations. The Committee also believes that FAA's
training protocol warrants further analysis and therefore
directs the OIG to conduct a review of the training and
staffing levels at FAA's most critical facilities. The
Committee directs the OIG to provide a report to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations by May 15, 2011.
One of the key training tools utilized by the FAA is the
relatively new controller training contract known as the air
traffic control optimal training solution (ATCOTS). The ATCOTS
contract was awarded in September 2008 and is a multi-year
performance-based contract totaling nearly $900 million. The
program is intended to manage controller training at the FAA's
training academy and at air traffic facilities. The first year
of the contract exceeded cost estimates by over 30 percent or
$32 million and the revised estimates for the second year have
grown nearly 22 percent or $20 million. The root of these
higher costs appears to be that the FAA underestimated the
number and types of controllers that needed to be trained and
FAA did not adequately define requirements for performance. The
OIG is in the midst of a review of the ATCOTS program to
determine whether effective controls were in place to ensure
that the training and financial goals will be met. Based on the
cost growth the program has experienced so far, the Committee
believes that the FAA's early management and administration of
the contract was lacking. The Committee expects FAA to provide
biannual updates to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations on the performance and cost of this program.
There is no question that the FAA's air traffic controller
workforce is facing a time of great transition with thousands
of new controllers on the job; with thousands more eligible to
retire over the next seven years; and with the implementation
of new technologies and tools to modernize the equipment and
systems of the air traffic control system. Controller staffing
and training will continue to be a high priority for committee
oversight in the years to come.
Workforce diversity.--Over the last few years, the
Committee has expressed repeated concern about the lack of
ethnic diversity within the ranks of the FAA's controller
workforce. The Committee has required the FAA to provide
reports on the agency's outreach and hiring efforts in minority
communities, and has encouraged the FAA to consider the
diversity of student populations in its selection of eligible
college and university participants in the collegiate training
initiative. The Committee directs FAA to continue both of these
efforts and to pursue other avenues to increase the diversity
of the controller workforce. To that end, the Committee has
provided additional resources within the FAA's Office of Civil
Rights to conduct an analysis on the barriers to increasing
diversity within the FAA's workforce.
RNAV/RNP procedure development.--The Committee
recommendation includes $47,300,000 for the area navigation
(RNAV) and required navigation performance (RNP) program which
is the same level requested in the budget and $15,000,000 above
the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. The Committee is pleased
that FAA intends to focus its fiscal year 2011 resources on
developing RNAV and RNP routes and procedures that address the
recommendations included in RTCA Task Force Five report. RNAV
and RNP procedures, if properly developed and implemented, can
result in significant benefits to the FAA and its users,
including increased capacity, reductions in delay, and lower
carbon emissions. The Committee notes that many of these new
procedures require environmental analysis which can add
significant time to their approval and implementation. The
Committee encourages FAA to explore avenues to expedite the
development of RNAV and RNP procedures that will provide user
benefits without sacrificing appropriate environmental reviews.
Technical workforce staffing.--The Committee is frustrated
that the FAA's air traffic control technician workforce
continues to fall below the mutually agreed upon minimum level
of 6,100. This is the level which was determined to be
necessary to safely maintain the air traffic control system.
The Committee understands that the FAA is not currently
expected to meet the minimum staffing level until the end of
the fiscal year. This is unacceptable. The FAA must demonstrate
better workforce planning to ensure that there are an adequate
number of trained technicians available to perform preventative
maintenance and to repair systems that fail. In addition, the
Committee believes that the agency must also maintain an ample
technician workforce to sustain NextGen equipment as it is
deployed. The Committee directs FAA to maintain a technical
workforce of no less than 6,100 individuals from the beginning
of the fiscal year consistently through the end of the fiscal
year. If FAA cannot sustain this level, the Committee will seek
reductions in other areas of the agency's operating budget. The
Committee will continue to insist that FAA meet these minimum
levels, until such a time that changes to staffing levels are
mutually agreed upon.
Contract tower program.--The Committee recommendation
includes $117,200,000 to continue the contract tower base
program, which is the same level requested in the budget. This
will fund three non-towered airports that are expected to enter
the program during fiscal year 2011. In addition, the bill
provides $9,500,000 to continue the contract tower cost-sharing
program. It has been nearly three decades since the FAA began
contracting out air traffic services at lower level tower
facilities; there are currently 245 airports in 46 states that
participate in the program. The Committee believes that the
contract tower program is a cost-effective program that
performs an important safety function. However, it has been
nearly a decade since the program has been reviewed by the DOT
OIG. Therefore, the Committee directs the OIG to conduct a
review of the contract tower program's cost-effectiveness,
safety benefits, and the overall value to the users of these
airports. The Committee directs the OIG to provide a report to
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by June 1,
2011.
The Committee notes that the number of airports
participating in the cost-sharing program fluctuates regularly
because of changes in air traffic activity. In order to prevent
program disruptions and provide more certainty, the Committee
continues to permit the FAA to use unsubscribed funds from the
contract tower base-line program to avoid elimination of
communities from the cost-share towers program. However, FAA
should only employ this flexibility with surplus funds in the
base-line contract tower program, after all base-line contract
tower obligations have been fulfilled.
Office of airline transportation statistics.--The Committee
recommendation includes $4,000,000, as requested in the budget,
for the activities of the office of airline transportation
statistics (ATS). The ATS collects data on a wide range of
aviation activities with the intent of providing accurate,
timely, and useful information in making and administering
aviation policy. The program is managed by the Bureau of
Transportation Statistics (BTS). BTS collects and disseminates
information from 150 U.S. airlines and 135 foreign carriers.
This information includes financial, traffic, performance, and
operational airline data such as on-time statistics, airline
employment figures, and fuel costs. The Committee expects FAA
to provide these resources to the DOT Bureau of Transportation
Statistics promptly.
AVIATION SAFETY
The bill provides $1,304,486,000 for aviation safety which
represents an increase of $70,421,000 above the fiscal year
2010 enacted level and $10,500,000 above the budget request.
The Committee approves the FAA's request for $14,000,000 to
hire 82 additional flight standards, aircraft certification,
and operational safety personnel to assist with critical safety
oversight and regulatory activities; aircraft and avionics
certification requirements; environmental compliance efforts;
oceanic and domestic navigation; area navigation and required
navigation performance to advance NextGen; unmanned aircraft
systems operations and approvals; emergency medical helicopter
oversight; and additional product certification efforts.
Oversight of foreign repair stations.--In an effort to
provide additional safety oversight, the Committee
recommendation includes an increase of $10,500,000 for
increased inspections of foreign repair stations. Within the
amounts provided, the Committee includes funding for 40
additional inspector positions as well as additional resources
to cover travel costs associated with the inspection of foreign
repair stations. The Committee directs FAA to provide a
progress report to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations six months after enactment on FAA's hiring and
foreign repair inspection plans.
The additional funds provided for the aviation safety
offices are designated as congressional items of interest.
Therefore, the Committee prohibits the reprogramming of funds
between the offices, or for any other purpose within or outside
of the aviation safety office, including the hiring of other
types of personnel within aviation safety without the approval
of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
The Committee continues its direction requiring the
Secretary to provide annual reports regarding the use of the
funds provided, including, but not limited to, the total full-
time equivalent staff years in the offices of aircraft
certification and flight standards, total employees, vacancies,
and positions under active recruitment. The Committee directs
the Secretary to provide this report to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations by March 31, 2011.
Pilot flight/duty time and crew training requirements.--In
the aftermath of the tragic crash of Colgan Air Flight 3407 in
February 2009, the FAA Administrator issued a call to action on
airline safety and pilot training. Two of the key components of
that action plan have been pilot flight and duty time as well
as crew training. The FAA has been heavily engaged in the
process of updating the regulations governing pilot flight and
duty time. The Committee recognizes the complexity of these
rules given that they have not been substantially updated in
decades. However, the Committee expects the proposed rule to be
published before the end of fiscal year 2010. With regard to
crew training, the FAA issued an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking in early February and comments to the proposal were
due April 9, 2010. Proper training of aviation crew is critical
to ensure the safety of the flying public. The Committee is
pleased that the FAA is undertaking both of these important
safety efforts and urges the agency to move expeditiously to
complete these rules.
COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION
The Committee recommends $16,747,000 for the office of
commercial space transportation which is $1,000,000 above the
budget request and $1,510,000 above the fiscal year 2010
enacted level. With the expected retirement of the space
shuttle next year, commercial space vehicles may be utilized to
launch cargo and materials to the international space station.
In addition, there is increasing interest in suborbital space
tourism which will increase the licensing and regulatory
workload of the office of commercial space. As the commercial
space industry grows and evolves, the GAO has indicated that
the FAA may not have sufficient staff with the necessary
expertise to oversee the safety of launches and spaceport
operations. The increase provided above the budget request is
for seven additional positions including safety inspectors,
aerospace engineers and transportation analysts. In addition,
the FAA may utilize up to $500,000 of the funds provided under
this heading to continue the space transportation
infrastructure matching grant program as authorized under title
49, chapter 70305.
FINANCIAL SERVICES
The Committee recommends $114,784,000 for the office of
financial services which is the same as the budget request and
$1,103,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level.
HUMAN RESOURCES
The Committee recommends $103,297,000 which represents an
increase of $2,869,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level
and the same level requested in the budget.
Workforce diversity report.--The Committee reiterates its
direction that the FAA report data and information on the
agency's recruitment outreach and hiring efforts in minority
communities. The Committee expects the report to include a
year-to-year comparison of hiring statistics for
underrepresented populations. The FAA is directed to provide
its letter report to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations by January 15, 2011.
REGION AND CENTER OPERATIONS
The Committee recommends $361,354,000 for the region and
center operations, which is $5,000,000 below the budget request
and $19,377,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. The
Committee recommendation includes $15,000,000 for the agency's
central service center project. The budget request seeks
funding for FAA-specific security, facility,
telecommunications, equipment and furnishing requirements for
three new service center facilities. The Committee notes that
the current leases for two of the facilities will not expire
until the end of fiscal year 2013. The Committee has reduced
the service center request by $5,000,000 and expects the amount
provided in the recommendation will be sufficient to begin
planning for the new facilities. The Committee will revisit
remaining facility resource needs during the fiscal year 2012
budget process.
STAFF OFFICES
The Committee recommendation includes $261,943,000 for
staff offices, including information services, which is
$5,850,000 below the budget request and $17,013,000 above the
fiscal year 2010 enacted level. Within the total amount, the
Committee recommendation provides $3,000,000 for additional
information security infrastructure and $4,011,000 in half-year
funding for 110 additional hazardous materials safety
inspectors and emergency operations positions. The Committee
notes that the bill includes $28,188,000 within the Office of
the Secretary for department-wide cyber security initiatives
and last September, the Committee approved reprogramming
requests totaling $6,400,000 for additional facility and
information security improvements. The Committee also includes
$750,000 for the FAA's Office of Civil Rights to conduct an
analysis to identify barriers to improving ethnic diversity
within FAA's workforce, with a focus on air traffic controllers
and inspectors.
ACCOUNT-WIDE ADJUSTMENTS
Inspector general audits.--The recommendation includes a
reduction of $650,000 in the operations account for the costs
associated with the DOT OIG's audit of the FAA's portion of the
DOT financial statement and for the Enterprise Services Center
SAS-70 audit. In an effort to provide greater transparency, the
Committee has provided these resources directly to the Office
of Inspector General.
BILL LANGUAGE
Second career training program.--The bill retains language
prohibiting the use of funds for the second career training
program. This prohibition has been in annual appropriations
Acts for many years, and is included in the President's budget
request.
Aviation user fees.--The bill includes a limitation carried
for several years prohibiting funds from being used to finalize
or implement any new unauthorized user fees.
Aeronautical charting and cartography.--The bill maintains
the provision which prohibits funds in this Act from being used
to conduct aeronautical charting and cartography (AC&C)
activities through the working capital fund (WCF).
Credits.--Funds received from specified public, private,
and foreign sources for expenses incurred may be credited to
the appropriation.
FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT
(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $2,936,203,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... 2,970,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 3,000,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... +63,797,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. +30,000,000
The Facilities and Equipment (F&E) account is the principal
means for modernizing and improving air traffic control and
airway facilities. The appropriation also finances major
capital investments required by other agency programs,
experimental research and development facilities, and other
improvements to enhance the safety and capacity of the airspace
system.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,000,000,000
for the FAA's facilities and equipment program, an increase of
$63,797,000 above the level provided in fiscal year 2010 and
$30,000,000 above the budget request. The bill provides that of
the total amount recommended, $2,508,000,000 is available for
obligation until September 30, 2012, and $492,000,000 (the
amount for personnel and related expenses) is available until
September 30, 2011. These obligation availabilities are
consistent with past appropriations Acts.
FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
FY 2010 enacted FY 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 28,250,000
Data Communications in support of Next Generation 46,700,000 153,300,000 153,300,000
Air Transportation System.........................
Next Generation Transportation System Demonstration 33,773,730 27,000,000 27,000,000
and Infrastructure Development....................
Next Generation Transportation System--System 66,100,000 95,000,000 93,800,000
Development.......................................
Next Generation Transportation System--Trajectory 63,500,000 58,600,000 58,600,000
Based Operations..................................
Next Generation Transportation System--Weather 35,600,000 43,202,000 43,202,000
Reduction Impact..................................
Next Generation Transportation System--High Density 51,800,000 57,000,000 57,000,000
Arrivals/Departures...............................
Next Generation Transportation System-- 44,640,770 75,500,000 75,500,000
Collaborative ATM.................................
Next Generation Transportation System--Flexible 64,300,000 80,700,000 80,700,000
Terminals and Airports............................
Next Generation Transportation System--Safety 8,200,000 8,000,000 8,000,000
Security and Environment..........................
Next Generation Transportation System--Networked 24,000,000 35,000,000 29,000,000
Facilities........................................
NextGen Integrated Airport......................... 827,900 ................. .................
--------------------------------------------------------
Total, Activity 1.............................. 520,742,400 708,552,000 701,352,000
========================================================
Activity 2, Air Traffic Control Facilities and
Equipment:
En Route Programs
En Route Automation Modernization (ERAM)........... 171,750,000 132,300,000 132,300,000
En Route Communications Gateway (ECG).............. 3,600,000 6,000,000 6,000,000
Next Generation Weather Radar (NEXRAD)--Provide.... 6,900,000 6,700,000 6,700,000
Air Traffic Control System Command Center (ATCSCC)-- 10,300,000 2,100,000 2,100,000
Relocation........................................
ARTCC Building Improvements/Plant Improvements..... 50,000,000 36,892,000 36,892,000
Air Traffic Management (ATM)....................... 31,400,000 16,500,000 16,500,000
Air/Ground Communications Infrastructure........... 8,600,000 7,600,000 7,600,000
ATC Beacon Interrogator (ATCBI)--Replacement....... 4,700,000 ................. .................
Air Traffic Control En Route Radar Facilities 5,300,000 5,300,000 5,300,000
Improvements......................................
Voice Switching and Control System (VSCS).......... 16,700,000 15,600,000 15,600,000
Oceanic Automation System.......................... 7,700,000 4,000,000 4,000,000
Corrider Weather Integrated System (CWIS).......... 2,300,000 ................. .................
Next Generation Very High Frequency Air/Ground 64,200,000 49,850,000 49,850,000
Communications System (NFXCOM)....................
System-Wide Information Management................. 56,548,000 92,000,000 92,000,000
ADS-B NAS Wide Implementation...................... 201,350,000 176,100,000 176,100,000
ADS-B Additional Coverage--General Aviation........ ................. ................. 21,300,000
Windshear Detection Services....................... 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000
Weather and Radar Processor (WARP)................. 17,600,000 2,100,000 2,100,000
Collaborative Air Traffic Management Technologies.. 18,100,000 35,900,000 35,900,000
En Route Automation Modernization (ERAM)--Post ................. 5,000,000 5,000,000
Release 3.........................................
--------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal En Route Programs..................... 678,048,000 594,942,000 616,242,000
Terminal Programs
Airport Surface Detection Equipment--Model X (ASDE- 25,302,000 4,200,000 4,200,000
X)................................................
Terminal Doppler Weather Radar (TDWR).............. 9,900,000 8,600,000 8,600,000
Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System 28,000,000 22,000,000 22,000,000
(STARS) (TAMR Phase 1)............................
Terminal Automation Modernization/Replacement 18,000,000 20,000,000 20,000,000
Program (TAMR Phase 3)............................
Terminal Automation Program........................ 9,600,000 3,900,000 3,900,000
Terminal Air Traffic Control Facilities--Replace... 179,000,000 114,600,000 124,600,000
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)................. 3,500,000 3,000,000 3,000,000
Terminal Digital Radar (ASR-11).................... 12,863,000 4,100,000 4,100,000
Precision Runway Monitor (PRM)..................... ................. 950,000 950,000
Runway Status Lights............................... 117,300,000 55,000,000 55,000,000
National Airspace System Voice Switch (NVS)........ 26,600,000 30,200,000 30,200,000
Next Generation Voice Recorder Replacement Program. 11,900,000 9,400,000 9,400,000
Integrated Display System (IDS).................... 7,000,000 8,700,000 8,700,000
ASR-8 Service Life Extension Program (SLEP)........ ................. 2,600,000 2,600,000
Integrated Terminal Weather System (ITWS).......... 1,900,000 5,500,000 5,500,000
Terminal Automation Modernization/Replacement ................. 3,100,000 3,100,000
Program (TAMR Phase 2)............................
Remote Maintenance and Logging System (RMLS)... 1,000,000 6,500,000 6,500,000
Mode S Service Life Extension Program (SLEP)....... ................. 1,500,000 1,500,000
--------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal Terminal Programs..................... 527,265,000 386,950,000 396,950,000
Flight Service Programs
Automated Surface Observing System (ASOS).......... 5,500,000 6,700,000 6,700,000
Flight Service Station (FSS) Modernization......... 20,100,000 21,400,000 20,100,000
Weather Camera Program............................. 3,800,000 3,200,000 3,200,000
--------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal Flight Service Programs............... 29,400,000 31,300,000 30,000,000
Landing and Navigational Aids Program
VHF Omnidirectional Radio Range (VOR) with Distance 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000
Measuring Equipment (DMF).........................
Instrument Landing System (ILS)--Establish......... 12,575,000 7,800,000 7,800,000
Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) for GPS....... 91,000,000 95,000,000 92,000,000
Ground-Based Augmentation System (GBAS)............ ................. ................. 10,100,000
Runway Visual Range (RVR).......................... 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000
Approach Lighting System Improvement Program 10,337,000 5,000,000 5,000,000
(ALSIP)...........................................
Distance Measuring Equipment (DME)................. 6,000,000 4,100,000 4,100,000
Visual NAVAIDS--Establish/Expand................... 3,700,000 3,800,000 4,500,000
Instrument Flight Procedures Automation (IFPA)..... 7,900,000 600,000 600,000
Navigation and Landing Aids--Service Life Extension 9,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000
Program (SLEP)....................................
VASI Replacement--Replace with Precision Approach 4,500,000 4,000,000 4,500,000
Path Indicator....................................
GPS Civil Requirements............................. 43,400,000 58,500,000 58,500,000
Runway Safety Areas--Navigational Mitigation....... ................. 20,000,000 20,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal Landing and Navigational Aids Programs 198,412,000 214,800,000 223,100,000
Other ATC Facilities Programs
Fuel Storage Tank Replacement and Monitoring....... 6,200,000 6,300,000 6,300,000
Unstaffed Infrastructure Sustainment............... 18,200,000 14,100,000 14,100,000
Aircraft Related Equipment Program................. 9,000,000 9,000,000 9,000,000
Aircraft Related Equipment Simulator Replacement... 1,000,000 ................. .................
Airport Cable Loop Systems--Sustained Support...... 6,000,000 7,000,000 6,000,000
Alaskan NAS Interfacility Communications System 9,000,000 12,100,000 12,100,000
(ANICS)...........................................
Facilities Decommissioning......................... 5,000,000 6,400,000 6,400,000
Electrical Power Systems--Sustain/Support.......... 87,750,100 95,000,000 92,500,000
Aircraft Fleet Modernization....................... 5,969,000 ................. .................
--------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal Other ATC Facilities Programs......... 148,119,100 149,900,000 146,400,000
--------------------------------------------------------
Total, Activity 2.............................. 1,581,244,100 1,377,892,000 1,412,692,000
========================================================
Activity 3, Non-Air Traffic Control Facilities and
Equipment:
Support Equipment
Hazardous Materials Management..................... 20,000,000 20,000,000 20,000,000
Aviation Safety Analysis System (ASAS)............. 10,500,000 14,600,000 14,600,000
Logistics Support System and Facilities (LSSF)..... 9,300,000 11,500,000 11,500,000
National Airspace System Recovery Communications 10,230,000 15,000,000 15,000,000
(RCOM)............................................
Facility Security Risk Management.................. 18,000,000 17,000,000 17,000,000
Information Security............................... 12,276,000 15,200,000 15,200,000
System Approach for Safety Oversight............... 20,000,000 23,400,000 23,400,000
Aviation Safety Knowledge Management Environment 8,100,000 14,800,000 13,500,000
(ASKME)...........................................
Data Center Operations............................. ................. 1,956,000 1,956,000
--------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal Support Equipment..................... 108,406,000 133,456,000 132,156,000
--------------------------------------------------------
Training, Equipment and Facilities
Aeronautical Center Infrastructure Modernization... 13,810,500 15,000,000 15,000,000
Distance Learning.................................. 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
National Airspace System (NAS) Training--Simulator. 8,200,000 ................. .................
--------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal Training, Equipment and Facilities.... 23,510,500 17,000,000 17,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
Total, Activity 3 131,916,500 150,456,000 149,156,000
========================================================
Activity 4, Facilities and Equipment Mission Support:
System Support and Services
System Engineering and Development Support......... 31,700,000 32,300,000 31,700,000
Program Support Leases............................. 37,500,000 38,600,000 38,600,000
Logistics Support Services (LSS)................... 11,000,000 11,000,000 11,000,000
Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center Leases........... 16,200,000 16,600,000 16,600,000
Transition Engineering Support..................... 14,300,000 15,000,000 14,300,000
Frequency and Spectrum Engineering................. 3,600,000 2,600,000 2,600,000
Technical Support Services Contract (TSSC)......... 22,000,000 22,000,000 22,000,000
Resource Tracking Program (RTP).................... 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000
Center for Advanced Aviation System Development 82,000,000 80,700,000 86,000,000
(CAASD)...........................................
Aeronautical Information Management Program........ 10,000,000 18,300,000 18,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
Total, Activity 4.............................. 232,300,000 241,100,000 244,800,000
========================================================
Activity 5, Personnel and Related Expenses:
Personnel and Related Expenses--ATO................ 470,000,000 492,000,000 492,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
Total, All Activities.......................... 2,936,203,000 2,970,000,000 3,000,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ENGINEERING, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION
Next generation air transportation system.--The Committee
provides significant increases above the fiscal year 2010
enacted level for the continued development of the FAA's next
generation air transportation system (NextGen). This multi-
year, multi-billion dollar effort to modernize the FAA's aging
air traffic control system is a complex undertaking and
requires careful oversight and implementation. FAA must
carefully develop and transition to the new system while
maintaining its existing system.
As noted in the table below, the federal resources
committed to FAA's NextGen program has grown dramatically on a
year-by-year basis since fiscal year 2007.
Despite this growth, there continues to be some
dissatisfaction about the pace of FAA's progress. As a result,
in early 2009, the FAA requested that the Radio Technical
Commission for Aeronautics (RTCA) establish a government-
industry task force to identify NextGen operational
improvements that could be implemented by 2018. In September
2009, the task force issued its recommendations in a report,
known as the ``Task Force 5 Report,'' which focused on seven
areas: (1) Improving airport surface situational awareness and
data sharing; (2) Increasing throughput at airports with
closely-spaced, converging and intersecting runways; (3) De-
conflicting traffic to increase metroplex capacity and
efficiency; (4) Increasing cruise efficiency through enhanced
procedures and automation; (5) Improving access to low-
altitude, non-radar airspace for general aviation traffic and
increasing availability of GPS approaches to general aviation
airports; (6) Deploying air-ground digital data communication
applications to decrease delays and enhance safety and
efficiency especially in severe weather; and (7) Improving
overall operational efficiency through collaborative decision
making.
The Committee acknowledges that the FAA's budget request
for NextGen program investments seeks to respond to the Task
Force 5 Report recommendations. However, much work remains to
move NextGen into implementation. The DOT Inspector General
(OIG) continues to raise concerns about FAA's workforce
readiness to oversee and integrate the many complex
technologies and procedures required to fully transition to a
satellite-based air traffic control system. Specifically, the
OIG review, issued on June 16, 2010, identified key areas of
risk that FAA must continue to address. These include FAA's
need to: (1) Establish requirements, costs and schedules for
existing projects or new NextGen acquisitions; (2) Update the
agency's acquisition management system to better manage
investments and systems; (3) Address key safety concerns as
throughput increases at congested airports; and (4) Assess the
agency's ability to implement multiple capabilities at the same
time and secure sufficient expertise to manage a NextGen
focused workforce.
The Committee is pleased that FAA agreed with the OIG's
recommendations and findings and expects FAA to work
expeditiously to mitigate risk areas; establish realistic
benchmarks; and develop a more robust plan for research and
options for technology transfer. Given the size, scope and
importance of NextGen to FAA's core mission of safety and to
the efficiency provided to the users of the NAS, the Committee
will continue rigorous oversight of the agency's progress on
the implementation of the RTCA Task Force 5 Report and the OIG
recommendations.
NextGen data communications.--The Committee recommendation
includes $153,300,000 for data communications in support of
NextGen, equal to the budget request and $106,600,000 above the
fiscal year 2010 enacted level. The continued development of a
reliable and efficient communication system between air traffic
controllers and pilots was one of the key recommendations
included in the RTCA Task Force 5 report. The FAA expects to
make its final investment decision for air-ground network and
tower automation requirements in fiscal year 2011. Once
implemented, these improvements will provide significant
operational benefits for both the FAA and its users by
decreasing gate departure delays and increasing the safety and
efficiency of airborne traffic. The Committee directs FAA to
provide an update to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations by March 30, 2011 on FAA's progress in meeting
program implementation milestones for the initial segment of
the agency's NextGen data communications system.
NextGen--system development.--The Committee recommendation
includes $93,800,000 for NextGen system development which is
$1,200,000 below the budget request and $27,700,000 above the
fiscal year 2010 enacted level. The Committee reduces funding
for the staffed NextGen towers portion of the system
development program.
NextGen--networked facilities.--The Committee provides
$29,000,000 for NextGen networked facilities, which is
$6,000,000 below the budget request and $5,000,000 above the
fiscal year 2010 enacted level. The Committee provides
$18,000,000 for future facilities investment planning. Since
the FAA is in the midst of revising its facility investment
analysis process for replacing the existing tower and terminal
radar control facilities (TRACON), the Committee withholds full
funding for future facilities until that process has been
completed and the Committee gains a better understanding of how
tower and TRACON replacement investment decisions fit into the
future facilities program.
AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT
The bulk of the FAA's facilities and equipment funding is
directed toward specific facility and technology improvements
to en route programs; terminal programs; flight service
programs; landing and navigational aids; and, other air traffic
control facilities. The Committee recommendation includes
$1,412,692,000 for these activities which is $34,800,000 above
the budget request and $168,552,100 below the fiscal year 2010
enacted level.
EN ROUTE PROGRAMS
En route automation modernization (ERAM).--The Committee
provides $132,300,000 for the en route modernization program
which is equal to the budget request and $39,450,000 below the
fiscal year 2010 enacted level. ERAM is the FAA's modernization
program to replace the FAA's en route host computer system, its
backup system and other related display system and radar
position processor infrastructure. The program includes 1.4
million source lines of code and represents one of the most
complex transitions that the FAA has undertaken in decades. The
program has experienced its share of technical problems as the
agency has sought to bring the program on-line at initial key
sites. The Committee well understands that many new systems
introduced into the NAS often need to be adjusted to address
the unique characteristics of a particular facility or area's
airspace. In April 2010, the Committee requested that the DOT
OIG examine the impact of the delay in ERAM's in-service
decision on the overall cost and deployment schedule at all 20
en route centers. The Committee will carefully review the OIG's
findings once the audit is completed and determine whether
funding adjustments are warranted as the appropriations process
moves forward. The Committee is pleased that FAA has recently
begun to seek input from and to leverage the expertise of the
existing controller workforce. The controllers have provided an
additional layer of testing at key facilities and the FAA
technical center. In addition, the controllers have provided
helpful suggestions on training to help smooth the transition
to ERAM for both experienced and new controllers.
Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B).--One of
the key backbone technologies of NextGen is the automatic
dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B) system. Once fully
operational, ADS-B will provide an advanced surveillance
technology which will result in greater positional accuracy and
better utilization of airspace. In addition, it will reduce
congestion; increase safety and capacity; and, provide greater
predictability in departure and arrival times. To date, the
program has met important milestones, including deployment and
testing at four key sites and the on-going installation of
ground station infrastructure across the nation. The Committee
will continue to monitor the performance of the system at the
key initial sites as well as other sites as they become
operational. On May 27, 2010, the FAA issued its final rule
regarding the broadcast performance requirements necessary for
ADS-B for all aircraft flying in Class A, B and C airspace and
above 10,000 feet. The FAA rule requires compliance by 2020.
The Committee acknowledges that key challenges remain in
gaining broad user acceptance and aircraft equipage since many
of the older commercial aircraft and general aviation aircraft
are not currently equipped to broadcast the ADS-B signal. In
that regard, the Committee continues to believe the FAA should
explore options to lower the investment risk for NAS users
which could serve to incentivize an earlier adoption of ADS-B
avionics. The Committee recommendation fully funds the budget
request of $176,100,000 which is $25,250,000 below the fiscal
year 2010 enacted level.
ADS-B additional coverage-general aviation.--The Committee
recommendation includes $21,300,000 to provide additional ADS-B
surveillance coverage for airports that are not currently
covered by radar. This investment will provide a further safety
benefit to commercial and general aviation users as it will
allow aircraft equipped with ``ADS-B Out'' technology to be
monitored by air traffic controllers and will help mitigate
risks like in-flight collisions and controlled flight into
terrain.
TERMINAL PROGRAMS
Terminal automation modernization/replacement program (TAMR
Phase 3).--The Committee recommendation includes $20,000,000
for the terminal automation modernization and replacement
program which is equal to the budget request and $2,000,000
above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. Phase 3 of the TAMR
program is intended to mordernize or replace terminal
automation systems at TRACON facilities around the country.
Over the last several years, FAA has invested significant
resources in upgrading the automation systems at our nation's
busiest air traffic control facilities. Automation upgrades are
necessary at lower level facilities in order to realize the
true benefits of NextGen. The Committee recommendation provides
funding to replace, upgrade, and sustain terminal automation
hardware and software to accept future NextGen technologies,
tools and procedures. The Committee is aware that FAA issued
two requests for information last year seeking input from
industry stakeholders on potential modernization solutions for
terminal air traffic control systems. The Committee understands
that the existing standard terminal automation replacement
systems (STARS) and the common automated radar terminal systems
(CARTS) at key test sites have demonstrated that STARS and
CARTS can meet the near term requirements for NextGen. The
Committee does not believe FAA should abandon the use of
automation systems that have proven their utility in a NextGen
environment and have not yet met the end of their useful
operating life. The Committee urges FAA to focus replacement
and modernization efforts on the most critical facilities in
the NAS in order to help expedite the benefits offered by ADS-B
and other NextGen technologies. The Committee directs FAA to
brief the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on the
agency's terminal automation plans within 60 days of enactment
of this Act.
Terminal air traffic control facilities replacement.--The
Committee provides a total of $124,600,000 for the FAA's tower/
TRACON rehabilitation and replacement program which is
$10,000,000 above the budget request and $54,400,000 below the
fiscal year 2010 enacted level. The budget request includes
specific funding levels for Presidentially-designated tower and
TRACON facilities. The Committee does not include project-by-
project funding recommendations for two primary reasons. First,
the Committee understands that FAA is currently revising its
facility investment analysis process. Second, the Committee
understands that the FAA has established a joint working group
with its employees to review pending relocation plans for eight
facilities. The Committee supports both of these efforts.
However, the Committee urges FAA to be prudent and not
unnecessarily delay projects that are adequately justified and
well into design and construction.
The Committee expects FAA to utilize a merit-based approach
for tower and TRACON rehabilitation and replacement projects.
The FAA should consider the safety and condition of the
facility; the service the facility provides to the users of the
NAS; and the long-term facility needs as NextGen is
implemented. The facility needs of the FAA will certainly
change as the agency transitions to NextGen. The FAA must be
pragmatic in identifying where consolidations and realignments
make sense and the Committee hopes that the investment analysis
under development and the joint working group will help inform
that process. The FAA's long term future facilities program,
however, should not interfere or delay the replacement of key
facilities, critical to the NAS, that are deteriorating and in
a state of serious disrepair. As facilities are updated, the
Committee encourages FAA to take measures to increase their
energy efficiency and incorporate green building practices
where feasible.
In an era where the competition for federal resources will
be increasingly tighter, the FAA must also be mindful of long
term impacts that facility costs place on the agency's
operating and capital budgets. However, the safety of the
overall air traffic control system must be a primary concern.
The Committee instructs FAA to utilize these funds for urgent
facility needs and prohibits the use of these funds for the
future facilities program unless prior approval is granted by
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations through the
reprogramming process stipulated in Section 405 of this Act.
Runway status lights (RWSL).--The Committee recommendation
includes $55,000,000 for the runway status lights program which
is the same as the budget request and $62,300,000 below the
fiscal year 2010 enacted level. Runway status lights perform an
important safety function by signaling to aircraft and vehicle
operators when it is safe to proceed onto active runways and
airport surfaces. The funds provided for RWSL in the
recommendation will continue construction at twelve sites;
begin construction at two new sites; and finish installation at
eleven airports. The Committee strongly supports efforts to
reduce the incidents of runway incursions and the risks
associated with them, and will continue to monitor the
deployment and performance of these important safety systems.
FLIGHT SERVICE PROGRAMS
Flight service station (FSS) modernization.--The Committee
recommendation holds funding for the flight service station
modernization to the fiscal year 2010 enacted level of
$20,100,000, which is $1,300,000 below the budget request.
LANDING AND NAVIGATIONAL AIDS
Instrument landing system establishment.--The Committee
recommendation includes $7,800,000 for instrument landing
systems which is equal to the budget request and $4,775,000
below the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. Within the funds
provided, the Committee includes $500,000 to upgrade the
instrument landing system to a Category II level on Runway 5 at
the Kinston Regional Jetport, NC.
Wide area augmentation system (WAAS).--The Committee
recommendation includes $92,000,000 for the wide area
augmentation system program which is $3,000,000 below the level
requested in the budget and $1,000,000 above the fiscal year
2010 enacted level. Through fiscal year 2010, the total federal
investment in the WAAS program has been $1,530,824,800.
Ground-based augmentation systems.--The Committee
recommends $10,100,000 for the procurement of three ground-
based augmentation systems (GBAS). As a potential key component
of the Next Generation Air Transportation System, the Committee
is highly interested in the ability of GBAS to perform
precision Category I and eventually Category II and III
approaches and other precision terminal area operations. Three
additional systems will allow for additional data collection
and testing by the FAA while unlocking safety and efficiency
benefits for the airports the sites selected by the FAA to
receive these systems. No later than 90 days after the
enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall report to the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations to detail where
these systems will be installed, what process determined their
site selection, and a plan for how each individual site's
operational demonstration will be conducted.
Runway visual range (RVR).--The Committee recommendation
includes $5,000,000 for the runway visual range program which
is the same level requested in the budget and the same level
provided in the fiscal year 2010 enacted bill. RVR systems
provide air traffic controllers and pilots with important
visibility information that is used to allow take offs and
landings during limited visibility due to weather conditions.
Roughly 20 percent of the RVR systems in the NAS exceed their
20 year life-cycle use. The recommendation includes funding to
procure and install 10 new RVR systems. The Committee
understands that there are as many as 30 RVR systems that have
been procured and are sitting in a warehouses waiting to be
installed and there are 38 systems that have been procured but
not yet delivered. The Committee believes the FAA must be more
vigilant in getting these important safety systems deployed
once they have been delivered. The Committee directs FAA to put
together an installation plan that will ensure that all
procured systems are deployed within a reasonable timeframe.
The Committee directs FAA to brief the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations on the agency's plans within 60
days of enactment of this Act.
Visual Navaids-Establish/Expand.--The Committee
recommendation includes $4,500,000 for precision approach path
indicator systems and new-generation runway end identifier
light systems. The recommendation is $700,000 more than the
budget request and $800,000 more than the fiscal year 2010
enacted level. The Committee notes that the Commercial Aviation
Safety Team, including FAA and industry representatives,
identified 781 runway ends that require implementation of
visual-like precision approach capability. The increase above
the budget is to provide necessary logistics and engineering
support and for the procurement and installation of additional
systems.
VASI Replacement--Precision approach path indicator
(PAPI).--The Committee recommendation includes $4,500,000 for
additional PAPI systems and requirements which is $500,000 more
than the budget request and equal to the fiscal year 2010
enacted level. The increase above the budget request is to help
expedite FAA's on-going effort to comply with the International
Civil Aviation Organization's standard for visual approach
slope indicators.
Runway safety areas--navigational mitigation.--Last year,
the Committee provided additional resources for the FAA's
navigation and landing aids program in order to address OIG's
recommendation that the agency must take additional action to
mitigate the hazards that navigational aids present in runway
safety areas. The Committee notes that the airport program
office has made significant progress improving the runway
safety areas in order to meet the statutory deadline of 2015.
Similar progress must be made with regard to the navigational
aids that are not in compliance with runway safety
requirements. The Committee recommendation believes that this
is an important safety initiative and has provided $20,000,000
as requested in the budget. The Committee directs the FAA to
provide status reports to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations with the agency's plan to address the 2,500
identified navigational objects at various airports. The FAA is
directed to provide its first status report on March 15, 2011,
the plan should outline the FAA's timeline, cost estimates and
year-by-year objectives to meet the 2015 deadline.
OTHER AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL FACILITIES PROGRAMS
Airport cable loop systems--sustained support.--The
Committee recommendation reduces funding for the FAA's airport
cable loop system program by $1,000,000 and freezes the program
at the fiscal year 2010 enacted level of $6,000,000.
Electrical power systems.--The Committee recommendation
includes $92,500,000 for electrical power systems, an increase
of $4,749,900 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and
$2,500,000 below the budget request. The Committee reduces
funding below the budget request in order to fund other
programmatic priorities.
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
Aviation safety knowledge management environment (ASKME).--
The Committee recommendation includes $13,500,000 for the
aviation safety knowledge management environment program which
is $1,300,000 below the budget request and $5,400,000 above the
fiscal year 2010 enacted level. The Committee supports the
goals of the ASKME program which is to develop a comprehensive
automated safety management system capable of electronically
storing FAA technical documentation and other important safety
data. However, the justification included in the fiscal year
2011 budget request was virtually identical to the
justification that was provided in fiscal year 2010. The
Committee withholds full funding for the program until the FAA
provides greater specificity for the use of funds requested in
fiscal year 2011.
MISSION SUPPORT
Engineering support programs.--The recommendation freezes
funding for engineering support programs at the fiscal year
2010 enacted level due to overall budget constraints.
Transition engineering support is funded at $14,300,000, which
is $700,000 below the budget request, and system engineering
and development support is funded at $31,700,000, which is
$600,000 below the budget request.
Center for advanced aviation systems development (CAASD).--
The Committee provides $86,000,000 for CAASD which is
$5,300,000 above the budget request and $4,000,000 above the
fiscal year 2010 enacted level. The FAA's fiscal year 2011
request for activities related to engineering, development,
test and evaluation (EDT&E) has increased by 36 percent over
fiscal year 2010. These EDT&E activities are in their earliest
stage of development and require significant engineering and
technical support. The Committee notes that FAA recently
announced three major new systems engineering contracts to
assist with the development of NextGen procedures and
technologies. While these contracts will provide systems
engineering support for EDT&E activities, the Committee
believes that FAA could benefit from additional core mission
support especially for programs that are security sensitive. In
addition to the critical research and systems engineering that
CAASD performs in assisting FAA in its development of NextGen
systems and procedures, CAASD also provides important technical
guidance on how to engineer security capabilities into the NAS.
Aeronautical information management program.--The Committee
recommendation includes $18,000,000 for the aeronautical
information management program which is $300,000 below the
budget request and $8,000,000 above the fiscal year 2010
enacted level. The minor reduction below the budget request was
done without prejudice in order to fund other programmatic
priorities.
PERSONNEL AND RELATED EXPENSES
The Committee recommends $492,000,000 for personnel and
related expenses which is an increase of $22,000,000 above the
fiscal year 2010 enacted level and the same level as the budget
request. This appropriation finances the personnel, travel and
related expenses of the FAA's facilities and equipment
workforce.
BILL LANGUAGE
Capital investment plan.--The bill continues to require the
submission of a five year capital investment plan.
RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, AND DEVELOPMENT
(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $190,500,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... 190,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 198,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... +7,500,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. +8,000,000
This appropriation provides funding for long-term research,
engineering and development programs to improve the air traffic
control system and to raise the level of aviation safety, as
authorized by the Airport and Airway Improvement Act and the
Federal Aviation Act. The appropriation also finances the
research, engineering and development needed to establish or
modify federal air regulations.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $198,000,000, an increase of
$7,500,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and
$8,000,000 above the President's budget estimate.
A table showing the fiscal year 2010 enacted level, the
fiscal year 2011 budget estimate, and the Committee
recommendation follows:
RESEARCH, ENGINEERING AND DEVELOPMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2010 Fiscal year 2011 Committee
Program enacted estimate recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improve Aviation Safety................................ 93,572,000 93,702,000 93,702,000
Fire research and safety........................... 7,799,000 7,231,000 7,231,000
Propulsion and fuel systems........................ 3,105,000 2,332,000 2,332,000
Advanced materials/structural safety............... 4,935,000 2,566,000 2,566,000
Atmospheric hazards/digital system safety.......... 4,482,000 6,635,000 6,635,000
Aging aircraft..................................... 10,944,000 10,801,000 10,801,000
Aircraft catastrophic failure prevention........... 1,545,000 1,165,000 1,165,000
Flightdeck safety/systems integration.............. 7,128,000 7,174,000 7,174,000
Aviation safety risk analysis...................... 12,698,000 11,907,000 11,907,000
ATC/AF human factors............................... 10,302,000 10,475,000 10,475,000
Aeromedical research............................... 10,378,000 11,217,000 11,217,000
Weather research................................... 16,789,000 16,505,000 16,505,000
Unmanned aircraft system........................... 3,467,000 3,694,000 3,694,000
NextGen Alternative Fuels for General Aviation..... - - - 2,000,000 2,000,000
Improve Efficiency of the ATC System................... 48,543,000 54,874,000 54,874,000
Joint program and development office............... 14,407,000 14,292,000 14,292,000
Wake turbulence.................................... 10,631,000 10,685,000 10,685,000
NextGen--Air Ground Integration.................... 5,688,000 10,614,000 10,614,000
NextGen--Self Separation........................... 8,247,000 9,971,000 9,971,000
NextGen--Weather Technology in the Cockpit......... 9,570,000 9,312,000 9,312,000
Reduce Environmental Impacts........................... 42,031,000 35,974,000 43,974,000
Environment and energy............................. 15,522,000 15,374,000 15,374,000
NextGen Environmental Research--Aircraft 26,509,000 20,600,000 28,600,000
Technologies, Fuels and Metrics...................
Mission Support........................................ 6,354,000 5,450,000 5,450,000
System planning and resource management............ 1,766,000 1,733,000 1,733,000
Technical laboratory facilities.................... 4,588,000 3,717,000 3,717,000
--------------------------------------------------------
Total.......................................... 190,500,000 190,000,000 198,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NextGen alternative fuels for general aviation.--The
Committee recommendation fully funds the FAA's new initiative
to research and test new unleaded fuels and piston engine
modifications to seek a safe alternative to the currently
utilized leaded aviation gasoline (avgas). The Committee
recognizes the importance of moving forward with this
initiative and includes $2,000,000 as requested in the budget.
The Committee recognizes the need for FAA to implement a
program to develop aircraft engine emissions and airworthiness
regulatory standards and policies to remove lead from the fuel
used in piston engine aircraft. This program should be
coordinated with current industry initiatives established to
transition the piston engine aircraft fleet to reduced lead or
unleaded fuel. The FAA should collaborate in this effort with
industry groups representing aviation consumers, manufacturers,
fuel producers and distributors, EPA and other relevant
agencies as appropriate. FAA should also take proper account of
aviation safety, environmental improvements, technical
feasibility and economic impact on the current and future
general aviation fleet. The Committee recognizes that this
program will have a resource impact on the FAA and expects FAA
to detail in future budgets the resources necessary to
implement this program including certification.
NextGen environmental research--aircraft technologies,
fuels and metrics.--The Committee provides $28,600,000 for the
FAA's NextGen environmental research aircraft technologies,
fuels and metrics program, which represents an $8,000,000
increase above the budget request and $2,091,000 above the
fiscal year 2010 enacted level. These additional funds will
assist the continuous, lower energy, emissions, and noise
program (CLEEN) move forward with the research and development
of alternative jet fuels as well as establish important
environmental metrics. Within the amounts provided, $6,500,000
is included to advance the development of open rotor
technologies which have the potential of increasing fuel
efficiency in aircraft by 30 percent and $1,500,000 is included
to conduct community surveys to measure the impacts of aircraft
noise on communities surrounding airports across the nation.
GRANTS-IN-AID FOR AIRPORTS
(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)
(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)
(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liquidation of
contract Limitation on
authorization obligations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010... $3,000,000,000 ($3,515,000,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.. 3,550,000,000 (3,515,000,000)
Recommended in the bill........... 3,550,000,000 (3,515,000,000)
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year 550,000,000 (- - -)
2010.........................
Budget request, fiscal year (- - -) (- - -)
2011.........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bill includes a liquidating cash appropriation of
$3,550,000,000 for grants-in-aid for airports, authorized by
the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as amended.
This funding provides for liquidation of obligations incurred
pursuant to contract authority and annual limitations on
obligations for grants-in-aid for airport planning and
development, noise compatibility and planning, the military
airport program, reliever airports, airport program
administration, and other authorized activities.
LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS
The bill includes a limitation on obligations of
$3,515,000,000 for fiscal year 2011 which is the same level as
both the budget request and the fiscal year 2010 enacted level.
ADMINISTRATION AND RESEARCH PROGRAMS
Airport administrative expenses.--Within the overall
obligation limitation, the bill includes $99,622,000 for the
administration of the airports program by the FAA. This funding
level is $586,000 below the budget request and $6,200,000 above
the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. The recommendation includes
$172,000 for two additional safety management systems positions
to enhance regional participation in safety risk management
document teams; $1,360,000 for ten positions to increase the
oversight of airport improvement program funds and to address
internal control issues raised by the DOT Office of Inspector
General; $172,000 for two additional engineering support staff
to assist with airport design issues and runway safety data
collection and analysis. The Committee recommendation also
includes $400,000, as requested in the budget, to increase the
frequency of data collected on private airports. The Committee
recognizes the importance of maintaining current data at
private airports since these airports can be used in the event
of an emergency aircraft landing. The Committee denies the
request for $586,000 for contract support to produce a video
demonstrating the benefits of NextGen on airport chokepoints.
The Committee believes this activity should be requested and
funded within the Joint Program and Development Office.
Airport cooperative research program (ACRP).--The
recommendation includes $15,000,000 which is the same level as
the budget request and the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. The
ACRP was established through Section 712 of the ``Vision 100--
Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act'' (P.L. 108-176) to
identify shared problem areas facing airports that can be
solved through applied research but are not adequately
addressed by existing Federal research programs. To date, the
ACRP has completed 15 research projects resulting in 64
publications on a variety of airport-related topics and there
are nearly 100 additional research projects either in progress
or about to commence.
Airport technology research.--The recommendation includes a
minimum of $27,217,000 for the FAA's airport technology
research program which is equal to the budget request and
$4,745,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. The funds
provided for this program are utilized to conduct research in
the areas of airport pavement; airport marking and lighting;
airport rescue and firefighting; airport planning and design;
wildlife hazard mitigation; and, visual guidance.
Runway safety areas (RSAs).--While there has been some
progress in reducing the number of runway safety incidents over
the last decade, runway safety must continue to be an area of
high priority for the FAA. The Committee notes that FAA has
initiated a number of strategies to improve runway safety
including the installation of engineered materials arresting
systems (EMAS) on 44 runway ends at 30 airports across the
nation. In addition, the agency has undertaken a comprehensive
effort to improve, where practicable, the runway safety areas
at 558 certificated airports in order to meet the legislative
mandate at the end of 2015. The Committee understands that the
FAA expects to have over 81 percent of runway safety area
improvements completed by the end of 2010 and nearly 91 percent
completed by 2012. The FAA also has started a separate program
within the facilities and equipment account to relocate or
modify the navigational aids that present hazards at the end of
runways.
Foreign object debris.--The Committee is acutely aware of
the severe safety hazard that the presence of foreign object
debris (FOD) can cause to aircraft when left undetected on
airport runways, taxiways and ramps. These FOD have the
potential of causing catastrophic damage to aircraft during
critical phases of flight. Airports utilize a variety of
methods to identify FOD including human visual means; radar
detection; and video technology and image processing data. The
Committee notes that the FAA issued an advisory circular (150/
5220-24) in September 2009 which provides important information
to airports about the requirements necessary for purchasing FOD
detection equipment with airport improvement program funds. The
Committee supports the use of AIP funds for this purpose in
order to help mitigate a serious safety threat that FOD can
pose to the traveling public.
HIGH PRIORITY PROJECTS
Of the funds covered by the obligation limitation in this
bill, the Committee directs FAA to provide not less than the
following funding levels, out of available resources, for the
following projects in the corresponding amounts. The Committee
agrees that state apportionment funds may be construed as
discretionary funds for the purposes of implementing this
provision. To the maximum extent possible, the administrator
should work to ensure that airport sponsors for these projects
first use available entitlement funds to finance the projects.
However, the FAA should not require sponsors to apply carryover
entitlement to discretionary projects funded in the coming
year, but only those entitlements applicable to the fiscal year
2010 obligation limitation. The Committee further directs that
the specific funding allocated above shall not diminish or
prejudice the application of a specific airport or geographic
region to receive other AIP discretionary grants or multiyear
letters of intent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Auburn-Lewiston Municipal Airport Phase 1 Runway 4/22 $750,000
Safety Area Improvements/Extension, ME.................
Augusta Airport Runway Reconstruction and Safety Area 500,000
Improvements, ME.......................................
Charlotte Monroe Executive Airport Ramp, Taxiway and 1,000,000
Related Improvements, NC...............................
Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport (CHO) Extension of 500,000
Runway 21, VA..........................................
Denver International Airport F7 Taxiway Construction, CO 700,000
Grand Forks Regional Airport (GFK) Passenger Terminal-- 750,000
Phase III, ND..........................................
Montrose Regional Airport Taxiway Bravo Extension, CO... 500,000
Outagamie County Regional Airport Taxiway, Apron, and 750,000
Signage Improvements, WI...............................
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport Taxiway Alpha, 1,000,000
AZ.....................................................
Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport Papa (P) and Related 1,000,000
Improvements, AZ.......................................
Sawyer County Airport Land Acquisition and Landing 1,750,000
System Improvements, WI................................
Southwest Georgia Regional Airport Apron and Various 1,000,000
Improvements, GA.......................................
Stinson Municipal Airport Taxilane Extension, TX........ 1,000,000
Virginia Highlands Airport Design and Land Acquisition, 750,000
VA.....................................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BILL LANGUAGE
Runway incursion prevention systems and devices.--
Consistent with the provisions of Public Law 106-181 and fiscal
years 2004 through 2010 Appropriations Acts, the bill allows
funds under this limitation to be used for airports to procure
and install runway incursion prevention systems and devices.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
Section 110. The Committee retains a provision limiting the
number of technical workyears at the Center for Advanced
Aviation Systems Development to 600 in fiscal year 2011.
Section 111. The Committee retains a provision prohibiting
FAA from requiring airport sponsors to provide the agency
``without cost'' building construction, maintenance, utilities
and expenses, or space in sponsor-owned buildings, except in
the case of certain specified exceptions.
Section 112. The Committee continues a provision allowing
reimbursement for fees collected and credited under 49 U.S.C.
45303.
Section 113. The Committee retains a provision allowing
reimbursement of funds for providing technical assistance to
foreign aviation authorities to be credited to the operations
account.
Section 114. The Committee retains a provision prohibiting
funds to change weight restrictions or prior permission rules
at Teterboro Airport, Teterboro, New Jersey. The Committee
understands that the authorizing committees of jurisdiction are
exploring a longer term extension of this provision. The
Committee will reevaluate the need for this provision as the
legislative process moves forward.
Section 115. The Committee retains a provision prohibiting
funds limited in this Act for the Airport Improvement Program
to be provided to an airport that refuses a request from the
Secretary of Transportation to use public space at the airport
for the purpose of conducting outreach on air passenger rights.
Section 116. The Committee retains a provision prohibiting
the FAA from paying Sunday premium pay except in those cases
where the individual actually worked on a Sunday.
Section 117. The Committee retains a provision prohibiting
FAA from using funds to purchase store gift cards or gift
certificates through a government-issued credit card.
Federal Highway Administration
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides both
financial assistance to the states to construct and improve
roads and highways, and technical assistance to other agencies
and organizations involved in road building activities. Title
23 of the United States Code and other supporting legislation
provide authority for the various activities of the FHWA.
Funding is provided by contract authority, with program levels
established by annual limitations on obligations set in
appropriations Acts.
SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2011 PROGRAM
The most recent long-term surface transportation
authorization act, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU),
expired on September 30, 2009. Since that time, Congress has
passed several short-term extension bills that have continued
to provide contract authority for the FHWA and the other
surface transportation agencies. However, the current extension
will expire on December 31, 2010. Because reauthorization
actions have not yet been completed, the Committee has
continued the fiscal year 2010 program structure for the
highway program and has assumed that the funding levels
provided for the first quarter of fiscal year 2011 will be
extended and annualized for the remainder of the year.
At the time the Committee began consideration of this bill
to fund transportation programs for fiscal year 2011, the
Administration was still developing its reauthorization
proposal for surface transportation programs. Consequently, the
President's budget that was submitted to the Committee
contained no policy recommendations for programs subject to
reauthorization. The President's budget instead provides only
baseline funding levels for all highway, transit, motor carrier
safety, and highway safety programs, including increases mostly
for only pay raises and other non-pay inflation adjustments.
For highways, the budget proposes a total program level of
$41,838,644,337. Included within this level is an obligation
limitation of $41,362,775,000, which is $255,775,000, or less
than one percent, above the fiscal year 2010 level of
$41,107,000,000. The budget also assumes $739,000,000 in
contract authority exempt from the obligation limitation and
proposes to cancel $263,130,663 from old projects funded in
prior surface transportation authorization acts.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a total program level of
$45,920,927,576 for the activities of the FHWA in fiscal year
2011. The recommendation is $4,082,283,239 above the budget
request and $3,132,098,576 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted
level. The following table summarizes the program levels within
the FHWA for fiscal year 2010 enacted, the fiscal year 2011
budget request, and the Committee's recommendation:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Recommended in
Program 2010 enacted 2011 request the bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-aid highways (limitation)............................... 41,107,000 41,362,775 45,217,700
Exempt contract authority....................................... 739,000 739,000 739,000
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................. 41,846,000 42,101,775 45,956,700
Rescission of contract authority................................ - - - -263,131 -1,863
Rescission of budget authority.................................. - - - - - - -33,909
Additional highways investment (GF)............................. 650,000 - - - - - -
Surface transportation priorities............................... 292,829 - - - - - -
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 42,788,829 41,838,644 45,920,928
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... (*$413,533,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... (420,843,000)
Recommended in the bill............................... (428,843,000)
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... (+15,310,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. (+8,000,000)
This limitation controls spending for the salaries and
expenses of the FHWA required to conduct and administer the
federal-aid highway program, highway-related research, and most
other federal highway programs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a limitation of $428,843,000 for
fiscal year 2011, which is $8,000,000 above the budget request
and $15,310,000 above the fiscal year 2010 level. The bill also
includes language to make $3,300,000 in contract authority
above this limitation available for the administrative expenses
of the Appalachian Regional Commission in accordance with
section 104 of title 23, United States Code, as requested.
Office of Inspector General (OIG) audits and
investigations.--The recommendation does not include bill
language, as has previously been provided, to direct contract
authority to the OIG to conduct audits and investigations
related to the FHWA. In an effort to provide greater
transparency, the Committee has provided these resources
directly to the OIG.
Fiscal management information system.--In House Report 110-
238, which accompanied the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2008 (Public Law 110-161), the Committee directed the FHWA to
submit a report detailing how the agency reviews unobligated
and/or unexpended project funds to determine whether or not
those remaining funds are still needed to complete the project.
The FHWA noted in its response to the Committee, which was
dated May 26, 2009, that, due to limitations of the agency's
fiscal management information system (FMIS), spreadsheets must
be developed manually in a lengthy process. The compilation is
complicated by the fact that most reports generated in FMIS are
in a format (i.e., pdf) that does not allow data inputting and
manipulation. More recently, during debate on the Federal
Aviation Administration's reauthorization bill in March 2010,
an amendment was offered that required the FHWA to produce
tables listing the highway projects that would be affected by
the amendment. The FHWA was slow to produce these tables and
the accuracy of the data was sometimes questioned, which was
extremely frustrating for Congressional staff on multiple
committees. The Committee is deeply concerned about the limited
functionality of FMIS and its ability to communicate
effectively and accurately with the Department's accounting
system. In response to inquiries made by the Committee, the
FHWA has indicated that it could cost approximately $15,000,000
and take three years to renovate and upgrade FMIS to improve
the system's capabilities. The Committee believes that these
improvements are critical to the FHWA's daily operations and
must be executed with all due haste. To that end, the Committee
provides $8,000,000 within the limitation on administrative
expenses for the FHWA to begin the process of upgrading the
capabilities of FMIS and expanding its limiting functions,
including the ability to generate reports in spreadsheet
format. However, the Committee has included bill language which
prohibits the FHWA from obligating these funds until the agency
has submitted a plan to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations which identifies the full cost of the upgrades
and a timeline for completion. Furthermore, in developing this
plan, the Committee directs the FHWA to launch an internal
strategic review of FMIS and associated FHWA systems to define
known and future grant management system requirements,
including Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act
and Recovery Act information needs; stakeholder data analysis
objectives; and expanded query, reporting, and interface
requirements. In addition, the Committee directs the FHWA, in
consultation with the Department's chief information officer,
to consult with other DOT grant-making operating
administrations to determine the feasibility of developing a
multi-modal grant management system.
LIMITATION ON TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... ($429,800,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... (429,800,000)
Recommended in the bill............................... (429,800,000)
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... (- - -)
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. (- - -)
This limitation controls spending for the transportation
research and technology contract programs of the FHWA. It
includes a number of contract programs including surface
transportation research, training and education, university
transportation research, and intelligent transportation systems
research. Funding for the Bureau of Transportation Statistics
(BTS) is also included within this limitation even though BTS
is organizationally placed within the Research and Innovative
Technology Administration (RITA). Additional information
regarding BTS is included in the RITA section of this report.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The recommendation includes an obligation limitation for
transportation research of $429,800,000 in fiscal year 2011,
equal to the budget request and the fiscal year 2010 level.
However, because reauthorization actions have not yet been
completed, the Committee has not provided a break out of the
transportation research program by activities since this
pending legislation is likely to change the structure of the
existing program. Even so, the Committee provides a limitation
on the research program as has been past practice.
FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS
(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)
(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... ($41,107,000,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. (41,362,775,000)
Recommended in the bill........................... (45,217,700,000)
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010............... (+4,110,700,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.............. (+3,854,925,000)
The federal-aid highways program is designed to aid in the
development, operations and management of an intermodal
transportation system that is economically efficient,
environmentally sound, provides the foundation for the nation
to compete in the global economy, and moves people and goods
safely.
All programs included within the federal-aid highways
program are financed from the highway trust fund and most are
distributed via apportionments and allocations to states. The
federal-aid highways program is funded by contract authority
and liquidating cash appropriations are subsequently provided
to fund outlays resulting from obligations incurred under
contract authority.
The Committee sets, through the annual appropriations
process, an overall limitation on the total contract authority
that can be obligated under the federal-aid highways program in
a given year. The Committee also provides direction and other
guidance regarding some of the programs that operate under this
overall limitation.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
As stated previously, the Committee finds itself in a
position where the most recent long-term surface transportation
authorization act, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU),
expired on September 30, 2009, and there is no clear indication
as to what the future holds for these programs. Congress has
passed several short-term extension bills in order to continue
to provide contract authority for the FHWA and the other
surface transportation agencies; however, the current extension
will expire on December 31, 2010. Because the House and Senate
authorizing committees have yet to complete their work on
legislation to extend these programs beyond the end of the
calendar year, the Committee has continued the fiscal year 2010
program structure for the highway program found in SAFETEA-LU
and has assumed that the funding levels provided for the first
quarter of fiscal year 2011 will be extended and annualized for
the remainder of the year.
The bill includes language limiting fiscal year 2011
federal-aid highways obligations to $45,217,700,000, an
increase of $4,110,700,000 from the fiscal year 2010 enacted
level and an increase of $3,854,925,000 above the budget
request. The Committee's recommendation represents a 10 percent
increase as compared to last year's funding level and supports
infrastructure investment which is critical to the economy.
This crucial investment not only creates and saves jobs of
hard-working Americans, it lays a foundation for future
economic growth by improving and fortifying our nation's
infrastructure. The increase in highway spending will build on
the success realized in the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act (ARRA) by investing in our nation's highways while helping
to build and repair the roads and bridges that serve as a vital
component to America's industry. The increased authority will
spur hiring, strengthen the nation's transportation system, and
lead to economic benefits throughout communities across the
country.
The Committee has continued bill language that allows the
Secretary to charge and collect fees from the applicant for a
direct loan, guaranteed loan, or line of credit to cover the
cost of the financial and legal analyses performed on behalf of
the Department. These fees are not subject to any obligation
limitation or the limitation on administrative expenses set for
the transportation infrastructure finance and innovation
program under section 608 of title 23, United States Code.
Federal-aid highways and bridges are managed through a
federal-state partnership. States and localities maintain
ownership and responsibility for maintenance, repair and new
construction of roads. State highway departments have the
authority to initiate federal-aid projects subject to FHWA
approval of plans, specifications, and cost estimates. The
federal government provides financial support for construction
and repair through matching grants, the terms of which vary
with the type of road. There are approximately four million
miles of public roads in the United States and about 600,000
bridges. The federal government provides grants to states to
assist in financing the construction and preservation of about
994,500 miles (24 percent) of these roads, which represents the
National Highway System plus key feeder and collector routes.
Highways eligible for federal aid carry about 85 percent of
total U.S. highway traffic.
For years, federal-aid highways funds have been made
available to the states through a mix of apportioned programs,
which are distributed using a formula provided in law, and
allocated programs, which are distributed based on criteria set
in law and allow for some discretion on the part of the
Secretary in selecting recipients. As stated previously, the
structure of the federal-aid highway program for fiscal year
2011 is unknown at this time due to the lack of authorizing
legislation. However, many of the apportioned programs that
currently exist are likely to continue and, therefore, the
descriptions of major highway programs that follow are based on
current law:
Surface transportation program (STP).--STP is a flexible
program that may be used by states and localities for projects
on any federal-aid highway, bridge projects on any public road,
transit capital projects, and intracity and intercity bus
terminals and facilities. A portion of STP funds are set aside
for transportation enhancements and state sub-allocations are
provided. The federal share for STP is generally 80 percent,
subject to the sliding scale adjustment, with a four-year
availability period.
National highway system (NHS).--The NHS program provides
funding for a designated National Highway System consisting of
roads that are of primary federal interest. The NHS consists of
the current Interstate, other rural principal arterials, urban
freeways and connecting urban principal arterials, and
facilities on the Defense Department's designated Strategic
Highway Network, and roads connecting the NHS to intermodal
facilities. Legislation designating the 161,000 mile system was
enacted in 1995 and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century (TEA-21) added to the system the highways and
connections to transportation facilities identified in the May
24, 1996, report to Congress. The federal share for the NHS
program is generally 80 percent, subject to the sliding scale
adjustment, with an availability period of four years.
Interstate maintenance (IM) program.--The IM program
finances projects to rehabilitate, restore, resurface and
reconstruct the Interstate system. Reconstruction that
increases capacity, other than HOV lanes, is not eligible for
IM funds. The federal share for the IM program is 90 percent,
subject to the sliding scale adjustment, and funds are
available for four years.
Funds provided for the IM discretionary program in fiscal
year 2011 shall be available for the following activities in
the corresponding amounts:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Augusta North Connections--Exit 113, ME................. $1,000,000
Avalon Boulevard Interchange Modification at the I-405, 1,000,000
Carson, CA.............................................
City of Moline I-74 Bridge Preconstruction and 1,000,000
Construction, IL.......................................
Harrison County I-64 Interchange, IN.................... 1,000,000
I-294 at I-57 Interchange, IL........................... 1,000,000
I-390 Interchange, NY................................... 1,250,000
I-5 North Stockton Lane Widening and Improvements 1,250,000
Project, CA............................................
I-5 Widening from I-605 North to I-710 Environmental 1,000,000
Phase, CA..............................................
I-5/Kuebler Boulevard Interchange Improvements, OR...... 1,000,000
I-64/22nd Street Interchange Reconfiguration, MO........ 1,000,000
I-71 Corridor Access, Cincinnati, OH.................... 1,000,000
I-80/Gilman Street Interchange Improvement Project, 1,000,000
Berkeley, CA...........................................
I-805/La Jolla Village Drive Interchange Project, San 1,000,000
Diego, CA..............................................
I-85 in Davidson and Rowan Counties, NC................. 1,000,000
I-94 from East Dickinson Interchange, East-Westbound 1,000,000
Lanes Reconstruction, Dickinson, ND....................
I-95 Interchange at Yamato Road and Spanish River 500,000
Boulevard Project, City of Boca Raton, FL..............
I-95 Upgrades in Robeson County, NC..................... 1,000,000
I-95/301 Interchange, SC................................ 2,000,000
Interstate 225 and Colfax Avenue Reconfiguration, 1,250,000
Aurora, CO.............................................
Interstate 79/Mt. Morris Interchange Improvements, 1,000,000
Greene County, PA......................................
North Stockton I-5 Interchanges and French Camp 1,000,000
Interchange/Arch Sperry Road Extension, Stockton, CA...
Raton South I-25 Interchange Reconstruction, Raton, 750,000
Colfax County, NM......................................
Rehabilitate I-84 Bridges over Delaware and Neversink 1,000,000
Rivers, NY.............................................
Widening of I-35, Waco, TX.............................. 2,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bridge replacement and rehabilitation program.--The bridge
program enables states to improve the condition of their
bridges through replacement, rehabilitation, and systematic
preventive maintenance. The funds are available for use on all
bridges, including those on roads functionally classified as
rural minor collectors and as local. Bridge program funds have
a four-year period of availability with a federal share for all
projects, except those on the Interstate System, of 80 percent,
subject to the sliding scale adjustment. For those bridges on
the Interstate System, the federal share is 90 percent, subject
to the sliding scale adjustment.
Congestion mitigation and air quality improvement program
(CMAQ).--The CMAQ program directs funds toward transportation
projects and programs to help meet and maintain national
ambient air quality standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, and
particulate matter. A minimum \1/2\ percent of the
apportionment is guaranteed to each state.
Highway safety improvement program (HSIP).--The new HSIP
(previously funded by a set-aside from STP) was established as
a core program beginning in 2006. The program, which features
strategic safety planning and performance, devotes additional
resources and supports innovative approaches to reducing
highway fatalities and injuries on all public roads.
Appalachian development highway system.--This program makes
funds available to construct highways and access roads under
section 201 of the Appalachian Regional Development Act of
1965.
Under current law, funding is available until expended and
is distributed among the 13 eligible states based on the latest
available cost-to-complete estimate prepared by the Appalachian
Regional Commission.
Equity bonus program.--The equity bonus (replaces TEA-21's
minimum guarantee) provides additional funds to states to
ensure that each state's total funding from apportioned
programs and for high priority projects meets certain equity
considerations. Each state is guaranteed a minimum rate of
return on its share of contributions to the highway account of
the highway trust fund, and a minimum increase relative to the
average dollar amount of apportionments under TEA-21. Certain
states maintain the share of total apportionments they each
received during TEA-21. An open-ended authorization is
provided, ensuring that there will be sufficient funds to meet
the objectives of the equity bonus.
Emergency relief (ER).--The ER program provides funds for
the repair or reconstruction of federal-aid highways and
bridges and federally-owned roads and bridges that have
suffered serious damage as the result of natural disasters or
catastrophic failures. The ER program supplements the
commitment of resources by states, their political
subdivisions, or federal agencies to help pay for unusually
heavy expenses resulting from extraordinary conditions.
In February 2007, GAO published a report (GAO-07-245) on
the FHWA's ER program that was prompted by the long-term fiscal
imbalance between the funding provided for the program and the
actual program needs. For the report, GAO evaluated the ER
program to determine: (1) the total funding, distribution of
funds among the states, and disaster events funded; (2) the
sources of funding provided and the financial challenges facing
the program; and (3) the scope of activities eligible for
funding and how the scope of eligible activities had changed
over time. As a result of the review, GAO recommended that the
FHWA should, within its authority, tighten eligibility
standards, recapture unused funds, and seek rescission of
unneeded funds. The report also noted that ER program funds are
not intended to replace other federal-aid, state, or local
funds to increase capacity, correct non-disaster-related
deficiencies, or make other improvements. Yet, despite this
fact, GAO discovered that the scope of eligible activities
funded by the ER program had expanded over the years with FHWA
waivers of eligibility criteria or changes in definitions. As a
result, some projects were funded that went beyond repairing or
restoring highways to pre-disaster conditions, which
contributed to concerns about the future financial
sustainability of the program. The Committee still has some
significant concerns about the FHWA's management and oversight
of the ER program and has specifically been troubled by recent
requests for new ER funding that have been submitted by states
5, 10, or even 20 years after the disaster occurred. Therefore,
the Committee directs GAO to conduct a follow-up review of the
ER program to determine what progress the FHWA has made in
addressing the recommendations made in the 2007 report. In
addition, the Committee directs GAO to look at claims for ER
funds made by states five or more years after a disaster
occurred to determine if such claims are being administered and
awarded in accordance with FHWA's ER processes and published
criteria and are, in fact, valid, as well as whether FHWA's
processes and criteria should be modified to prevent waste or
abuse of ER funding. GAO is also directed to collect
information it deems necessary from DOT or states in order to
provide any needed context for ER claims. This review should
cover fiscal years 2005 to 2010 and the report should be
submitted to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations
not later than September 1, 2011.
Federal lands.--This category funds improvement for forest
highways; park roads and parkways; Indian reservation roads;
and refuge roads. The federal lands highways program provides
for transportation planning, research, engineering, and
construction of highways, roads, parkways, and transit
facilities that provide access to or within public lands,
national parks, and Indian reservations.
Funds provided for the federal lands program in fiscal year
2011 shall be available for the following activities in the
corresponding amounts:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blackstone River Bikeway, RI............................ $1,000,000
BRAC-Related Improvements for Harford County, MD........ 1,500,000
BRAC-Related Improvements, Anne Arundel County, MD...... 1,500,000
BRAC-Related Improvements, Montgomery County, MD........ 500,000
Diaz Ordaz International Border Crossing, TX............ 500,000
Frederick Douglass Bridge Engineering, DC............... 500,000
Gila County Control Road Improvements, AZ............... 1,000,000
Golden Gate National Parks-Park Access, Transit and 1,000,000
Trails, CA.............................................
Great Highway Long-Term Solution Planning, CA........... 500,000
Hoover Dam Bypass Bridge-Repayment of Debt Service Owed 1,000,000
to Arizona, AZ.........................................
Low Divide and Rowdy Creek Road Improvement Project, 750,000
County of Del Norte, CA................................
Miccosukee Road Resurfacing Project, FL................. 1,100,000
New Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge Design and 2,000,000
Construction Project, DC...............................
Pedestrian Access Bridge over Dulles Airport Access and 1,000,000
Toll Road, VA..........................................
Road Improvements, Wrangell Borough, AK................. 250,000
Saddle Road Improvements, Island of Hawaii, HI.......... 750,000
SH 125: Michigan River Bridge, Jackson, CO.............. 750,000
Southern Nevada Beltway Interchanges, NV................ 1,000,000
State Route 347 Grade Separation, Maricopa, AZ.......... 1,000,000
Stones River National Battlefield Auto Tour Road 500,000
Expansion and Rehabilitation, Murfreesboro, TN.........
Swan Mountain Shared Use Pathway, Breckenridge, CO...... 750,000
Travis Air Force Base North Gate Access Improvements, CA 750,000
U.S. 199 Safety Improvements, Cave Junction, OR......... 300,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee directs that the funds allocated above are to
be derived from the FHWA's public lands highways discretionary
program and not from funds allocated to the National Park
Service's or the Fish and Wildlife Service's regions.
Ferry boats and ferry terminal facilities.--This program
provides funding for the construction of ferry boats and ferry
terminal facilities and requires that $20,000,000 from each
fiscal year be set aside for marine highway systems that are
part of the National Highway System for use by the states of
Alaska, New Jersey and Washington.
Funds provided for the ferry boats and ferry terminal
facilities program in fiscal year 2011 shall be available for
the following activities in the corresponding amounts:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Berkeley Ferry Service, CA.............................. $500,000
Commuter Ferry, MA...................................... 1,000,000
Ferry Landing in Pt. Mackenzie, AK...................... 1,000,000
Ferry Terminal Dock for Statue of Liberty/Ellis Island, 600,000
NY.....................................................
Friday Harbor Ferry Terminal Pedestrian Access and 230,000
Safety Improvements, WA................................
Golden Gate Ferry-Sausalito Ferry Facility Ramps and 500,000
Gangways, CA...........................................
Long Branch Pier and Ferry Terminal Design, Engineering, 1,000,000
and Project Management, NJ.............................
Port of Port Angeles Ferry Terminal Repairs, WA......... 1,000,000
Refurbishing, Enhancing, and Improving the Safety of the 700,000
North and South Lynchburg Ferry Landings, TX...........
Salem Wharf Pier Project, MA............................ 1,000,000
Vallejo Ferry Maintenance Facility, Vallejo, CA......... 750,000
Vessel and Terminal Sewage Pump-out Systems 1,000,000
Installation, Cape Cod, MA.............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National scenic byways program.--This program provides
funding for roads that are designated by the Secretary of
Transportation as All American Roads or National Scenic Byways.
These roads have outstanding scenic, historic, cultural,
natural, recreational, or archaeological qualities.
Transportation, community, and system preservation (TCSP)
program.--This program provides grants to states and local
governments for planning, developing, and implementing
strategies to integrate transportation, community and system
preservation plans and practices. These grants may be used to
improve the efficiency of the transportation system; reduce the
impacts of transportation on the environment; reduce the need
for costly future investments in public infrastructure; and
provide efficient access to jobs, services, and centers of
trade.
Funds provided for the TCSP program in fiscal year 2011
shall be available for the following activities in the
corresponding amounts:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2nd Avenue Bridge Reconstruction, City of Cambridge, MN. $750,000
705 Connector, Morgantown, WV........................... 450,000
7th (a) Road Project, IN................................ 650,000
Alabama 210/Ross Clark Circle Safety Lighting Project, 450,000
AL.....................................................
Ansonia Riverwalk, CT................................... 400,000
Barre Commons Road Reconstruction and Drainage 1,050,000
Improvements, MA.......................................
Bayamon Circulation Arteries, PR........................ 450,000
Berry Hill Road Connector Road Engineering and Right of 400,000
Way Acquisitions, Pittsylvania County, VA..............
Bethany Road Reconstruction and Improvements, Sycamore, 650,000
IL.....................................................
Boulder Bikes to Business Project, Boulder, CO.......... 250,000
Branford Street and Laurel Canyon Boulevard Flood 250,000
Improvements, CA.......................................
Broad/Main/Front/Hellertown Transportation Enhancements, 450,000
Phase II, Quakertown, PA...............................
Brooklyn Waterfront Transportation Study, Brooklyn, NY.. 450,000
Byberry Road and Bustleton Avenue Intersection 700,000
Improvements, Philadelphia, PA.........................
Capitol Expressway Pedestrian Improvements, CA.......... 240,000
Carbon County Covered Bridge Repair Project, PA......... 250,000
Carlton Avenue Bridge, Brooklyn, NY..................... 900,000
Chippewa Falls Downtown Reconstruction, WI.............. 730,000
Columbus Bicentennial Bikeways-West Side Improvement, 450,000
Columbus, OH...........................................
Construct Roadway and Bridges at the Intersection of 900,000
Coalfields Expressway and King Coal Highway and from
Dock Creek to Cedar Run, WV............................
Conway Village Main Street Streetscape and Pedestrian 450,000
Improvements, NH.......................................
Cooley Landing/San Francisco Bay Trail Construction, CA. 600,000
Coolidge Highway Resurfacing Project, MI................ 750,000
CSAH 12 Extension/TH 14 Interchange, MN................. 650,000
Design and Implementation of Transit Improvements at 700,000
83rd Street and Roosevelt Avenue, Jackson Heights,
Queens, NY.............................................
Downtown Tacoma Streetscapes Improvement Project, WA.... 1,000,000
E. Stadium Bridges Replacement Project, City of Ann 450,000
Arbor, MI..............................................
Eastern Gateway, MA..................................... 900,000
Edison Road Extension, CT............................... 1,000,000
Emergency Road Access and Improvement Project, PA....... 650,000
Empire Corridor West High Speed Rail Improvements, Town 270,000
of Tonawanda, Erie County, NY..........................
First Avenue Bridge Replacement, NJ..................... 360,000
Glenwood Road Pedestrian Safety Improvements, GA........ 450,000
Harbor Brook Flood Control, CT.......................... 650,000
Hays-Travis Trail System, TX............................ 650,000
Holbrook--Traffic Safety Signalization--Kings Road and 300,000
S. Franklin, MA........................................
I-75 Walking Bridge, St. Ignace, MI..................... 450,000
Improvements to U.S. Route 15, State Route 45, and St. 450,000
Mary's Street in E. Buffalo Township, PA...............
Intersection Improvements around State Center, 650,000
Baltimore, MD..........................................
Jefferson Avenue Improvements, City of Detroit, MI...... 650,000
Lake Champlain Bridge, NY............................... 400,000
Leesburg North Bypass, GA............................... 450,000
Legacy Farm Roadway and Main Street Improvements, 1,000,000
Hopkinton, MA..........................................
Locust Avenue Bridge Replacement, City of Rye, NY....... 600,000
Los Banos Bypass Segment One, Los Banos, Merced County, 400,000
CA.....................................................
Lowry Avenue Bridge Replacement Phase II, Minneapolis, 900,000
MN.....................................................
Lyons Road Improvements Section IV, Coconut Creek, FL... 650,000
Marin-Sonoma Narrows, CA................................ 450,000
MD5/MD373/Brandywine Interchange Project, Prince George, 1,400,000
MD.....................................................
Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Phase 2B, CA......... 650,000
Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail Project, CA......... 450,000
Nassau County Street and Sidewalk Improvements, NY...... 450,000
Nelson Hill Bridge Replacement, NY...................... 100,000
New York Avenue Improvement Project-32nd Street to 48th 450,000
Street, Union City, NJ.................................
Nogales Highway Railroad Bridge Overpass, AZ............ 900,000
North Main Street Reconstruction, Columbia, SC.......... 900,000
North Rhett Extension Project, SC....................... 500,000
Norwood Drive Reconstruction, PA........................ 700,000
NW 66th Avenue Reconstruction and Kempton Bridge 450,000
Replacement, Polk County, IA...........................
Ogdensburg-Prescott International Bridge Rehabilitation 700,000
Project, Ogdensburg, NY................................
Pratt Trail in Salt Lake City, UT....................... 650,000
Raleigh Outer Loop, Wake County, NC..................... 1,500,000
Rand Avenue Reconstruction, IL.......................... 600,000
Reconstruction of Congress Street Bridge, Bridgeport, CT 450,000
Rehabilitation of Beacham Street, MA.................... 550,000
Repair and Resurfacing of Critical Streets, Belle Glade, 900,000
Palm Beach County, FL..................................
Roadway Improvements-Route 70, Medford, NJ.............. 450,000
Roadway Restoration, Village of Ardsley, NY............. 500,000
Rosemead Boulevard Underpass Repair Project, Pico 450,000
Rivera, CA.............................................
Route 1 Corridor Improvements Capital Project, MD....... 650,000
Route 1/Route 123 Interchange (Phase I), VA............. 500,000
Route 29/250 Bypass Interchange Improvements, 500,000
Engineering, Design, and Construction, Albemarle
County, VA.............................................
Route 35/202 at Pine Grove Court and Stony Street, NY... 250,000
Route 6 and Silver Cross Boulevard Intersection Widening 450,000
and Roadway Improvement, New Lenox, IL.................
Route 82 Reconstruction and Widening, North Royalton, OH 650,000
Rutland Creek Path, VT.................................. 650,000
Sacramento Intermodal Transportation Facility, CA....... 500,000
Safety Improvements on South Meadow Road, Clinton, MA... 250,000
Scott Ranch Road Extension, AZ.......................... 250,000
SE Main Avenue, 20th, 21st Street Underpass and 450,000
Ancillary Improvements, City of Moorhead, MN...........
Seiberling Way Bridge Replacement, OH................... 450,000
Sellwood Bridge Replacement Project, Multnomah County, 650,000
OR.....................................................
Sharpes Ferry Bridge, FL................................ 900,000
Shot Pouch Creek Trail, SC.............................. 650,000
Sidewalk Construction in Ashland, Cherryland and Castro 200,000
Valley Communities, Alameda County, CA.................
Southeast Connector Final Design, Des Moines, IA........ 650,000
SR 510 Yelm Loop Project, WA............................ 250,000
SR 54, McDonough Road to U.S. 19/41 in Clayton County, 650,000
GA.....................................................
Stansbury Transportation Improvements, KY............... 650,000
Structural Bridge Repairs, Fort Lauderdale, FL.......... 250,000
Telegraph Road Realignment, CA.......................... 450,000
Transportation Corridor Study, Greencastle/Putnam 450,000
County, IN.............................................
U.S. 34 Akron East Chip Seal, CO........................ 1,000,000
U.S. 50/Watt Avenue Interchange Modification, CA........ 400,000
U.S. Highway 101 High Occupancy Vehicle Widening 650,000
Project, Carpinteria Creek Bridge, Carpinteria, Santa
Barbara County, CA.....................................
Unser Boulevard Extension, NM........................... 1,000,000
U.S. 401 in Cumberland, Harnett and Wake Counties, NC... 650,000
U.S. 281/FM493 Overpass, Hidalgo County, TX............. 450,000
Vesta Street Overpass, San Diego, CA.................... 450,000
Veterans Medical City Connector, FL..................... 650,000
Village of Barrington Route 14 Underpass, IL............ 550,000
Walk Winthrop and the HarborWalk, MA.................... 750,000
Warrensville/Van Aken Transit Oriented, OH.............. 450,000
Washington Boulevard Traffic Signal Modernization, 650,000
Commerce, CA...........................................
Westchase District Intermodal Transit and Pedestrian 450,000
Access Improvements, TX................................
Widening of Route 50 in Chillicothe, Ross County, OH.... 450,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delta region transportation development program.--This
program encourages multistate transportation planning and
supports the development of transportation infrastructure in
the eight states that comprise the region of the Mississippi
Delta: Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee.
Funds provided for the delta region transportation
development program in fiscal year 2011 shall be available for
the following activities in the corresponding amounts:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arkansas River Trail, AR................................ $500,000
Blytheville Overpass, AR................................ 1,000,000
Higdon Ferry Road Widening, Hot Springs, AR............. 1,000,000
Holly Springs Road Project, DeSoto County, MS........... 1,250,000
I-555 Floodway Access Road, Poinsett County, AR......... 1,500,000
Northwest Tennessee Regional Port Authority, TN......... 500,000
Old Taylor Road Roundabouts, MS......................... 500,000
Reconstruction and Widening of U.S. 627 Bridge over 750,000
Interstate 75, Madison County, KY......................
Ridge Road Extension, Pearl River County, MS............ 750,000
South Three Notch Street Improvement Project, AL........ 750,000
Washington Street Bridge Replacement, Vicksburg, MS..... 1,500,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transportation infrastructure finance and innovation
(TIFIA) program.--The TIFIA credit program provides funds to
assist in the development of surface transportation projects of
regional and national significance. The goal is to develop
major infrastructure facilities through greater non-federal and
private sector participation, building on public willingness to
dedicate future revenues or user fees in order to receive
transportation benefits earlier than would be possible under
traditional funding techniques. The TIFIA program provides
secured loans, loan guarantees, and standby lines of credit
that may be drawn upon to supplement project revenues, if
needed, during the first 10 years of project operations. As
required by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, this account
records, for this program, the subsidy costs associated with
the direct loans, loan guarantees, and lines of credit
obligated in 1992 and beyond (including modifications of direct
loans or loan guarantees that resulted from obligations or
commitments in any year), as well as administrative expenses of
this program. The subsidy amounts are estimated on a present
value basis; the administrative expenses are estimated on a
cash basis.
Federal highway research, technology and education.--
Research, technology, and education programs develop new
transportation technology that can be applied nationwide.
Activities include surface transportation research, including
intelligent transportation systems; development and deployment,
training and education; university transportation research.
Congestion pricing.--Roadway tolls that vary with the level
of congestion and time of day have the potential to reduce
traffic congestion and the demand for roads. The Government
Accountability Office (GAO) has reported that such tolls create
incentives for drivers to avoid driving alone in congested
conditions and can encourage drivers to share rides, use public
transportation, or travel at less congested times. There are
also potential challenges as higher tolls can divert traffic on
to local and other roadways less able to handle traffic and
adversely impact low-income drivers and working people with few
if any travel alternatives. Numerous studies have explored the
potential benefits and challenges of congestion pricing, but
actual results from pricing projects in the U.S. is more
limited. This may be changing. When GAO last reported on this
issue in 2003, there were nine congestion pricing projects
operating in the U.S. Yet, by early 2009 there were, according
to CBO, seventeen projects operating in ten states, and four
additional projects under construction. Many of these projects
have a substantial federal financial investment. The Committee
directs GAO to review congestion pricing road projects in the
U.S. and to report on: (1) what research has been conducted on
the benefits and results of congestion pricing road projects in
the U.S.; (2) what conclusions this research has reached; and
(3) how these congestion pricing projects have dealt with and
overcome challenges, including traffic diversion and equity
issues.
I-80 Exit at Stoney Hollow Road, PA.--The statement of
managers accompanying the fiscal year 2002 appropriations Act
includes $3,000,000 in Interstate maintenance discretionary
funding for ``I-80 Exit at Stoney Hollow Road, Pennsylvania.''
It is the intent of the Committee that these funds be made
available for ``I-80 Exits 298/299 Improvements, Monroe County,
Pennsylvania.''
Highway 53 Chetek, WI.--The statement of managers
accompanying the fiscal year 2004 appropriations Act includes
$2,000,000 in section 115 funding for ``WI Highway 53 Chetek,
Wisconsin.'' It is the intent of the Committee that these funds
be made available for ``Chetek-area Transportation System
Improvements, Chetek, Wisconsin.''
Marin Parklands/Muir Woods Visitor Access, CA.--The
statement of managers accompanying the fiscal year 2004
appropriations Act includes $1,100,000 in federal lands funding
for ``Marin Parklands/Muir Woods Visitor Access, California.''
It is the intent of the Committee that $220,000 of these funds
be made available for ``Pacific Way Bridge, County of Marin,
CA'' and $180,000 of these funds be made available for ``Signal
at Flamingo/Highway 1, County of Marin, CA.''
Feasibility Study for Routes 495/195 Interchange, Wareham,
MA.--The statement of managers accompanying the fiscal year
2004 appropriations Act includes $500,000 in section 115
funding for ``Feasibility study for Routes 495/195 Interchange,
Wareham, Massachusetts.'' It is the intent of the Committee
that these funds be made available for ``Design and
construction of improvements to Route 28 corridor adjacent to
the I-495/Route 28 interchange in Wareham, MA.''
(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)
(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................ $41,846,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011............... 42,102,000,000
Recommended in the bill........................ 45,956,700,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010............ +4,110,700,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011........... +3,854,700,000
The Committee recommends a liquidating cash appropriation
of $45,956,700,000. This is the amount required to pay the
outstanding obligations of the highway program at levels
provided in this Act and prior appropriations Acts.
(CANCELLATION OF UNOBLIGATED BALANCES)
(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $ - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... -263,130,663
Recommended in the bill............................... - - -
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. +263,130,663
The FHWA's budget for fiscal year 2011 proposes to cancel,
or rescind, a total of $263,130,663 in unobligated balances
from Congressionally designated highway projects funded in
prior surface transportation authorization Acts.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends not including the proposed
rescission. Although the Committee believes that efforts to
reduce federal spending are a worthwhile objective, the
Committee cannot support this rescission as proposed by the
Administration. First, the Administration did not conduct any
analysis to determine whether the funding was still needed by
these projects to complete their intended purpose. In addition,
all of the projects affected by the proposed rescission were
originally funded in surface transportation authorization
legislation and are, therefore, under the jurisdiction of those
House and Senate committees. The Committee fully expects the
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to address
the balances that remain with these projects in the context of
a long-term surface transportation reauthorization bill.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
(INCLUDING RESCISSIONS)
Section 120. The Committee includes a provision that
distributes obligation authority among federal-aid highways
programs.
Section 121. The Committee continues a provision that
credits funds received by the Bureau of Transportation
Statistics to the federal-aid highways account.
Section 122. The Committee continues a provision that
provides requirements for any waiver of Buy American
requirements.
Section 123. The Committee continues a provision
prohibiting tolling in Texas, with exceptions.
Section 124. The Committee includes a provision, as
requested, which reallocates $200,000,000 from other programs
to support the FHWA's livable communities program. Under the
Administration's proposal, this funding will be used for a
competitive livability grant program to assist states, local
governments, and tribal government partners in integrating
project and development planning processes within
transportation, land use, and natural resource conservation.
The Committee has for years advocated for promoting multi-modal
choices in urban and rural communities in order to create
safer, healthier communities to support American families. The
FHWA will, within its current statutory authority, work with
transportation agencies to plan, assess and implement
transportation projects that are consistent with livability
principles and investment performance objectives, which include
promoting more sustainable and more integrated land use
patterns, coordinating transportation and housing investments,
reducing public infrastructure costs per capita and conserving
natural resources. The Committee strongly supports this
initiative. Bill language is included that specifies that the
federal share payable on account of any livable communities
program project or activity shall be determined in accordance
with section 120 of title 23, United States Code, and that the
funds set aside for the program shall remain available until
expended. In addition, a provision is included that allows the
FHWA to retain up to one percent of the funds provided for
administration expenses associated with the operation of the
program.
Section 125. The Committee includes a provision that
clarifies funding for various projects which were included in
previous appropriations Acts.
Section 126. The Committee includes a provision that
clarifies funding for various projects which were included in
section 1702 of Public Law 109-59.
Section 127. The Committee includes a provision that
clarifies funding for various projects which were included in
section 1602 of Public Law 105-178.
Section 128. The Committee includes a provision that
rescinds unobligated balances associated with demonstration or
high priority projects which were funded in previous
appropriations Acts. In administering the rescission, the
Secretary of Transportation is directed to look at projects
that have been completed and where the remaining funding is no
longer needed to accomplish the original purpose designated by
Congress. The Committee also directs the Secretary to look at
those projects that are 10 years old or older with more than 90
percent of the appropriated amount remaining available for
obligation. In addition, the Secretary should also consider
closing out projects with small balances, such as less than
$2,000, in order to achieve the amount rescinded in the bill.
Section 129. The Committee includes a provision that
rescinds unobligated balances made available for highway
related safety grants in prior appropriations Acts.
Section 130. The Committee includes a provision that
permanently rescinds unobligated contract authority authorized
for administrative expenses of the FHWA that will not be
available for obligation because of the limitation on
administrative expenses imposed in this Act and prior Acts.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
In 1999, Congress passed the Motor Carrier Safety
Improvement Act establishing the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA) within the Department of Transportation
(DOT). FMCSA focuses on reducing the number and severity of
large truck and commercial bus accidents. Agency resources and
activities prevent and mitigate commercial vehicle accidents
through regulation, law enforcement, stakeholder training,
technological innovation, and improved information systems.
FMCSA works with Federal, state, and local entities, the motor
carrier industry, highway safety organizations, and the public.
Additionally, FMCSA has the responsibility to ensure that
commercial vehicles entering the U.S. meet all U.S. hazardous
material and safety regulations.
The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), reauthorized the
motor carrier safety activities of FMCSA through fiscal year
2009. As the current authorization extension expires at the end
of December 2010, the Committee recommendation is contingent on
a full year authorization.
Motor coaches carry the highest volume of passengers of all
commercial modes of transportation and have the lowest fatality
and injury rates. However, they have a disproportionate effect
on occupants of other vehicles. In 2007 of the 41,059 people
killed in motor vehicle crashes, 4,808 or 12 percent died in
crashes that involved a large truck, another 101,000 people
were injured. Only 17 percent of people killed and 22 percent
of those injured were occupants of large trucks.
MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY OPERATIONS AND PROGRAMS
(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)
(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liquidation of
contract Limitation on
authorization obligations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010... $239,828,000 ($239,828,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.. 259,878,000 (259,878,000)
Recommended in the bill........... 259,878,000 (259,878,000)
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year +20,050,000 (+20,050,000)
2010.........................
Budget request, fiscal year - - - - - -
2011.........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This limitation controls FMCSA spending for salaries,
operating expenses, and research. It is intended to provide the
necessary resources to support motor carrier safety program
activities and maintain the agency's administrative
infrastructure. The funding supports nationwide motor carrier
safety and consumer enforcement efforts, including federal
safety enforcement activities at the U.S. borders. Resources
are also provided to fund motor carrier regulatory development
and implementation, information management, research and
technology, safety education and outreach, and the safety and
consumer telephone hotline.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $259,878,000 for motor carrier
safety operations and programs, which is $20,050,000 above the
fiscal year 2010 enacted level and equal to the fiscal year
2011 budget request. As the current authorization extension
expires at the end of December 2010, the Committee
recommendation is contingent on a full year authorization.
LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS
The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of
$259,878,000 for the implementation, execution, and
administration of the motor carrier safety operations and
programs, which is $20,050,000 above the fiscal year 2010
enacted level and equal to the fiscal year 2011 budget request.
The Committee provides these funds contingent on a full year
authorization that supports this level of funding. The
Committee directs FMCSA to work with the Committees of
jurisdiction to justify the appropriate level of contract
authority for this account.
Operating expenses.--The Committee recommends $195,669,000
for FMCSA's general operating expenses, which is $12,619,000
above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and the same as the
level in the 2011 fiscal year budget request. These funds are
used to support FMCSA's core mission requirements of commercial
motor vehicle safety enforcement and compliance; hazardous
material enforcement and compliance; emergency preparedness;
and, household goods enforcement and compliance. The Committee
recognizes that as traffic dropped in the economic downturn,
safety statistics have improved significantly. As the economy
rebounds, the Committee expects FMCSA to remain vigilant in
keeping our roads safe.
Staffing justification.--The Committee directs FMCSA to
provide in its fiscal year 2012 budget request, and all future
budget requests, additional detailed staffing justifications
for each office within the Agency. The budget submitted by the
Department must include a detailed justification for the
incremental funding increases, decreases and additional FTEs
being requested above the enacted level, by program, activity,
or program element. The Committee encourages the Department to
format the discussion of these changes in a similar format to
the Department of Transportation Office of the Secretary
Salaries and Expenses justification for each of its offices.
Further, the Department is directed to include in the budget
justification funding levels for the prior year, current year,
and budget year for all offices.
Research and technology.--The Committee recommendation
includes $8,586,000 for FMCSA's research and technology
programs, which is $43,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted
level and equal to the fiscal year 2011 budget request. The
Committee continues to include bill language making the funds
for the research and technology programs available until
September 30, 2013. The Committee directs FMCSA to include in
all future budget justifications a list of each research
initiative being proposed for funding and its cost.
Information management.--The Committee recommendation
includes $41,943,000 for FMCSA's information management
program, which is $7,325,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted
level and the same as the fiscal year 2011 budget request. This
increase is provided for upgrades to FMCSA's IT systems
associated with the implementation of Comprehensive Safety
Analysis 2010 (CSA 2010).
Regulatory development.--The Committee includes $9,777,000
for FMCSA's regulatory development program, which is $49,000
above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and the same as the
level assumed in the fiscal year 2011 budget request. The
Committee is concerned that FMCSA is the only mode at the
Department of Transportation that is still working on
rulemakings required in SAFETEA-LU. The Committee directs FMCSA
to submit a list of all outstanding rulemakings and a plan
including a timeline for the Agency to complete the rulemaking
process.
Outreach and education.--The Committee recommends
$2,903,000 for FMCSA's outreach and education programs, which
is $14,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and equal
to the level in the fiscal year 2011 budget request. The
Committee notes that the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Grants
and the High Priority Grants can supplement the agency's public
awareness and outreach efforts. The Committee continues bill
language that prohibits any funds relating to outreach and
education from being transferred to another agency.
Commercial motor vehicles (CMV) operating grants.--The
Committee recommends $1,000,000 for commercial motor vehicle
operator's grants, which is the same as the fiscal year 2010
enacted level and the same as the level assumed for fiscal year
2011. The grants are designed to provide operators with
training on the safe use of commercial motor vehicles.
MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY GRANTS
(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)
(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)
(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liquidation of
contract Limitation on
authorization obligations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010... $310,070,000 ($310,070,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.. 310,070,000 (310,070,000)
Recommended in the bill........... 310,070,000 (310,070,000)
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year - - - (- - -)
2010.........................
Budget request, fiscal year - - - (- - -)
2011.........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FMCSA's motor carrier safety grants program was authorized
by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century and
continued through fiscal year 2009 by SAFETEA-LU. As the
current authorization extension expires at the end of December
2010, the Committee recommendation is contingent on a full year
authorization.
Grants are used to support compliance reviews in the
states; identify and apprehend traffic violators; conduct
roadside inspections; and, support new entrant carriers' safety
audits. Additionally, grants are provided to states for safety
enforcement at both the northern and southern borders; for
improvement of state commercial driver's license oversight
activities; and for improving the linkage between state motor
vehicle registration systems and carrier safety data.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $310,070,000 in liquidating cash
for this program. This is equal to both the fiscal year 2010
enacted level and the level in the fiscal year 2011 budget
request.
LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS
The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of
$310,070,000 for the FMCSA grant programs, which is equal to
both the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and the fiscal year
2011 budget request. As the current authorization extension
expires at the end of December 2010, the Committee
recommendation is contingent on a full year authorization.
The Committee recommends separate obligation limitations
for the following funding allocations:
Motor carrier safety assistance program............... ($215,070,000)
Commercial driver's license improvements program...... (30,000,000)
Border enforcement grants............................. (32,000,000)
Performance and registration information system (5,000,000)
management program...................................
Commercial vehicle information systems and networks (25,000,000)
deployment...........................................
Safety data improvement grants........................ (3,000,000)
New entrant audits.--The Committee directs that of the
funds made available for the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance
Grants the Secretary shall deduct $35,000,000 for audits of new
entrant motor carriers. The FMCSA requires all new entrants to
pass a safety audit within the first 18 months of operations in
order to receive permanent DOT registration.
Chameleon carriers.--The Committee is acutely aware of the
need to provide strong oversight of the Department's safety
responsibilities. A recent National Transportation Surface
Board (NTSB) investigation of the fatal 2007 bus accident in
Texas and the ongoing investigation into a fatal accident in
Arizona this past March have raised significant concerns
regarding FMCSA's implementation and enforcement of bus safety
regulations. In both cases, the vehicles in question did not
meet federal safety requirements but were able to operate under
another company's charter or simply undetected with only a
state vehicle registration. The Committee is concerned that
these operators are not exceptions, but are indicative of a
pervasive pattern of unsafe or previously de-certified
operators exploiting FMCSA's new entrant safety assurance
process to reincarnate themselves under new names. Accordingly,
the Committee directs the General Accountability Office (GAO)
to perform a study to quantify the prevalence of motor coach
operators that are reincarnations of operators with poor safety
records. In addition, the Committee instructs the Inspector
General to audit FMCSA's implementation of the new entrant
safety assurance process and its response to the NTSB's
recommendations H-09-33 through H-09-41. The Committee directs
the Inspector General to report to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations by July 1, 2011, with the results
of that review.
Irregularities in the grant programs.--The Committee
appreciates the Administrator's immediate notification of the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations about
irregularities discovered in the commercial vehicle information
systems and networks (CVISN) grant program. The Committee
believes FMCSA is taking prudent steps to address this issue.
Upon notification of these irregularities, the Committee sent a
letter instructing GAO to assist with addressing these issues.
The Committee directs GAO to examine the management of each of
the FMCSA grant programs.
MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY
(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)
(RESCISSION)
The bill rescinds $7,330,000 in unobligated balances from
amounts made available under this heading in prior
appropriations acts.
MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY PROGRAM
(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)
(RESCISSION)
The bill rescinds $15,076,000 in unobligated balances from
amounts made available under this heading in prior
appropriations acts.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION--FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
Section 135. The Committee continues a provision subjecting
the funds appropriated in this Act to the terms and conditions
of section 350 of The Department of Transportation and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act of 2002, including a requirement
that the Secretary annually submit a report to the Commitee on
Appropriations on the safety and security of transportation
into the United States of Mexico-domiciled motor carriers.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
was established as a separate organizational entity in the
Department of Transportation in March of 1970. It succeeded the
National Highway Safety Bureau, which previously had
administered traffic and highway safety functions as an
organizational unit of the Federal Highway Administration.
NHTSA's current programs are authorized in five major laws:
(1) the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (chapter
301 of title 49, United States Code (U.S.C.); (2) the Highway
Safety Act (chapter 4 of title 23, U.S.C.); (3) the Motor
Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (MVICSA) (Part C of
subtitle VI of title 49, U.S.C.); (4) the Transportation Recall
Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act; and
(5) the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU).
The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides
for the establishment and enforcement of safety standards for
vehicles and associated equipment and the conduct of supporting
research, including the acquisition of required testing
facilities and the operation of the national driver register,
which was reauthorized by the National Driver Register Act of
1982.
The Highway Safety Act provides for coordinated national
highway safety programs (section 402 of title 23, U.S.C.) to be
carried out by the states and for highway safety research,
development, and demonstration programs (section 403 of title
23, U.S.C.). The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-
690) authorized a new drunk driving prevention program (section
410 of title 23, U.S.C.) to make grants to states to implement
and enforce drunk driving prevention programs.
MVICSA provides for the establishment of low-speed
collision bumper standards, consumer information activities and
odometer regulations. Amendments to this law established the
responsibility for the administration of mandatory automotive
fuel economy standards, theft prevention standards for high
theft lines of passenger motor vehicles, and automobile content
labeling requirements. In 2000, the TREAD Act amended the
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Changes included
numerous new motor vehicle safety and information provisions,
including a requirement that manufacturers give NHTSA notice of
safety recalls or safety campaigns in foreign countries
involving motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment
that are identical or substantially similar to vehicles or
equipment in the United States; higher civil penalties for
violations of the law; a criminal penalty for violations of
reporting requirements; and a number of rulemaking directions
that include developing a dynamic rollover test for light duty
vehicles, updating the tire safety and labeling standards,
improving the safety of child restraints, and establishing a
child restraint safety rating consumer information program.
SAFETEA-LU, which was enacted on August 10, 2005, either
reauthorized or added new authorizations for the full range of
NHTSA programs for fiscal years 2005 through 2009. These
include highway safety programs (section 402 of title 23,
U.S.C.), highway safety research and development (section 403
of title 23, U.S.C.), occupant protection incentive grants
(section 405 of title 23, U.S.C.), alcohol-impaired driving
countermeasures incentive grants (section 410 of title 23,
U.S.C.), and the national driver register (chapter 303 of title
49, U.S.C.). SAFETEA-LU also enacted new initiatives, such as
the high visibility enforcement program (section 2009 of
SAFETEA-LU), motorcyclist safety grants (section 2010 of
SAFETEA-LU), and child safety and child booster seat safety
incentive grants (section 2011 of SAFETEA-LU). Finally,
SAFETEA-LU adopted a number of new motor vehicle safety and
information provisions, including rulemaking directions to
reduce vehicle rollover crashes, reduce complete and partial
ejections of vehicle occupants, and enhance passenger motor
vehicle occupant protection in side impact crashes.
SAFETEA-LU expired on September 30, 2009, and Congress has
not yet completed work on long-term reauthorization legislation
for the Nation's surface transportation programs. In the
meantime, Congress has passed several short-term extension
bills that continue the highway safety programs of NHTSA and
provide contract authority for these programs until December
31, 2010. In the absence of a long-term surface transportation
reauthorization, the Committee has generally assumed the
continuation of the program structure in current law and that
the funding levels provided for the first quarter of fiscal
year 2011 will be extended and annualized for the remainder of
the year.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee provides $891,228,000 for NHTSA to maintain
current programs and continue its mission to save lives,
prevent injuries, and reduce vehicle-related crashes.
The following table summarizes the Committee's
recommendations:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
2010 enacted 2011 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations and research......................................... $245,927,000 $250,213,000 $258,200,000
National driver register........................................ 7,350,000 6,700,000 6,700,000
Highway traffic safety grants................................... 619,500,000 620,697,000 626,328,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 872,777,000 877,610,000 891,228,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee's recommendation of $891,228,000 is
$13,618,000 above the budget request and $18,451,000 above the
fiscal year 2010 enacted level.
At the time the Committee began consideration of this bill
to fund transportation programs for fiscal year 2011, the
Administration was still developing its reauthorization
proposal for all of the various surface transportation programs
and, consequently, the President's budget submission to the
Committee contained no policy recommendations for any of the
programs subject to reauthorization. Given the absence of
specific recommendations from the Administration and the lack
of an authorization beyond December 31, 2010, the Committee has
little choice but to assume the continuation of the program
structure under current law and annualized funding levels
consistent with what has been provided by extension Acts for
the first quarter of fiscal year 2011.
At its core, NHTSA is tasked with improving the safety of
passenger travel on the nation's highway system and the agency
has played a role in the steady reduction in fatalities per
vehicle mile traveled that the nation has seen over the past
few years. In fact, NHTSA's estimates show that highway
fatalities in 2009 dropped to under 34,000, the lowest on
record since 1954. Although the Committee commends NHTSA for
this achievement, it must also caution the agency, as well as
the rest of the Department of Transportation, to remain
vigilant in order to sustain these safety gains. The last time
highway fatalities dropped below 40,000 was in 1992, which
coincides with the last time the country faced a significant
economic crisis. However, as the country's economy started to
recover in the mid- to late 1990s, Americans returned to their
vehicles and there was significant growth in vehicle miles
traveled and, unfortunately, a steady, year-by-year increase in
the number of highway fatalities. Although fatalities have
reached a record low level, the bad news is that a significant
portion of this improvement may be because Americans were
driving less during the current economic downturn. As the
economy recovers and people begin to travel again, the
Department will need to remain focused on continuing safety
improvements across our entire transportation network. The
Committee believes that the funding recommendations provided in
this bill for NHTSA are a step in that direction.
In addition, over the past several months, increasing
public attention has been paid to NHTSA's enforcement role
following several vehicle recalls due to concerns about
unintended acceleration. Similar technology-related problems in
vehicles by other manufacturers have raised concerns about
electronic vehicle controls across the entire industry and have
led to numerous Congressional hearings, including one by this
Committee. During these hearings, members have raised concerns
about whether NHTSA has the resources and the capability to
conduct in-depth investigations into new and complex systems in
vehicles and to evaluate manufacturers' claims about the
operations of their vehicles. NHTSA has addressed some of these
concerns by enlisting the aid of engineers at the National
Academy of Sciences and the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration with expertise in areas such as computer
controlled electronic systems, electromagnetic interference and
software integrity. The Committee has made a number of
recommendations in this bill, including increased funding above
the President's request, to address these and other concerns
about NHTSA's ability to ensure the safety of vehicles on the
road. The Committee believes that NHTSA's oversight of the
safety, reliability and effectiveness of electronic vehicle
controls is a critical management issue for the agency. The
Committee directs NHTSA to provide quarterly briefings to the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on the agency's
oversight and enforcement activities.
OPERATIONS AND RESEARCH
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Highway trust
(General fund) fund) Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010........................ $140,427,000 $105,500,000 $245,927,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011....................... 132,837,000 117,376,000 250,213,000
Recommended in the bill................................ 148,127,000 110,073,000 258,200,000
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010.................... +7,700,000 +4,573,000 +12,273,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011................... +15,290,000 -7,303,000 +7,987,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The operations and research appropriations support
research, demonstrations, technical assistance, and national
leadership for highway safety programs conducted by state and
local government, the private sector, universities, research
units, and various safety associations and organizations. These
programs emphasize alcohol and drug countermeasures, vehicle
occupant protection, traffic law enforcement, emergency medical
and trauma care systems, traffic records and licensing, state
and community traffic safety evaluations, motorcycle riders,
pedestrian and bicycle safety, pupil transportation, distracted
and drowsy driving, young and older driver safety programs, and
development of improved accident investigation procedures.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends new budget authority and
obligation limitations for a total program level of
$258,200,000, which is $7,987,000 above the request and
$12,273,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. Of this
total, $148,127,000 is for vehicle safety programs from the
general fund and $110,073,000 is for section 403 of title 23,
U.S.C., activities from the highway trust fund. These amounts
do not include any resources provided for the national driver
register or for grants administration as those items are
detailed later in this report. The funding shall be distributed
as follows:
Salaries and benefits................................. $78,125,000
Travel................................................ 1,028,000
Operating expenses.................................... 25,567,000
Contract programs:
Safety performance (rulemaking)................... 26,738,000
Safety assurance (enforcement).................... 19,125,000
Highway traffic safety programs................... 45,935,000
Research and analysis............................. 61,682,000
-----------------
Total............................................. $258,200,000
Highlights of, and adjustments to, the budget request by
the Committee's recommendation are described in the following
paragraphs.
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES
The Committee recommends $104,720,000 for salaries and
benefits, travel, rent, and other operating expenses of NHTSA.
Full-time equivalent staff years (FTE).--NHTSA's
administrative budget has historically not kept pace with
inflation, causing the authorized level of 635 FTE to erode to
617 FTE that could actually be funded in fiscal year 2010.
NHTSA's budget requests funding to restore the agency to the
authorized FTE level, plus an additional 15 FTE for high
priority program areas for a total requested increase of 33 FTE
above the fiscal year 2010 level. The Committee's recommended
funding level, when combined with the additional resources, and
the associated FTE, provided directly to the national driver
register and for the administration of the safety grant
programs, provides NHTSA with the resources sufficient to fund
650 FTE, as requested. The Committee directs NHTSA to give
priority consideration to the needs of the Office of Defects
Investigations and other safety focused activities when
allocating these additional resources.
SAFETY PERFORMANCE (RULEMAKING)
NHTSA's safety performance standards (rulemaking) programs
support the promulgation of federal motor vehicle safety
standards for motor vehicles and safety-related equipment;
automotive fuel economy standards required by the Energy Policy
and Conservation Act; international harmonization of vehicle
standards; and consumer information on motor vehicle safety,
including the new car assessment program. The Committee
provides $26,738,000 for these activities.
New car assessment program (NCAP).--Within the funds
provided, the Committee recommends $16,443,000 for NCAP,
$4,400,000 above the request and $6,050,000 above the fiscal
year 2010 enacted level. In fiscal year 2011, NHTSA will
complete the transitioning of the new government 5-star safety
ratings program from the current longstanding crash testing and
safety rating criteria to a program that incorporates new
tests, new rating criteria, new test dummies, advanced crash
avoidance technologies, and a new overall vehicle safety
rating. The NCAP historically relies heavily on carryover
scores--ratings that remain unchanged from year to year--to
provide consumers with safety ratings information on a
substantial portion of the vehicle fleet. Due to the program
enhancements being implemented in fiscal year 2010 on model
year 2011 vehicles, frontal and side crash ratings from the
current NCAP crash programs will not carry over from model year
2010 vehicles to model year 2011 vehicles. Consequently, the
percentage of the vehicle fleet rated will be reduced from the
anticipated model year 2010 level of approximately 86 percent
to zero at the beginning of the model year 2011 program.
NHTSA's budget request of $12,043,000 would allow the agency to
conduct more tests on model year 2012 vehicles and achieve
approximately 72 percent of vehicle fleet coverage. The
Committee instead recommends increasing the funding for NCAP by
$4,400,000 above the request, to a total funding level of
$16,443,000, to ensure that NHTSA will be able to test 80
percent of the model year 2012 vehicle fleet.
Corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards.--The
overall purpose of CAFE standards is to reduce energy
consumption by increasing the fuel economy of cars and light
trucks. The responsibility for regulating these standards rests
with NHTSA and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as
NHTSA sets fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks
sold in the U.S. and EPA calculates the average fuel economy
for each manufacturer. In order to ensure that NHTSA has
sufficient funding to continue implementing the requirements of
the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, the Committee
recommends $7,900,000 in fiscal year 2011, as requested. This
funding is to be used to: provide support for the required
rulemakings establishing fuel economy standards for passenger
cars and light trucks for model years 2017 and beyond; allow
the agency to propose fuel economy standards for commercial
medium- and heavy-duty truck fuel economy standards for the
first time; help the agency implement a rule requiring
manufacturers to label additional fuel economy information on
new vehicles; and implement a new tire efficiency rating
system, including information dissemination and a consumer
education program.
SAFETY ASSURANCE (ENFORCEMENT)
The Committee recommends $19,125,000 for safety assurance
(enforcement) programs to provide support to ensure compliance
with motor vehicle safety and automotive fuel economy
standards, investigate safety-related motor vehicle defects,
enforce federal odometer law, encourage enforcement of state
odometer law, and conduct safety recalls when warranted.
Safety defects investigation.--Within the funds provided,
the Committee recommends $10,829,000 for safety defects
investigation activities, $1,000,000 above the budget request
and the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. NHTSA's safety defects
investigation program investigates possible defect trends, and
where appropriate, seeks recalls of vehicles and vehicle
equipment that pose an unreasonable safety risk. NHTSA
maintains a data system, called ARTEMIS, to access a voluminous
amount of early warning reporting data submitted by
manufacturers pursuant to the requirements of the TREAD Act, as
well as complaints from vehicle owners, recalls and
investigations. The agency analyzes the early warning reporting
data to determine whether anomalies or trends exist that
potentially indicate the presence of a safety-related problem.
NHTSA uses this information to supplement its complaint
database and assist the agency in deciding whether to open a
defect investigation. Since 2000, NHTSA has influenced, on
average, the recall of nearly 10 million vehicles annually as
well as the recall of millions of equipment items for safety-
related defects. With the funds provided, NHTSA will be able
to: improve the quality of the screening and investigation
process; enhance recall completion rates; take steps to ensure
that manufacturers conduct recalls of defective products; and
continue to monitor recalls for adequacy of scope and remedy.
In addition, NHTSA will be able to upgrade ARTEMIS to enhance
the usability of the system by agency investigators and by the
public and expand outreach to foreign governments and
manufacturers to ensure that foreign entities are aware of the
U.S. requirements related to identifying and recalling products
with safety-related defects, including increased enforcement
actions related to defective goods to serve as a deterrent.
The Committee is concerned about the effectiveness of
NHTSA's office of defects investigations (ODI). In 2002, the
Department's Inspector General (IG) conducted a comprehensive
review of ODI's work, focusing specifically on the progress
made under the TREAD Act that required NHTSA to establish early
warning requirements for manufacturers in order to be aware of
potential defects as soon as possible, thus avoiding the
tragedies surrounding the Firestone tire recall which prompted
the passage of the TREAD Act. The IG offered recommendations at
the time of this comprehensive review regarding implementation
of the TREAD Act.
In 2004, the IG issued a follow-up report addressing the
status of the recommendations from 2002. Specifically, the IG
examined the status of ODI's effort to: (1) implement the TREAD
Act rulemakings; (2) ensure ODI had the appropriate information
system infrastructure and processes in place to promptly
identify potential defects as intended by the TREAD Act; and
(3) establish processes to ensure consistency in recommending
and opening defect investigations in order to ensure the
highest priority cases are investigated. The audit found that
most of the TREAD Act rulemakings were completed. However, the
IG report showed that the new information system--the Advanced
Retrieval (Tire, Equipment, Motor Vehicle) Information System,
or ARTEMIS--had significant cost increases and delays; did
capture manufacturer information, but only provided limited
analytical capability for early warning analysis; and noted
that while safety defect screening and investigation processes
had improved, more needed to be done. Ultimately, the report
concluded with three additional recommendations that ODI: (1)
ensure cost estimates are adequately supported; (2) move
forward in creating the advanced analytical information system
originally envisioned; and (3) establish milestones for
improving the defects screening process and training defect
analysts.
The Committee understands that the IG has initiated another
audit of ODI to follow up on the issues represented in the 2004
report. In light of the recent tragedies surrounding sudden
acceleration in Toyota vehicles, the Committee believes it is
imperative that NHTSA address any deficiencies and create an
effective system which will prevent such tragedies in the
future. Accordingly, the Committee directs the IG, as a part of
this follow-up audit, to thoroughly examine any and all
policies and processes involved in the detection of safety
defects and the actions in place to address these defects.
Specifically, the Committee agrees with the audit objectives
laid out which are to: (1) ensure ODI has the appropriate
information system to promptly identify and address potential
safety defects as intended by the TREAD Act; (2) assess NHTSA's
procedures and processes for ensuring that companies provide
timely notification of potential defects; and (3) examine the
lessons learned from the Toyota recalls to identify potential
improvements. Additionally, the Committee directs the IG, as a
part of this review, to evaluate ODI's staffing needs given the
level of defects being reported to the agency. The Committee
also expects NHTSA to establish a schedule for completing any
identified corrective actions and for the IG to monitor the
agency's progress in meeting this schedule in order to ensure
that any and all deficiencies that are discovered through the
course of this audit are addressed with all due haste.
HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAMS
NHTSA provides research, demonstrations, technical
assistance, and national leadership for highway safety programs
conducted by state and local governments, the private sector,
universities, research units, and various safety associations
and organizations. These programs emphasize alcohol and drug
countermeasures, vehicle occupant protection, traffic law
enforcement, emergency medical and trauma care systems, traffic
records and licensing, state and community evaluation,
motorcycle riders, pedestrian and bicycle safety, pupil
transportation, young and older driver safety programs, and
development of improved accident investigation procedures.
The Committee recommends $45,935,000 for these highway
safety programs in the following amounts:
Impaired driving...................................... $11,456,000
Drug impaired driving................................. 1,488,000
Safety countermeasures................................ 4,345,000
National occupant protection.......................... 10,358,000
Enforcement and justice services...................... 3,501,000
Emergency medical services............................ 2,174,000
Enhance 9-1-1 Act implementation...................... 1,250,000
NEMSIS implementation................................. 2,500,000
Driver licensing...................................... 1,016,000
Highway safety research............................... 7,747,000
International activities in behavioral traffic safety. 100,000
-----------------
Total............................................. $45,935,000
National emergency medical services information system.--
The Committee recommends $2,500,000 for the continued
implementation of the national emergency medical services
information system (NEMSIS), which is $687,000 above the
request and $1,000,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted
level. Currently, 23 states are submitting information to the
national emergency medical services (EMS) database and the
remaining states are in various stages of development toward
participating. The Committee believes that there is a pressing
need to collect more standardized data elements from every
state in the nation that can be submitted to and collected in
the database. Such information can be used to improve
prehospital injury information, promote better crash records
linkage at the state and local level, improve national EMS
education standards, and enhance EMS research. The Committee
strongly supports this initiative as it believes that one of
the ultimate goals of the NEMSIS is to reduce post-crash death
and disability by developing a better understanding of current
EMS response and performance so that scarce resources can be
best directed towards critical training, equipment, planning
and other needs that can improve patient outcomes. The
increased funds are provided to support further expansion of
the program, in particular, for improvements in the NEMSIS
technical assistance center, which provides support to state
and local EMS organizations, for enhancement of the national
EMS database, and to facilitate utilization of EMS data for
national EMS planning and priority setting purposes.
Bicycle safety.--Annually, over 500,000 Americans are
treated in emergency rooms for bicycle-related accidents, and
more than 700 people die each year as a result of bicycle-
related injuries. While much focus has been put on encouraging
bike riders to wear helmets, accidents involving bikes can
still be fatal, even if the rider was wearing a helmet. As road
congestion, environmental concerns and bike-to-work programs
encourage more bike ridership, efforts are needed to ensure
bicyclists and motorists are aware of their legal
responsibilities and safe practices for sharing roadways. The
Committee directs the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to
examine: (1) efforts that exist at the federal, state and local
levels to develop infrastructure that provides effective
mobility for both cars and bicycles, (2) the extent to which
efforts exist at the federal, state and local levels to educate
bicyclists and drivers about bicycle safety, (3) leading
practices for developing infrastructure or awareness that
promote safe bicycling.
International traffic safety practices.--Each year
approximately one million people are killed and another 50
million are injured on roads around the world. Many countries
have achieved significant improvements in road safety over the
years, but many--including the U.S.--are finding further
improvements progressively more difficult to achieve. Some
traditional safety measures such as enforcing speed limits,
reducing drunk driving, and encouraging safety-belt use are
likely to show a diminishing rate of return in countries that
have pursued them most effectively. Other countries may have
implemented traffic safety practices that could help the U.S.
further reduce traffic fatalities and injuries. The Committee
directs GAO to examine: (1) how traffic fatality rates in the
U.S. over the last 5 years differ from rates in comparable
countries, (2) traffic safety practices that are used more
extensively in selected countries with a better traffic safety
record than the U.S., (3) limitations, if any, that exist in
implementing some of these practices in the U.S., and (4)
successful practices implemented in other countries that the
U.S. Department of Transportation plans to adopt or encourage,
if any.
Ignition interlock program.--The Committee directs NHTSA to
use $400,000 of the amount provided to fund the development of
a model ignition interlock program to examine best practices
and draft guidelines to assist the states in implementing such
programs to combat impaired driving. The Committee further
directs NHTSA to work collaboratively with state motor vehicle
administrators and the transportation safety community to
develop this model program. The Committee believes that
impaired driving continues to be a grave safety concern on our
roadways and ignition interlock programs have great potential
to reduce impaired driving and save lives. A model program to
guide states on minimum standards will help establish
consistent and effective state programs across the nation.
RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS
The Committee recommends $61,682,000 for research and
analysis activities to provide motor vehicle safety research
and development in support of all NHTSA programs, including the
collection and analysis of crash data to identify safety
problems, develop alternative solutions, and assess costs,
benefits, and effectiveness. Research will continue to
concentrate on improving vehicle crashworthiness and crash
avoidance, with emphasis on increasing safety belt use,
decreasing alcohol involvement in crashes, decreasing the
number of rollover crashes, improving vehicle-to-vehicle crash
compatibility, and improved data systems.
The Committee provides the following amounts for research
and analysis:
Safety systems........................................ $8,226,000
Biomechanics.......................................... 11,000,000
Heavy vehicles........................................ 2,115,000
Crash avoidance and pneumatic tire research........... 8,104,000
Hydrogen fuel cell and alternative fuel vehicle system 1,000,000
National Center for Statistics and Analysis:
Traffic records................................... 1,650,000
Fatality analysis reporting system................ 8,725,000
National automotive sampling system............... 14,406,000
Data analysis program............................. 2,166,000
State data systems................................ 2,490,000
Special crash investigations...................... 1,800,000
-----------------
Total............................................. $61,682,000
Fatality analysis reporting system.--The fatality analysis
reporting system (FARS) is the sole source for standardized,
state-documented, information on police-reported traffic
crashes in which at least one fatality occurred. The FARS
system relies on individual cooperative agreements between
NHTSA and state offices to utilize their staff, police accident
reports, and data infrastructure (e.g. driver records, death
certificates, etc.) efforts to collect fatal highway crash data
in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and
the Virgin Islands. The Committee continues to believe that
good crash data about the human victim, the environment in
which events occur, and the vehicle are necessary to
identifying possible interventions that might be effective for
improving motor vehicle safety. Therefore, the Committee
recommends $8,725,000, as requested, to support NHTSA's policy
development, priority setting, and evaluation of the agency's
traffic and highway safety countermeasures that are implemented
to reduce the number of fatalities and injuries on U.S.
highways.
National automotive sampling system.--The Committee notes
that NHTSA's vehicle collision database has notably contracted
over time. The national automotive sampling system (NASS) was
established in 1979 to further NHTSA's mission of reducing
motor vehicle crashes, injuries, and deaths on U.S. highways by
collecting motor vehicle crash and injury causation data. NASS
consists of the crashworthiness data system (CDS) and the
general estimates system (GES). When implemented, the CDS was
designed to collect detailed data on 15,000 to 20,000
collisions annually in the United States.
The Committee is concerned that, at present, NASS/CDS
collects collision data for approximately 5,000 collisions
annually and garners a limited set of data from each crash. The
Committee believes that NASS/CDS is a fundamental underpinning
of the agency's activities relative to the identification of
emerging safety risks, the setting of priorities for
rulemaking, the evaluation of ways to improve vehicle
crashworthiness, and the assessment of the success and
potential benefit of advanced safety technologies. The
Committee supports the restoration and enhancement of NASS/CDS
in order to ensure that the agency has a robust database upon
which to base its efforts.
The Committee, therefore, recommends $14,406,000 for NASS/
CDS in fiscal year 2011, $1,500,000 above the request and
$1,876,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level, to allow
the agency to investigate additional motor vehicle crashes and
to expand the scope of data collection so that additional crash
causation data elements can be captured.
In addition, the Committee directs NHTSA to submit a report
to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, by not
later than August 1, 2011, that evaluates the deficiencies of
the NASS/CDS data collection program based on current levels of
case investigations and analyzes the improvements in the
program that could be achieved through increased levels of case
investigation and data collection. The report should make
recommendations regarding the types of data collection that are
needed to improve NHTSA's ability to develop safety
countermeasures, the level of NASS/CDS case investigations that
are needed to obtain a sufficiently robust database to identify
emerging crash and occupant injury trends, as well as the types
of crashes that should be analyzed and methods that can be used
to enhance NASS/CDS data collection.
OPERATIONS AND RESEARCH
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $140,427,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... 132,837,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 148,127,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... +7,700,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. +15,290,000
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a total of $148,127,000 for
operations and research funding as an appropriation from the
general fund. Of this amount, $10,000,000 is available until
September 30, 2012, to be used by the Administrator for
programs under this account.
OPERATIONS AND RESEARCH
(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)
(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)
(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liquidation of
contract Limitation on
authorization obligations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010... $105,500,000 ($105,500,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.. 117,376,000 (117,376,000)
Recommended in the bill........... 110,073,000 (110,073,000)
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year +4,573,000 (+4,573,000)
2010.........................
Budget request, fiscal year -7,303,000 (-7,303,000)
2011.........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation for liquidation
of contract authorization of $110,073,000 for payment on
obligations incurred in carrying out the provisions of the
operations and research program.
The Committee recommends limiting obligations from the
highway trust fund to $110,073,000 for authorized activities
associated with operations and research. Of this limitation,
$10,000,000 is available until September 30, 2012, to be used
by the Administrator for programs under this account.
NATIONAL DRIVER REGISTER
(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)
(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)
(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liquidation of
contract Limitation on
authorization obligations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010......... $4,000,000 ($4,000,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2011........ 4,170,000 (4,170,000)
Recommended in the bill................. 4,170,000 (4,170,000)
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010..... +170,000 (+170,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.... - - - - - -
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This account provides funding to implement and operate the
national driver register's problem driver pointer system and
improve traffic safety by assisting state motor vehicle
administrators in communicating effectively and efficiently
with other states to identify drivers whose licenses have been
suspended or revoked for serious traffic offenses such as
driving under the influence of alcohol or other drugs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a liquidation cash appropriation
of $4,170,000 from the highway trust fund to pay obligations
incurred in carrying out the national driver register program.
The Committee also recommends limiting obligations from the
highway trust fund to $4,170,000 for operations and research
activities associated with the national driver register, of
which $2,531,000 is for program activities and $1,639,000 is
for salaries and benefits, as requested in the budget.
NATIONAL DRIVER REGISTER MODERNIZATION
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $3,350,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... 2,530,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 2,530,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... -820,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. - - -
The President's budget requests funding to continue the
modernization of national driver register. The national driver
register provides a critical service to states in the process
of determining whether to issue a driver license to applicants,
as there is no other national database that provides this
information as the result of a single inquiry. The
modernization of the national driver register was necessary
since the national driver register has been functioning on a
legacy mainframe computer since 1990 using an outdated computer
language while use of the national driver register has been
increasing significantly. In calendar year 2009, the national
driver register processed 95 million inquiries compared to
about 48 million in 2003. Consequently, the national driver
register has experienced several disruptions in service as
state usage exceeded the system's processing capacity. NHTSA
expects use by states to continue increasing, exceeding 110
million inquiries in 2011, as states complete implementing the
requirements of the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act and
implement the requirements of the Real ID Act. To address the
increased system use, in 2008 NHTSA initiated a project to
modernize the NDR to utilize up-to-date hardware, database
structures and programming languages. The funding requested for
fiscal year 2011 will allow NHTSA to: complete development and
testing of the modernized national driver register software and
hardware; bring the modernized national driver register into
full production operation; and operate the national driver
register's legacy mainframe system parallel with the new system
for a minimum of six months to ensure the modernized national
driver register system exceeds the performance levels of the
legacy system.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $2,530,000 to continue the
modernization of the national driver register, which is equal
to the budget request and $820,000 below the fiscal year 2010
enacted level.
HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANTS
(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)
(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)
(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liquidation of
contract Limitation on
authorization obligations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010... $619,500,000 ($619,500,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.. 620,697,000 (620,697,000)
Recommended in the bill........... 626,328,000 (626,328,000)
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year +6,828,000 (+6,828,000)
2010.........................
Budget request, fiscal year +5,631,000 (+5,631,000)
2011.........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funds are provided for currently authorized state grant
programs: highway safety programs, occupant protection
incentive grants, alcohol impaired driving countermeasures
incentive grants, safety belt performance grants, state traffic
safety information systems improvement grants, high visibility
enforcement program, child safety and child booster seat safety
incentive grants, and motorcyclist safety grants. These highway
safety grant programs provide resources to support data-driven,
state highway safety programs focusing on the states' most
pressing highway safety problems and are a critical asset in
meeting the goal of reducing fatalities and injuries.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $626,328,000 in liquidating cash
from the highway trust fund to pay the outstanding obligations
of the various highway safety grant programs at the levels
provided in this Act and prior appropriations Acts.
The Committee also recommends limiting obligations from the
highway trust fund to be incurred in fiscal year 2011 under the
various highway traffic safety grants programs to $626,328,000,
which is $5,631,000 above the budget request and $6,828,000
above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level.
Because reauthorization actions have not yet been
completed, the Committee has assumed that the funding levels
provided for the first quarter of fiscal year 2011 will be
extended and annualized for the remainder of the year and,
therefore, recommends the following funding allocations:
Highway safety programs............................... ($235,000,000)
Occupant protection incentive grants.................. (25,000,000)
Safety belt performance grants........................ (124,500,000)
State traffic safety information systems improvements. (34,500,000)
Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures incentive (139,000,000)
grants...............................................
High visibility enforcement program................... (29,000,000)
Motorcyclist safety................................... (7,000,000)
Child safety and child booster seat safety incentive (7,000,000)
grants...............................................
Grant administration.................................. (25,328,000)
-----------------
Total............................................. ($626,328,000)
Bill language.--The bill maintains language that prohibits
the use of funds for construction, rehabilitation, and
remodeling costs or for office furnishings or fixtures for
state, local, or private buildings or structures. Language is
also continued that limits the amount available for technical
assistance to $500,000 under section 410 of title 23, U.S.C.
The Committee continues bill language limiting the amount that
can be used to conduct the evaluation of the high visibility
enforcement program to $750,000 in fiscal year 2011.
As stated previously, the current structure of the highway
safety grant programs has been extended until the end of the
first quarter of fiscal year 2011 and, therefore, the
descriptions of the major grant programs that follow are based
on current law:
Highway safety grants.--The state and community highway
safety formula grant program under section 402 of title 23,
U.S.C., supports state highway safety programs designed to
reduce traffic crashes and resulting deaths, injuries, and
property damage. A state may use these grants only for highway
safety purposes and at least 40 percent of these funds are to
be expended by political subdivisions of the state.
Occupant protection incentive grants.--Section 405(a) of
chapter 4 of title 23, U.S.C., encourages states to adopt and
implement effective programs to reduce deaths and injuries from
riding unrestrained or improperly restrained in motor vehicles.
A state may use these grant funds only to implement and enforce
occupant protection programs.
Safety belt performance grants.--Section 406 of title 23,
U.S.C., provides incentive grants to encourage the enactment
and enforcement of laws requiring the use of safety belts in
passenger motor vehicles. To date, a total of fourteen states
have passed primary seat belt laws in response to this
incentive program. A state may use these grant funds for any
safety purpose under title 23, U.S.C., or for any project that
corrects or improves a hazardous roadway location or feature or
proactively addresses highway safety problems. However, at
least $1,000,000 of amounts received by states must be
obligated for behavioral highway safety activities.
State traffic safety information systems improvements.--
Section 408 of title 23, U.S.C., provides incentive grants to
encourage states to adopt and implement effective programs to
improve the timeliness, accuracy, completeness, uniformity,
integration, and accessibility of state data that is needed to
identify priorities for national, state, and local highway and
traffic safety programs; to evaluate the effectiveness of
efforts to make such improvements; to link these state data
systems, including traffic records, with other data systems
within the state; and to improve the compatibility of the state
data system with national data systems and data systems of
other states to enhance the ability to observe and analyze
national trends in crash occurrences, rates, outcomes, and
circumstances. A state may use these grant funds only to
implement such data improvement programs.
Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures incentive
grants.--The alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures incentive
grant program authorized by section 410 of title 23, U.S.C.,
encourages states to adopt and implement effective programs to
reduce traffic safety problems resulting from individuals
driving while under the influence of alcohol. A state may use
these grant funds to implement the impaired driving activities
described in the programmatic criteria, as well as costs for
high visibility enforcement; the costs of training and
equipment for law enforcement; the costs of advertising and
educational campaigns that publicize checkpoints, increase law
enforcement efforts and target impaired drivers under 34 years
of age; the costs of a state impaired operator information
system; and the costs of vehicle or license plate impoundment.
High visibility enforcement program.--Section 2009 of
SAFETEA-LU directs NHTSA to administer at least two high-
visibility traffic safety law enforcement campaigns each year
to achieve one or both of the following objectives: (1) reduce
alcohol-impaired or drug-impaired operation of motor vehicles
and/or (2) increase the use of safety belts by occupants of
motor vehicles. These funds may be used to pay for the
development, production, and use of broadcast and print media
in carrying out traffic safety law enforcement campaigns. The
Committee continues to believe that the high visibility
enforcement program has been effective in encouraging seat belt
use and in discouraging impaired driving. The Committee directs
NHTSA to continue to provide updates to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations on the agency's paid media
strategy and its implementation.
Motorcyclist safety.--Section 2010 of SAFETEA-LU authorizes
a program of incentive grants to encourage states to adopt and
implement effective programs to reduce the number of single and
multivehicle crashes involving motorcyclists. A state may use
these grants funds only for motorcyclist safety training and
motorcyclist awareness programs, including improvement of
training curricula, delivery of training, recruitment or
retention of motorcyclist safety instructors, and public
awareness and outreach programs.
Although motor vehicle traffic fatalities for all other
motor vehicles have decreased in recent years, motorcyclist
fatalities have steadily increased. From 1997 to 2006,
motorcyclist fatalities more than doubled, from 2,116 in 1997
to 4,810 in 2006. This translates into an increase in the rate
of fatalities from 55.3 fatalities per 100,000 motorcycle
registrations in 1997 to 71.94 fatalities per 100,000
registrations in 2006. Since 2006, motorcycle fatalities have
continued to increase, with 5,174 fatalities in 2007 and 5,290
fatalities in 2008. The Committee directs GAO to evaluate: (1)
factors that have led to the increase in motorcyclist
fatalities; (2) actions NHTSA and states have taken to address
the increase in motorcyclist fatalities; (3) the extent to
which states' use of SAFETEA-LU's motorcyclist safety grants
affected motorcyclist safety; and (4) challenges faced by NHTSA
and states in attempting to improve motorcyclist safety.
Child safety and child booster seat safety incentive
grants.--Section 2011 of SAFETEA-LU authorizes an incentive
grant program to make grants available to states that are
enforcing a law requiring any child riding in a passenger
vehicle who is too large to be secured in a child safety seat
to be secured in a child restraint that meets the requirements
prescribed under section 3 of Anton's Law (49 U.S.C. Sec. 30127
note; 116 Stat. 2772). These grants may be used only for child
safety seat and child restraint programs.
NHTSA issued a report in 2006 regarding the misuse of the
Lower Anchors and Tethers for Children, or LATCH system, which
documented that only 35 percent of parents or other caregivers
install LATCH-equipped child restraints properly. The LATCH
system was developed because installation of child restraints
using vehicle seat belt was confusing and posed numerous
practical difficulties leading to high rates of child restraint
misinstallation. LATCH was intended to increase the rate of
proper installation by providing a uniform, dedicated and
simple means of restraint installation that is clearly marked,
easy to use and employs the same method of attachment for
nearly all child restraints. The fact that the LATCH system is
not more effective is cause for great concern.
The Committee directs NHTSA to report to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations, not later than June 1,
2011, on the progress that has been made, since the Child
Restraint Use Survey--LATCH Use and Misuse report was issued,
on improving LATCH systems and increasing the rate of proper
LATCH system installation. The report should include
information on the effectiveness of the agency educational
message to improve child restraint systems, a discussion of
technical improvements that can be made to make the LATCH
system easier to recognize and use, and a follow-up survey to
gauge current rates of LATCH system use and misuse.
Grant administrative expenses.--Section 2001(a)(11) of
SAFETEA-LU provides funding for salaries and operating expenses
related to the administration of the grants programs.
Distracted driving prevention.--Driver distraction is a
significant safety problem and the Committee commends the
Department on its efforts to address this growing epidemic. As
reported by NHTSA, an estimated 6,000 deaths and half-a-million
injuries were attributed to distracted driving in 2008 alone.
With approximately 600 million passenger cars on the road today
and 4.6 billion cell phone subscriptions worldwide, it is easy
to see why the frequency of distracted driving is on the rise
but the Committee is encouraged by the progress that has been
made by the Department in this area. According to the
Department, last year more than 200 distracted driving bills
were under consideration by state legislatures, and the pace
has increased this year. In early June, Georgia became the 28th
state to pass a texting ban, meaning the country is past the
halfway mark toward a nationwide prohibition of texting while
driving. The Department has also launched pilot programs in New
York and Connecticut as part of a Phone in One Hand, Ticket in
the Other campaign to study whether increased enforcement and
public awareness can reduce distracted driving behavior. In
order to continue building upon these efforts, the Committee
approves the Administration's request to reallocate $50,000,000
in fiscal year 2011 from the seat belt performance grants
program to fund a new distracted driving grant program for
states that enact and enforce laws to prevent distracted
driving with a focus on texting bans. Although fourteen states
have yet to qualify for funding under the seat belt incentive
grants program, it is unlikely that many will do so in fiscal
year 2011. Therefore, the Committee supports re-designating
these funds for a purpose that will encourage states to change
driver behavior with the goal of reducing highway injuries and
fatalities. The Committee has also included bill language to
set aside $5,000,000 of the $50,000,000 for the development,
production, and use of broadcast and print media advertising to
support enforcement of state laws to prevent distracted driving
which is focused on reaching those segments of the population
most likely to engage in distracted driving behavior.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY
ADMINISTRATION
(INCLUDING RESCISSION)
Section 140. The Committee continues a provision that
provides funding for travel and related expenses for state
management reviews and highway safety core competency
development training.
Section 141. The Committee continues a provision that
exempts obligation authority that was made available in
previous public laws for multiple years from limitations on
obligations for the current year.
Section 142. The Committee includes a provision that
rescinds unobligated contract authority authorized from the
highway trust fund for NHTSA's highway safety grant programs
that will not be available for obligation because of
limitations on obligations imposed on those funds in this Act
or previous appropriations Acts.
Federal Railroad Administration
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) was established
by the Department of Transportation Act, on October 15, 1966.
The FRA plans, develops, and administers programs and
regulations to promote the safe operation of freight and
passenger rail transportation in the United States. The U.S.
railroad system consists of over 550 railroads with over
187,000 freight employees, 171,000 miles of track, and 1.35
million freight cars. With the passage of the Passenger Rail
Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 and the American
Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009, the FRA became
responsible for developing, administering, and overseeing a
multi-year, multi-billion dollar discretionary passenger rail
grant program. In addition, the FRA continues to oversee grants
to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) with
the goal of assisting Amtrak with improvements to its passenger
service and physical plant.
SAFETY AND OPERATIONS
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $172,270,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... 153,348,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 203,348,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... +31,078,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. +50,000,000
The safety and operations account provides funding for
FRA's safety program activities related to passenger and
freight railroads. Funding also supports salaries and expenses
and other operating costs related to FRA staff and programs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $203,348,000 for safety and
operations, which is $31,078,000 above the fiscal year 2010
enacted level and $50,000,000 above the fiscal year 2011 budget
request. The Committee denies the Administration's proposal to
separate the operations and safety accounts and uses the
existing funding structure. In addition, the Committee rejects
the proposal to establish a rail safety user fee collected from
railroads to offset salary costs associated with rail safety
inspectors. Of the amount provided under this heading,
$5,492,000 is available until expended.
New FRA staff.--The Committee recognizes that the
responsibilities of the FRA have grown exponentially in recent
years with the enactment of the Rail Safety and Improvement Act
(RSIA), the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act
(PRIIA) and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).
Therefore, the Committee approves FRA's request for 62
additional positions and 31 full time equivalents in fiscal
year 2011. The Committee advises FRA that the Committee views
this increase as an investment in FRA and consequently will
expect FRA to perform at an even higher level of proficiency.
Safety monitoring and oversight.--The Committee considers
safety oversight and monitoring to be a critical component of
FRA's responsibilities. As freight traffic dropped during the
economic downturn, safety and on time performance has
increased. As the economy rebounds, the Committee expects FRA
to remain vigilant in keeping the railway safe. In addition,
the Committee reminds FRA that its core safety mission will be
critical to the development of a national high speed rail
network.
RAILROAD RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $37,613,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... 40,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 40,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... +2,387,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. - - -
The railroad research and development program provides
science and technology support for FRA's policy and regulatory
efforts. The program's objectives are to reduce the frequency
and severity of railroad accidents through scientific
advancement, and to support technological innovations in
conventional and high speed railroads.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $40,000,000
for railroad research and development, which is $2,387,000
above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and the same as the
fiscal year 2011 budget request. Within the funds provided, the
Committee includes $500,000 for the Northern Lights Express
Intercity Passenger Rail Study, MN. The Committee's
recommendation includes the following allocation for FRA's
Railroad Research and Development account:
Railroad system issues................................ $3,835,000
Human factors......................................... 3,495,000
Rolling stock and components.......................... 3,000,000
Track and structures.................................. 5,450,000
Track and train interaction........................... 3,800,000
Train control......................................... 8,270,000
Grade crossings....................................... 2,200,000
Hazmat transportation................................. 1,550,000
Train occupant protection............................. 4,700,000
R&D facilities and test equipment..................... 2,700,000
Rail cooperative research program..................... 500,000
Highway crossing hazard elimination on designated high
speed rail corridors.--The Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy For Users
(SAFETEA-LU) authorized the railway-highway crossing hazard
elimination in high speed rail corridors program through 2009.
Although the current authorization extension expires at the end
of December 2010, the Committee recommendation assumes the
annualized authorization level of the current extension. Within
this account, the Committee directs funding to be allocated to
the following projects:
Empire Corridor West High Speed Rail Improvements, $360,000
Cayuga County, NY....................................
Improvement to Safety Devices at Highway/Railway Grade 750,000
Crossings, WI........................................
Traffic Separation Studies in Durham and Wake County, 500,000
NC...................................................
Empire Corridor West High Speed Rail Improvements, 625,000
Oneida County, NY....................................
RAILROAD SAFETY TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $50,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... - - -
Recommended in the bill............................... 75,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... +25,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. +75,000,000
The railroad safety technology program is authorized under
the Rail Safety Improvement Act to provide grants to passenger,
commuter and freight rail carriers, railroad suppliers, and
State and local governments for projects that have a public
benefit of improved railroad safety and efficiency. Such
projects may include the deployment of train control
technologies, train control component technologies, processor-
based technologies, electronically controlled pneumatic brakes,
rail integrity inspection systems, rail integrity warning
systems, switch position indicators and monitors, remote
control power switch technologies, track integrity circuit
technologies, and other new technologies to improve the safety
of railroad systems. Priority must be given to projects that
make technologies interoperable between railroad systems;
accelerate the deployment of train control technology on high-
risk corridors, such as those that have high volumes of
hazardous materials shipments, or over which commuter or
passenger trains operate; or benefit both passenger and freight
safety and efficiency.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $75,000,000,
for the railroad safety technology program, which is
$25,000,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and
$75,000,000 above the fiscal year 2011 budget request.
The Committee believes the rail safety technology program
is critical to developing methods to minimize conflict and
ensure the safety of all rail users. In addition, the Committee
believes this program will assist with meeting the Rail Safety
Improvement Act (RSIA) mandate, requiring installation of
positive train control (PTC) on all lines that jointly operate
passenger and freight traffic by December 15, 2015. The FRA
published its final rule on PTC in January 2010 and estimated
that it will cost at least $5.5 billion for initial system
acquisition and approximately $820 million annually for
maintenance. The Committee directs FRA to provide these funds
to grantees struggling with these costs. In particular, the
Committee recognizes the cost and complexity that positive
train control presents for commuter rail operations. Overall,
however, the Committee believes that positive train control
offers a significant safety benefit for passengers travelling
on commuter rail operations.
The bill includes language that would allow applicants to
be eligible for funding provided under the rail safety
technology program even if they have not yet completed all of
the planning documents required under RSIA. However, in order
to qualify for a grant under this program, all applicants must
demonstrate that they are currently developing the required
plans and the Committee directs the FRA to provide priority
consideration to those entities that have completed all of
their reporting requirements.
RAILROAD REHABILITATION AND IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century of 1998
established the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement
Financing (RRIF) loan and loan guarantee program. SAFETEA-LU
amended the program to allow direct loan and loan guarantees up
to $35,000,000,000 and required that not less than
$7,000,000,000 shall be reserved for projects primarily
benefiting freight railroads other than class I carriers. The
funding may be used: (1) to acquire, improve, or rehabilitate
intermodal or rail equipment or facilities, including track,
components of track, bridges, yards, buildings, or shops; (2)
to refinance existing debt; or (3) to develop and establish new
intermodal or railroad facilities.
No Federal appropriation is required, since a non-Federal
infrastructure partner may contribute the subsidy amount
required by the Credit Reform Act of 1990 in the form of a
credit risk premium. Once received, statutorily established
investigation charges are immediately available for appraisals
and necessary determinations and findings.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
As in prior years the Committee continues bill language
specifying that no new direct loans or loan guarantee
commitments may be made using federal funds for the payment of
any credit premium amount during fiscal year 2011.
CAPITAL ASSISTANCE FOR HIGH SPEED CORRIDORS AND INTERCITY PASSENGER
RAIL SERVICE
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $2,500,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... 1,000,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 1,400,000,000
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... -1,100,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. +400,000,000
The Capital Assistance for High Speed Corridors and
Intercity Passenger Rail Service program was first funded in
ARRA. The program provides grants investing in passenger rail
infrastructure grants for intercity passenger rail, grants for
high-speed passenger rail and grants to reduce congestion or
facilitate ridership growth along passenger rail corridors.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $1,400,000,000 for the passenger
rail grant program. The Committee's recommendation is
$1,100,000,000 below the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and
$400,000,000 above the level proposed in the fiscal year 2011
budget. The Committee provides a 40 percent increase over the
budget request, which demonstrates the Committee's continued
commitment to the high speed rail program and creating a high
speed rail network in the United States. The Committee is
extremely interested in the investments made thus far in this
program and directs FRA to continue to provide monthly updates
to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on the
progress of the selected grantees. These updates should include
the status of each project, an update on the obligation and
outlay of any high speed rail funds and an overview of any
critical issues experienced in the program over the last month.
FRA administration set aside.--The Committee recommends
$50,000,000 for the FRA Administrator to administer and provide
any necessary oversight activities for the passenger rail grant
program. The Committee appreciates FRA's efforts to build the
high speed rail program over the last year and recognizes the
difficult balance between obligating funds promptly and
ensuring grants will be used effectively and efficiently.
Consequently, the Committee believes this program must be a
critical area of management focus at DOT. The Committee
considers the investments made by this program to be critical
to the nation's infrastructure and essential to providing a
transportation alternative for the congested highways and air
space between city pairs around the country. Therefore, the
Committee is adamant about the immense need for comprehensive
oversight of this program. The Committee expects the Department
to have thorough grant management processes in place for this
program including key implementation milestones and related
oversight cost estimates. Therefore, the Committee directs FRA
to submit a report on the oversight and grants management
process of the high speed rail program to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations by March 29, 2011.
Passenger rail grant program research.--The Committee
recommends $30,000,000 of the funds under this heading for
passenger rail research, including implementation of the Rail
Cooperative Research Program authorized by 49 U.S.C. 24910. The
Committee has included bill language directing FRA to conduct
research that is anticipated to result in next-generation
rolling stock fleet technology.
Regulations.--The Committee continues language allowing FRA
to use interim guidance for the program. However, the Committee
directs the Department to finalize pending passenger rail
regulations by the end of fiscal year 2011.
Planning.--The Committee believes that sound planning is
critical to the success of passenger rail in the U.S. The
Committee recommends $50,000,000 for planning activities for
the passenger rail grant program. The Committee continues
language allowing a portion of the planning funds to be set
aside for multi-state planning efforts, which are critical to
creating interstate rail corridors.
Social justice.--The Committee is aware that in certain
communities across the nation, highways were built along paths
that divided poor or minority communities and that such
routings required the relocation of families and resulted in
significant impacts to neighborhoods and communities. The
Committee is also aware that planners may seek to utilize
existing transportation corridors in proposing new
transportation projects, including high-speed rail. There is
significant concern about the impact that any new project built
in an existing transportation corridor will have on the
surrounding communities. This is balanced by a concern in
connection with creating entirely new transportation corridors
impacting additional communities. The Committee therefore
expects the environmental reviews conducted by the Department
of Transportation in connection with implementing new
transportation projects, including high-speed rail projects, to
consider the effects of using existing or new transportation
corridors, as appropriate, and to identify appropriate
mitigation measures and comply with Executive Order 12898,
Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations.
GRANTS TO THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION
(AMTRAK)
In the late 1960s private railroad companies, which
provided both freight and passenger service were operating
close to bankruptcy. By 1970, passenger service had eroded to
the point that Congress passed the Rail Passenger Service Act
(RPSA) creating the National Railroad Passenger Corporation
(Amtrak), a for profit corporation, to take over and preserve
passenger rail service in the United States. RPSA relieved
private railroads of their common carrier obligation, a
responsibility retained from English common law, in exchange
for a payment in cash, equipment, or a promise of future
service. On May 1, 1971, Amtrak began operations as a national
passenger railroad.
Today, Amtrak operates trains over 20,000 miles of track
owned by freight railroad carriers, and over about 654 miles of
its own track, most of which is on the Northeast Corridor (NEC)
from Washington, DC to Boston. Amtrak operates both electrified
trains, where speeds of up to 150 mph on the Northeast Corridor
are possible on the highest quality track, and diesel
locomotives, which can currently achieve speeds between 74-110
miles per hour.
Congressional budget justification.--The Committee
appreciates the level of detail in the fiscal year 2011 budget
justifications and directs Amtrak to continue to submit
justifications with a similar level of detail in all future
budget years.
Five-year plan.--The Committee was pleased to receive
Amtrak's five-year plan. The Committee strongly believes in the
importance of long term planning and believes this plan is the
first step in a larger process of improving Amtrak operations.
OPERATING GRANTS TO THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $563,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... 563,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 563,000,000
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. - - -
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $563,000,000 for operating grants
for Amtrak, which is the same as the fiscal year 2010 enacted
level and the level assumed in the fiscal year 2011 budget
request.
The Committee has included bill language allowing the
Secretary to retain up to one-half of one percent for the use
of the FRA for the implementation of the Amtrak Operating
Grants as authorized by section 103 of PRIIA. The Federal
Railroad Administration requires these funds to oversee the
operating grants to Amtrak to ensure the prudent use of federal
funds and foster transparency.
On time performance.--The Committee is pleased with the
recent increase in on time performance of Amtrak trains and
appreciates Amtrak's efforts. The Committee expects Amtrak to
redouble these efforts as the economy rebounds and freight
traffic increases.
Reduced price fares.--In past years, the Committee has
prohibited Amtrak from offering discounts of more than fifty
percent from normal, peak fare prices, except where the loss
from the discount is covered by a state and the state
participates in setting the Amtrak fares in said state as a
part of the overall state transportation plan. While the
Committee is proposing to eliminate the prohibition of offering
reduced fares, the Committee is interested in how often, and on
what lines or line segments Amtrak will offer deeply discounted
fares in fiscal year 2011. The Committee directs Amtrak to
report quarterly on the following as related to fares reduced
by fifty percent or more from the normal, peak fare: the
frequency of the discounted offering; the lines or line
segments with discounted fares; the number of tickets sold; the
actual cost of operating the line or line segment; the regular,
peak fare offered for the line or line segment; the amount of
the reduced fare; the availability of another rail
transportation option (i.e. commuter rail line or transit line)
serving the riding population; and the fares associated with
the other rail transportation options.
CAPITAL AND DEBT SERVICE GRANTS TO THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER
CORPORATION
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $1,001,625,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... 1,052,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 1,203,500,000
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... +201,875,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. +151,500,000
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $1,203,500,000 for capital grants,
of which not to exceed $305,000,000 is provided for Amtrak's
debt service. The Committee's recommendation is $201,875,000
above the level enacted in fiscal year 2010 and $151,500,000
above the level assumed in the fiscal year 2011 budget request.
Americans with Disabilities Act.--The Committee recommends
that Amtrak use no less than $165,000,000 of its capital funds
to assist it in meeting its statutory obligations. The
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires that Amtrak make
all intercity passenger rail stations readily accessible to and
usable by individuals with disabilities, including individuals
who use wheelchairs, as soon as practicable, but in no event
later than July 26, 2010.
While the Committee understands that Amtrak does not own
all of the stations it serves, the Committee believes Amtrak's
performance in meeting the ADA legislative mandate has been
abysmal, as only ten percent of the stations Amtrak serves are
fully compliant. At a minimum, Amtrak must demonstrate better
progress in bringing the Amtrak-owned stations into compliance.
The Committee directs Amtrak to provide the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations quarterly updates on its progress
in meeting the ADA requirement.
Early buyout option.--Within the funds provided for
Amtrak's debt service, the Committee recommends up to
$28,000,000 to be used for the payment of costs associated with
early buyout options as authorized in section 102(b) of PRIIA.
The Committee believes providing funding for this purpose will
maximize Amtrak's debt service and drive down future debt.
Fleet plan.--The Committee recommends $127,500,000 for
Amtrak's capital fleet plan, which equals the total amount
requested for the first year of the plan. The Committee
believes this new comprehensive plan is a bold initiative that
adds long-term structure to Amtrak's fleet acquisition process.
The Committee considers this type of planning, critical to the
development and support of a domestic manufacturing base for
rail.
The Committee encourages Amtrak and FRA to explore
alternative financing options, such as the RRIF program, to
meet the immense capital need for the fleet plan.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION
Section 150. The Committee retains a provision that ceases
the availability of Amtrak funds if the railroad contracts for
services outside the United States for any service performed by
a full-time or part-time Amtrak employee as of July 1, 2006.
Section 151. The Committee retains a provision, which
allows FRA to receive and use cash or spare parts to repair and
replace damaged automated track inspection cars and equipment
in connection with the automated track inspection program.
Federal Transit Administration
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) was established as
a component of the Department of Transportation on July 1,
1968, when most of the functions and programs under the Federal
Transit Act (78 Stat. 302; 49 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) were
transferred from the Department of Housing and Urban
Development. Known as the Urban Mass Transportation
Administration until enactment of the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, the Federal Transit
Administration administers federal financial assistance
programs for planning, developing, and improving comprehensive
mass transportation systems in both urban and non-urban areas.
The most recent authorization for the programs under the
Federal Transit Administration is contained in the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (P.L. 109-59). During the
authorization period provided under SAFETEA-LU, the annual
Appropriations Acts included annual limitations on obligations
for the formula and bus grants programs, and direct
appropriations of budget authority from the General Fund of the
Treasury for the FTA's administrative expenses, research
programs, and capital investment grants. The transit programs
authorized under SAFETEA-LU are set to expire on December 31,
2010.
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $98,911,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... 113,559,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 130,698,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... +31,787,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. +17,139,000
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a total of $130,698,000 for FTA's
administrative expenses, an increase of $31,787,000 above the
fiscal year 2010 funding level and $17,139,000 above the budget
request. Of this amount, $106,559,000 is for the salaries and
expenses of FTA. The bill includes an additional $24,139,000 to
carry out public transportation fixed guideway safety oversight
activities, if authorized.
Operating plans.--The Committee reiterates its direction
from previous years which requires the FTA's operating plan to
include a specific allocation of administrative expenses
resources. The operating plan should include a delineation of
full time equivalent employees, for the following offices:
Office of the Administrator; Office of Administration; Office
of Chief Counsel; Office of Communications and Congressional
Affairs; Office of Program Management; Office of Budget and
Policy; Office of Research, Demonstration and Innovation;
Office of Civil Rights; Office of Planning and Environment; and
Regional Offices. In addition, the Committee directs the FTA to
notify the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations at
least thirty days in advance of any change that results in an
increase or decrease of more than five percent from the initial
operating plan submitted to the Committees for fiscal year
2011. The accompanying bill specifies that no more than
$2,200,000 shall be for the FTA's travel expenses.
Budget structure.--The Committee is not surprised by the
creativity exhibited in the FTA budget justification and the
strategic restructuring undertaken by the FTA Administrator. In
many ways, the proposed restructuring reflects a careful
analysis of existing resources and the best way to maximize
funds and programs to ensure decisions that reflect the
Administration's focus on livability. However, in the absence
of a long-term surface reauthorization bill, it is premature to
radically shift the existing accounts. The Committee hopes,
however, that the proposed restructuring will provide a roadmap
for reauthorization and will guide decisions on FTA's future
structure.
Budget justifications and annual new starts report.--The
Committee also continues the direction to FTA to submit future
budget justifications in a format consistent with the
instruction provided in House Report 109-153. The Committee has
again included bill language requiring FTA to submit the annual
new starts report with the initial submission of the budget
request due in February, 2011.
Transit security.--The Committee continues bill language
prohibiting FTA from creating a permanent office of transit
security. The Committee's position remains that the Department
of Homeland Security is the lead agency on transportation
security and has overall responsibility among all modes of
transportation, including rail and transit lines.
Expiring projects.--The Committee is aware that there are a
number of projects for which the funds will expire by the end
of this fiscal year. The Committee reminds grantees that
transit funds are available for three years and the Committee's
expectation is that these funds will be obligated in a timely
fashion. Two years ago, the Committee ended its practice of
extending expiring projects. It is a disservice to other
projects to hold funds back for projects that may not move to
completion.
RAIL TRANSIT SAFETY OVERSIGHT
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $- - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... 24,139,000
Recommended in the bill............................... - - -
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. -24,139,000
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee firmly believes that issues of safety deserve
careful consideration, adequate funding, and sufficient
staffing, however, this office and the functions thereof are
not yet authorized. The Committee recognizes that FTA has
submitted a legislative proposal to establish this office and a
set of responsibilities, thus it has elected to provide funding
for additional safety inspectors within the administrative
expenses account, should the legislative proposal be enacted.
FORMULA AND BUS GRANTS
(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORITY)
(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)
(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liquidation of
contract Limitation on
authorization obligations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010... $9,400,000,000 ($8,343,171,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.. 9,200,000,000 (8,271,700,000)
Recommended in the bill........... 9,200,000,000 (8,961,348,000)
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year -200,000,000 +618,177,000
2010.........................
Budget request, fiscal year - - - +689,648,000
2011.........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Formula grants to states and local agencies funded under
the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) fall into the
following categories: Alaska Railroad, clean fuels grant
program, over-the-road bus accessibility program, urbanized
area formula grants, bus and bus facility grants, fixed
guideway modernization, planning programs (both metropolitan
and statewide), formula grants for special needs for elderly
individuals and individuals with disabilities, formula grants
for other than urbanized areas, job access and reverse commute
formula program, new freedom program, growing states and high
density states formula, National Transit Database, alternatives
analysis, and alternative transportation in parks and public
lands. SAFETEA-LU provided contract authority for the formula
and bus program from the mass transit account of the highway
trust fund. The Appropriations Act sets an annual obligation
limitation for such authority. This account is the only FTA
account funded from the highway trust fund.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee provides $8,961,348,000 in obligation
limitations for these programs and activities which is
$689,648,000 above the budget request and $618,177,000 over the
fiscal year 2010 enacted level. The Committee recommendation
follows the program structure as currently authorized in
SAFETEA-LU, however, the Committee understands that the
authorizing committee of jurisdiction has proposed significant
modifications to the structure of the transit program. The
Committee supports efforts to reform and realign programs to
meet the unique transit needs of small and large communities
across the nation; to better coordinate transit access and
mobility; and, to improve the energy efficiency of vehicles and
facilities.
The Committee recognizes that the recommended level
represents a significant increase in the transit formula and
bus grant program. The Committee strongly believes that this
increase is necessary to meet critical transit infrastructure
needs and the growing public transportation demands facing our
nation. The DOT's 2008 Conditions and Performance Report
indicates that an estimated $15.1 billion annual average
investment is needed to maintain transit conditions and
performance and $21.1 billion is needed to improve transit
conditions and performance. The Committee's hearings
underscored the substantial need and overall support for
increased transit investment.
The Committee well understands that the contract authority
levels for the formula and bus grant program will be set by the
underlying surface transportation authorization legislation.
The Committee urges the authorizing committees of jurisdiction
to provide additional contract authority sufficient to meet the
level of obligation limitations provided in the bill.
Given that the state of good repair needs for both fixed
guideway systems and bus systems are estimated to be nearly $80
billion, the Committee believes that the authorizing committees
of jurisdiction should consider providing increased resources
to reduce this backlog.
Livable Communities.-- The Committee is a strong supporter
of the principle of livable communities and has advocated for
coordinating transportation infrastructure investments with the
availability of housing and community services in order to
decrease transportation costs; improve access to jobs and
services; promote healthy communities; improve air quality;
protect the natural environment; and enhance community
connectivity. As such, the Committee appreciates the commitment
to livable communities that the Department has demonstrated
throughout the budget request and by its active involvement in
the interagency Partnership for Sustainable Communities.
The budget request proposes shifting the job access and
reverse commute program, alternative analysis, and metropolitan
and statewide planning activities into a new livable
communities account. The Committee notes that the budget
request does not change the existing eligibility criteria or
distribution mechanism for these programs and agrees with FTA
that these programs provide a helpful contribution toward
building more sustainable and livable communities. As noted
earlier the Committee denies the request to restructure the
existing account structure while a comprehensive authorization
bill is pending. The Committee notes that in addition to the
programs highlighted in the budget request, the Committee
believes that other FTA programs, including the bus and bus
facility grants, urban and rural formula programs, and capital
investment grants, also contribute to the development of
livable communities. While the Committee supports the decision
to utilize existing programs to advance this initiative, it
will require strong leadership by FTA senior management to
ensure that these programs do not simply continue to operate
business as usual, but adapt and embrace a cultural change. The
Committee is confident that the FTA Administrator will make
progress in this regard.
Operating assistance.--The Committee recognizes the strain
being placed on transit agencies by diminished state and local
resources. Since January 2009, over 84 percent of transit
agencies have implemented or plan to implement service
reductions; increased fares; or laying off thousands of
workers. The Committee recommendation makes available
$250,000,000 for grants to States and designated recipients
that receive funding under 49 U.S.C. 5307 and 5311 for
operating costs associated with equipment and facilities, if
authorized before September 30, 2011. This measure is intended
to help alleviate reductions in eligible transportation service
under sections 5307 and 5311 as well as ensure that skilled
transit employees remain on the job.
Fixed guideway modernization.--The fixed guideway
modernization program is distributed through a statutory
formula for capital projects to modernize or improve existing
fixed guideway systems that have been in operation for at least
seven years. The Committee remains greatly concerned about the
state of good repair needs for some of our nation's oldest and
most heavily used rail and subway systems. The FTA found that
more than one-third of agencies studied have assets that are
either in marginal or poor condition and that the estimated
state of good repair backlog is roughly $50 billion.
Bus and bus facilities.--The bus and bus facilities program
is a discretionary program administered by the FTA for capital
projects including the acquisition of buses for fleet and
service expansion; bus maintenance and administrative
facilities; transfer facilities, intermodal centers; park-and-
ride stations; and, miscellaneous equipment such as mobile
radio units, supervisory vehicles, fare boxes, computers and
shop and garage equipment.
The Committee encourages the FTA to utilize remaining
discretionary funds for projects that meet the criteria
established for the bus livability grants or for the transit
investment in greenhouse gas and energy reduction (TIGGER)
grants that were established under the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act. Therefore, the Committee has not established
a separate account for greenhouse gas and energy reduction as
requested in the budget. Within the funds provided, the
Committee directs funding for the following projects:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Union Station Improvements, IL.................. $500,000
PVTA Regional Transit Traveler Information Systems 1,000,000
Project, MA............................................
Aberdeen Intermodal Transit Center, MD.................. 750,000
ACE Boulder Highway Rapid Transit Project, NV........... 2,000,000
Bay Town Trolley Multi-Modal Facility, FL............... 500,000
Bergen Intermodal Improvements, NJ...................... 2,000,000
Berkshire Regional Transit Authority, MA................ 1,000,000
Bloomington Hybrid Buses, IN............................ 250,000
Brownsville Multi-Modal Terminal Facility, TX........... 500,000
Bus and Bus Facilities, VI.............................. 1,000,000
Bus Replacement, Westchester County, NY................. 2,000,000
Capital Area Transit Bus and Bus Facilities, PA......... 700,000
Chatham Area Transit Bus Replacement, GA................ 1,000,000
Chicago Ridge Metra Station Improvements, IL............ 190,000
City of Rialto Metrolink Parking Lot Improvement, CA.... 700,000
City of San Bernardino Intermodal Transit Center, CA.... 500,000
City of Sante Fe Transit Department Bus Purchase, NM.... 250,000
Colorado Transit Coalition Statewide Bus and Bus 5,000,000
Facilities, CO.........................................
Coralville Intermodal Center, IA........................ 700,000
Corpus Christi Regional Transportation Authority, TX.... 500,000
COTA Electronic Fare Payment System, Columbus, OH....... 1,300,000
Cypress Park Transit Bus and Bus Facilities, Los 400,000
Angeles, CA............................................
Dallas Area Rapid Transit Bus CNG Procurement, TX....... 800,000
DAV Vehicles, Northport, NY............................. 500,000
Dutchess County Mass Transit Facility Project, NY....... 500,000
El Paso New Operations/Maintenance Facility, TX......... 1,500,000
Fair Lawn Community Shuttle Bus Program, NJ............. 315,000
Falls Church Bus and Bus Facilities, VA................. 725,000
Flint MTA Conversion of Paratransit Facilities to CNG, 750,000
MI.....................................................
Goldsboro Union Station, NC............................. 500,000
Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority Clifton 750,000
Boulevard Transit Enhancements, OH.....................
Greater Cleveland Warrensville/Van Aken Multi-Modal 550,000
Facility, OH...........................................
Greater Southeast Transit Terminal, Houston, TX......... 500,000
GRTC Downtown Multimodal Center, Richmond, VA........... 500,000
IndyGo Transit Bus Replacement Project, IN.............. 1,000,000
Joliet Multimodal Transportation Center, IL............. 550,000
JTA Regional Transit Authority Multi-Modal Facility, FL. 500,000
LexTran Vehicle Maintenance Facility Improvements, KY... 600,000
Littleton Intermodal Parking Facility, MA............... 1,200,000
Los Angeles Boyle Heights DASH Bus, CA.................. 420,000
Los Angeles Florence-Firestone/Walnut Park Transit 300,000
Vehicles, CA...........................................
Los Angeles Midtown DASH Community Circulator Bus 1,000,000
Expansion Project, CA..................................
Los Lunas Intermodal Transportation Center, NM.......... 1,000,000
MARTA Bus, Bus Facilities and Security Improvements, GA. 3,000,000
METRO Bus and Bus Facilities, Houston, TX............... 1,000,000
Milwaukee County Buses, WI.............................. 1,000,000
Montebello Bus Lines and Norwalk Transit Agency Bus 500,000
Replacement Project, CA................................
Monterey-Salinas Transit Intelligent Transportation 800,000
Systems (ITS) Security Systems Upgrade, CA.............
Municipal Transit Operators Coalition Clean Fuel Bus 2,000,000
Purchase, CA...........................................
Mustang Park and Ride Structure, Scottsdale, AZ......... 500,000
New Center Intermodal Transportation Facility, Wayne, MI 1,350,000
Newburyport Intermodal Parking Facility, MA............. 500,000
Pace Paratransit Vehicles, IL........................... 1,400,000
Port Authority Allegheny County Hybrid Buses, PA........ 600,000
Port of Galveston Transit Terminal Parking, TX.......... 1,250,000
Potomac Yard-Crystal City Transit Way, VA............... 1,250,000
Replacement Buses for Urban Transit Systems in the 2,500,000
Triangle, NC...........................................
Riverview Corridor Bus Acquisition and Facilities, MN... 750,000
Rochester Intermodal Transportation Center, NY.......... 2,500,000
SEPTA 69th Street Terminal, PA.......................... 500,000
SEPTA Levittown Station Intermodal Improvements, PA..... 600,000
South Hampton Roads Satellite Transit Operating 1,500,000
Facility, VA...........................................
Southern Maryland Commuter Bus Initiative, MD........... 1,500,000
Stark Area Buses Regional Transit Authority, OH......... 800,000
Suffolk County Bus and Bus Facilities, NY............... 750,000
Tennessee Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities, TN.......... 1,000,000
Transit Center, California State University, Northridge, 500,000
CA.....................................................
Unified Government Transit Buses and Bus Facilities, KS. 800,000
Union Passenger Terminal, LA............................ 1,250,000
Union Station Intermodal Center, DC..................... 500,000
Vacaville Intermodal Station-Phase 2, Vacaville, CA..... 750,000
VIA Bus Fleet Modernization, TX......................... 2,400,000
VIA Fredericksburg Road Bus Rapid Transit Corridor, TX.. 1,000,000
Washington Avenue Port Plaza and Intermodal Center, WA.. 1,000,000
Watts DASH Community Circulator Bus Project, CA......... 200,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternatives analysis.--The alternative analysis program
provides grants to assist in financing the evaluation of all
reasonable modal and multimodal alternatives and general
alignment options for identified transportation needs in a
particular, broadly defined travel corridor. The Committee
recommendation directs funding for the following projects:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atlanta BeltLine, Inc. Tier 2 Environmental Impact $700,000
Statement (EIS)/Preliminary Engineering, GA............
Glassboro Camden Line EIS Project, NJ................... 750,000
Interstate 94 Transit Corridor, Ramsey and Washington 750,000
Counties, MN...........................................
LYNX Bus Rapid Transit Alternative Analysis, FL......... 500,000
Naval Station Norfolk Light Rail Study, VA.............. 250,000
OCTA Santa Ana-Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Construction, 250,000
Santa Ana, CA..........................................
Orange Line Extension Preliminary Engineering, IL....... 475,000
Phoenix West (Formerly I-10 West) Light Rail Extension, 1,000,000
Phoenix, AZ............................................
Red Line Extension, IL.................................. 1,500,000
South Central Avenue Light Rail Feasibility Study, 750,000
Phoenix, AZ............................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LIVABLE COMMUNITIES
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $- - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... 306,905,000
Recommended in the bill............................... - - -
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. -306,905,000
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
As noted above, the Committee recommendation follows the
currently authorized structure.
GREENHOUSE GAS AND ENERGY REDUCTION
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $- - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... 52,743,000
Recommended in the bill............................... - - -
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. -52,743,000
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
As noted above, the Committee recommendation follows the
currently authorized structure.
RESEARCH AND UNIVERSITY RESEARCH CENTERS
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $65,670,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... 29,729,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 65,376,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... -294,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. +35,647,000
Grants for transit research are authorized by the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users (Public Law 109-59) (SAFETEA-LU). Starting in
fiscal year 2006, activities formerly under the ``Transit
Planning and Research'' account are now under the ``Formula and
Bus Grants'' account. The National Research program, the
Transit Cooperative Research Program, and the National
Institute are funded under this new heading. Funding for the
National Research programs will be used to cover costs for
FTA's essential safety and security activities and transit
safety data collection. Under the national component of the
program, FTA is a catalyst in the research, development and
deployment of transportation methods and technologies which
address issues such as accessibility for the disabled, air
quality, traffic congestion, and transit services and
operational improvements. The University Research Centers
program will provide continued support for research education
and technology transfer activities aimed at addressing regional
and national transportation problems.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $65,376,000 for FTA's research
activities. The Committee's recommendation includes $44,076,000
for the national research program; $10,000,000 for transit
cooperative research; $4,300,000 for the National Transit
Institute; and $7,000,000 for the university centers program.
The Committee, however, does support continued research into
programs to advance the mobility of our nation's senior
citizens and individuals with disabilities. In that regard, the
Committee directs the FTA to provide continued, if not
increased, support for the Project Action and National Center
for Senior Transportation.
Consistent with the direction that was provided in previous
years, the Committee requires FTA to report by May 15, 2010, on
all FTA-sponsored research projects from fiscal year 2010 and
2011. For each project, the report should include information
on the National relevance of the research, relevance to the
transit industry and community, expected final product and
delivery date, sources of non-FTA funding committed to the
project or research institute, and FTA funding history.
Car sharing.--The Committee urges the FTA to also explore
the use of non-traditional transportation methods, such as car
sharing, to determine what benefit these methods provide in
advancing the goals of livability. For example, the
Transportation Research Board estimated in 2005 that every car
available through a car sharing program removes 15 privately
owned vehicles from streets and increases the chance that an
individual will utilize public transit.
Within the funds provided for FTA's national research
program, the Committee directs funding to be allocated for the
following projects:
City of College Station Public Transportation $150,000
Initiative, TX.......................................
Project Transit, Philadelphia, PA..................... 1,000,000
CTAA Job links, Washington, DC........................ 2,400,000
Queens College Barriers to Public Transportation 250,000
Survey, NY...........................................
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $- - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... 28,647,000
Recommended in the bill............................... - - -
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. -28,647,000
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee does not provide funding for this newly
proposed office, but supports the goal of providing additional
technical assistance and workforce development, and believes
that activities can be pursued within the National Research
Program.
CAPITAL INVESTMENT GRANTS
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $2,000,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... 1,822,112,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 2,000,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. +177,888,000
Grants for capital investment to rail or other fixed
guideway transit systems are awarded to public bodies and
agencies (transit authorities and other state and local public
bodies and agencies thereof) including states, municipalities,
other political subdivisions of states; public agencies and
instrumentalities of one or more states; and certain public
corporations, boards and commissions under state law. The Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users (Public Law 109-59) (SAFETEA-LU) made two
significant changes to the major capital investment grant
program. First, SAFETEA-LU funded the program entirely from the
General Fund of the Treasury. Second, grants for bus and bus
facilities and fixed guideway modernization projects, plus
alternative analysis funds were made eligible under the
``Formula and Bus Grants'' account, which is funded by the mass
transit account of the highway trust fund. Grants to the Denali
Commission and the Hawaii and Alaska ferries were dictated by
SAFETEA-LU. Other projects and investments were specifically
authorized by SAFETEA-LU and are subject to regulation and
oversight by FTA.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $2,000,000,000 for capital
investment grants which is equal to the fiscal year 2010
enacted level and $177,888,000 above the budget request. Within
the amount provided, the Committee includes a total of
$20,000,000, or approximately one percent, for oversight
activities of the investments in this account. The Committee
recommendation includes funding for the following capital
investment grants:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Access to the Region's Core, NJ......................... $200,000,000
Baltimore Red Line, MD.................................. 1,500,000
BART Silicon Valley Project, CA......................... 2,000,000
BRT Project, CO......................................... 24,163,000
Central Corridor LRT, MN................................ 45,000,000
Central Florida Commuter Rail Transit--Initial Operating 40,000,000
Segment, FL............................................
Central Subway LRT, CA.................................. 20,000,000
Crenshaw/LAX Transit Project, CA........................ 750,000
Downtown Transit Corridor Program, Downtown Circulator-- 1,750,000
The Wave, FL...........................................
Dulles Corridor Metrorail Project Ext. to Wiehle Ave., 96,000,000
DC.....................................................
E Street Corridor sbX BRT, CA........................... 42,630,000
East Bay BRT, CA........................................ 15,000,000
East Corridor, CO....................................... 40,000,000
Gold Line, CO........................................... 40,000,000
Green Line Extension to Route 16 from Tufts, MA......... 500,000
Houston Commuter Rail Service in Harris and Fort Bend 1,000,000
County (US 90A), TX....................................
King County BRT, WA..................................... 21,274,000
Long Island Rail Road East Side Access, NY.............. 215,000,000
Mason Corridor BRT, CO.................................. 5,450,573
MetroRapid BRT, TX...................................... 24,229,796
Mid Jordan LRT, UT...................................... 100,000,000
New Britain-Hartford Busway, CT......................... 45,000,000
North Corridor LRT, TX.................................. 75,000,000
Northwest/Southeast LRT MOS, TX......................... 86,249,717
Nostrand Ave BRT, NY.................................... 28,398,554
Perris Valley Line, CA.................................. 23,490,000
Purple Line, MD......................................... 1,500,000
Rail Transit Project--East Kapolei to Ala Moana Center, 55,000,000
HI.....................................................
Second Avenue Subway Phase I, NY........................ 197,182,000
Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART), CA.............. 1,000,000
South Shore Commuter Rail Capital Reinvestment Plan, 1,000,000
NICTD, IN..............................................
Southeast Corridor LRT, TX.............................. 75,000,000
Stamford Urban Transitway, CT........................... 1,000,000
University Link LRT Extension, WA....................... 110,000,000
Van Ness Avenue BRT, CA................................. 15,000,000
Weber County to Salt Lake City Commuter Rail, UT........ 80,000,000
West Corridor LRT, CO................................... 40,179,000
West Eugene EmX, OR..................................... 1,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full funding grant agreements (FFGAs).--TEA-21 required
that the FTA notify the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations as well as the House Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on Banking sixty
days before executing a full funding grant agreement. In its
notification to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations, the Committee directs the FTA to include the
following: (1) a copy of the proposed full funding grant
agreement; (2) the total and annual federal appropriations
required for that project; (3) yearly and total federal
appropriations that can be reasonably planned or anticipated
for future FFGAs for each fiscal year through 2011; (4) a
detailed analysis of annual commitments for current and
anticipated FFGAs against the program authorization; (5) an
evaluation of whether the alternatives analysis made by the
applicant fully assessed all viable alternatives; (6) a
financial analysis of the project's cost and sponsor's ability
to finance the project, which shall be conducted by an
independent examiner and which shall include an assessment of
the capital cost estimate and the finance plan; (7) the source
and security of all public- and private-sector financial
instruments; (8) the project's operating plan, which enumerates
the project's future revenue and ridership forecasts; and (9) a
listing of all planned contingencies and possible risks
associated with the project.
The Committee continues the direction to FTA to inform the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations in writing thirty
days before approving schedule, scope, or budget changes to any
full funding grant agreement. Correspondence relating to
changes shall include any budget revisions or program changes
that materially alter the project as originally stipulated in
the full funding grant agreement, including any proposed change
in rail car procurements. In addition, the Committee directs
FTA to continue reporting monthly to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations on the status of each project with
a full funding grant agreement or that is within two years of a
full funding grant agreement. The Committee finds the monthly
updates informative and a useful oversight tool.
Inspector general audits and investigations.--The Committee
includes $2,075,000 directly to the Department of
Transportation Office of Inspector General for contract
execution for costs associated with audits and investigations
of transit-related issues, including reviews of new fixed
guideway systems.
WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $150,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... 150,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 150,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. - - -
Section 601 of Division B of the Passenger Rail Investment
and Improvement Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-432) authorized
$1.5 billion over a ten-year period for preventive maintenance
and capital grants for the Washington Metropolitan Area
Transportation Authority (WMATA). The law requires that the
federal funds be matched dollar for dollar by Virginia,
Maryland and the District of Columbia in equal proportions. The
compact required under the law has been established and
Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia have all
committed to providing $50 million each in local matching
funds.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommendation includes $150,000,000 for
preventive maintenance and capital grants for WMATA, which is
equal to the budget request and the fiscal year 2010 enacted
level. The Committee remains very concerned about the speed
with which WMATA is making progress on safety issues within the
agency. Specifically, nine issues identified by the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) in the wake of Metro's
horrific crash on June 22, 2009, remain unanswered. The
Committee urges WMATA to work expeditiously to address the
critical safety concerns identified by the NTSB.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION
Section 160. The Committee continues the provision that
exempts previously made transit obligations from limitations on
obligations.
Section 161. The Committee continues the provision that
allows funds appropriated for capital investment grants and bus
and bus facilities not obligated by September 30, 2013, plus
other recoveries to be available for other projects under 49
U.S.C. 5309.
Section 162. The Committee continues the provision that
allows for the transfer of prior year appropriations from older
accounts to be merged into new accounts with similar, current
activities.
Section 163. The Committee continues the provision that
allows prior year funds available for capital investment grants
to be used in this fiscal year for such projects.
Section 164. The Committee continues the provision that
requires unobligated funds or recoveries under section 5309 of
title 49 that are available for reallocation shall be directed
to projects eligible to use the funds for the purposes for
which they were originally intended.
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
(HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $32,324,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... 32,150,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 33,868,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... 1,544,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. 1,718,000
The Great Lakes Saint Lawrence Seaway System, located
between Montreal and Lake Erie, is a binational, 15-lock system
jointly operated by the U.S. Saint Lawrence Seaway Development
Corporation (SLSDC) and its Canadian counterpart, the Canadian
St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation. The SLSDC was
established by the St. Lawrence Seaway Act of 1954 and is a
wholly owned government corporation and an operating
administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
The SLSDC is charged with operating and maintaining the U.S.
portion of the St. Lawrence Seaway. This responsibility
includes the two U.S. locks in Massena, New York, vessel
traffic control in portions of the St. Lawrence River and Lake
Ontario, and trade development functions to enhance the
utilization of the St. Lawrence Seaway.
The Water Resources Development Act of 1986 authorized the
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund as a source of appropriations for
SLSDC operations and maintenance. Additionally, the SLSDC
generates non-federal revenues which can then be used for
operations and maintenance.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a total appropriation of
$33,868,000 to fund the operations, maintenance, and capital
asset renewal needs of the SLSDC. This funding level is
$1,544,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and
$1,718,000 above the fiscal year 2011 request. The Committee
remains committed to the SLSDC's ongoing infrastructure
improvements and directs the additional funds be used for
capital investments as planned for in the Asset Renewal
Program.
Asset Renewal Program.--The Committee directs the SLSDC to
provide semiannual reports consistent with the requirements
stated in the Explanatory Statement of the Department of
Transportation Appropriations Act of 2009.
Maritime Administration
The Maritime Administration (MARAD) is responsible for
programs that strengthen the U.S. maritime industry in support
of the Nation's security and economic needs, as authorized by
the Merchant Marine Act of 1936. MARAD's mission is to promote
the development and maintenance of an adequate, well-balanced
United States merchant marine, sufficient to carry the Nation's
domestic waterborne commerce and a substantial portion of its
waterborne foreign commerce, and capable of serving as a naval
and military auxiliary in time of war or national emergency.
MARAD, working with the Department of Defense (DoD), helps
provide a seamless, time-phased transition from peacetime to
wartime operations, while balancing the defense and commercial
elements of the maritime transportation system. MARAD also
manages the maritime security program, the voluntary intermodal
sealift agreement program and the ready reserve force, which
assures DoD access to commercial and strategic sealift and
associated intermodal capability. Further, MARAD's education
and training programs through the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy
and six state maritime academies help create skilled U.S.
merchant marine officers.
MARITIME SECURITY PROGRAM
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $174,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... 174,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 174,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. - - -
The purpose of the Maritime Security Program (MSP) is to
maintain and preserve a U.S. flag merchant fleet to serve the
national security needs of the United States. The MSP provides
direct payments to U.S. flagship operators engaged in U.S.-
foreign trade. Participating operators are required to keep the
vessels in active commercial service and are required to
provide intermodal sealift support to the Department of Defense
in times of war or national emergency.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $174,000,000 for this account,
equal to both the budget request and the level enacted in
fiscal year 2010. This recommendation provides funding directly
to MARAD and assumes that MARAD will continue to administer the
program with support and consultation of DoD. The Committee's
recommendation provides funding for 60 ships, with a payment
per ship of $2,900,000. The recommendation will provide the
necessary resources for the operation of the MSP through fiscal
year 2011. Funds are available until expended.
OPERATIONS AND TRAINING
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $149,750,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... 164,353,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 169,353,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... +19,603,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. +5,000,000
The operations and training account provides funding for
headquarters and field offices to administer and direct MARAD
operations and programs. The account also provides funding for
the operation of the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy and financial
assistance to the six state maritime academies.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $169,353,000 for this account,
$5,000,000 above the budget request and $19,603,000 above the
amounts provided in fiscal year 2010. Funds provided for this
account are to be distributed as follows:
[Dollars in Thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2011 Fiscal Year 2011
Activity Request Recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Merchant Marine Academy:
Salary and benefits........... $32,877 $32,877
Midshipmen program............ 8,402 8,402
Instructional program......... 4,184 4,184
Program direction and 8,545 8,545
administration...............
Maintenance, repair and 9,112 9,112
operating requirements.......
Capital improvements.......... 30,900 30,900
Midshipman fee refunds........ 6,000 6,000
Subtotal, USMMA........... $100,020 $100,020
State maritime academies:
Student incentive payments.... $2,000 $2,400
Direct payments........... 2,000 2,550
Schoolship maintenance and 11,007 11,240
repair.......................
Subtotal, State maritime $15,007 $16,190
academies................
MARAD operations:
Salaries and benefits......... $29,047 $29,047
Non-discretionary operations.. 11,179 11,179
Information technology........ 6,314 6,314
Discretionary operations and 1,786 1,786
travel.......................
Maritime program expenses..... 1,000 4,817
Subtotal, MARAD operations $49,326 $53,143
Subtotal, operations and $164,353 $169,353
training.................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States Merchant Marine Academy.--The U.S. Merchant
Marine Academy (the Academy or USMMA) provides educational
programs for men and women to become shipboard officers and
leaders in the maritime industry. The Committee strongly
supports the Academy's goals and mission and believes each of
the Academy's midshipmen should receive the highest quality
education. The Committee recognizes MARAD's recent efforts to
remedy the past mismanagement at the Academy and understands
that comprehensive improvements will take time. Therefore, the
Committee expects a multi-year commitment from MARAD and the
Department to meeting the demands these improvements require
and conducting the necessary oversight. In addition, the
Committee continues to include language requiring that all
funding for the Academy be given directly to the Secretary, and
that 50 percent of the funding will not be available until
MARAD submits a plan detailing how the funding will be spent.
The Committee believes this process provides increased
accountability and improves internal controls.
USMMA Authorization.--In recent years, the Committee has
included many incremental authorizing changes to the Academy in
order to address specific issues. The Committee believes MARAD
should produce a complete legislative proposal for the USMMA's
reauthorization, which addresses recent issues and presents a
path forward for the Academy.
Capital needs, USMMA.--The Committee agrees with the Blue
Ribbon Panel's ``USMMA: Red Sky in the Morning: A Report by the
U.S. Merchant Marine Academy Capital Improvements Advisory
Panel'' assessment that the condition of the Academy's physical
plant has reached a tipping point. The Committee, recognizing
this immense capital need, provides the $30,900,000 requested
in the budget for this purpose. The Committee encourages MARAD
and the Academy to incorporate green and sustainable building
practices in their rehabilitation of the USMMA campus.
The Committee directs MARAD to submit to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations a strategic plan for USMMA
within 120 days of enactment of this Act. Concurrent with the
Blue Ribbon Panel, the Committee believes the Academy needs a
comprehensive strategic plan for its capital investments, which
takes into account the future demand for merchant mariners, a
detailed facility needs assessment and a capitalization plan.
In addition to these areas, the strategic plan should address
the Academy's response to each of the recommendations of the
Blue Ribbon Panel.
Staffing, USMMA.--The Committee was pleased to see funds
allocated toward hiring two new professional staff with the
requisite facilities management and engineering skills to
manage the Academy's Capital Improvement Program in the USMMA's
fiscal year 2010 financial plan. The Committee believes having
the proper staff in place to manage the rehabilitation of the
USMMA campus is critical to this endeavor's success. Therefore,
the Committee directs MARAD to provide quarterly USMMA staffing
updates to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
These reports should breakout the number of full time
equivalent (FTE) by operating area on board at the beginning of
the fiscal year, the number of FTE currently on board and the
estimated number of FTE on board by the end of year. In
addition, these reports should list all vacant positions at the
Academy.
Midshipman fees.--The Committee includes $6,000,000
requested in the budget to compensate midshipman who in
previous school years were charged more in fees than they owed.
Recruitment diversity initiative.--The Committee remains
concerned about the lack of diversity in the student body at
the Academy. Therefore, the Committee includes the requested
increase of $145,000 to assist with the recruitment efforts of
student groups underrepresented at the Academy. The Committee
directs MARAD to submit a status report on this initiative to
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within six
months of enactment of this Act.
State maritime academies.--The Committee has included an
increase of $250,000 above last year for the state maritime
academies (SMA). This additional funding will support the six
state maritime academies in providing educational programs for
future merchant marine and commercial ship officers. The state
academies produce the largest number of new licensed officers
in the country. The Committee includes $2,400,000 for the
student incentive payments in order to provide full assistance
to 50 cadets at each of the six academies at $8,000 each;
$2,550,000 for the SMA direct payments to provide each academy
with the same level assistance as last year; and $11,240,000
for schoolship maintenance and repair. The Committee remains
concerned about the deferred maintenance to the training ships
at the state maritime academies and directs MARAD to include in
next year's budget justifications a multi-year plan to invest
in the capital needs of these ships.
Environment and compliance activities.--The Committee
recommendation includes a total of $4,000,000 for MARAD's
environment and compliance activities. This funding will be
used to support MARAD's environmental efforts including: air
emission reductions for ships and ports; the continued
development of an agency-wide environmental management system
to encourage energy efficiency and alternative energy
strategies; and support of partnerships and cooperative efforts
with academic, public, and non-governmental entities to advance
the research and development of effective ballast water
treatment systems and compliance monitoring methods.
Congressional budget justification.--The Committee
continues to direct MARAD to justify each provision proposed in
a section of its Congressional budget justification.
SHIP DISPOSAL
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $15,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... 10,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 10,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... -5,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. - - -
MARAD serves as the federal government's disposal agent for
government-owned merchant vessels weighing 1,500 gross tons or
more. The ship disposal program provides resources to dispose
of obsolete merchant-type vessels in the National Defense
Reserve Fleet (NDRF). The Maritime Administration was required
by Public Law 106-398 to dispose of its obsolete inventory by
the end of 2006. These vessels pose a significant environmental
threat due to the presence of hazardous substances such as
asbestos and solid and liquid polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
MARAD has custody of approximately 78 obsolete vessels that are
not yet under contract for disposal. The obsolete ships are
located at the James River Reserve Fleet site in Virginia (16
ships), the Suisun Bay Reserve Fleet site in California (52
ships), and the Beaumont Reserve Fleet site in Texas (10
ships).
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for this account,
equal to the budget request and $5,000,000 below the fiscal
year 2010 funding level. Funds are available until expended.
Suisun Bay.--The Committee was pleased with the recent
Suisun Bay Agreement, which resolved environmental concerns
about the disposal process of 52 obsolete ships in California.
The Committee hopes this and other recent agreements will
revive the process and reduce the number of obsolete vessels in
NDRF's fleet. Therefore, the Committee directs MARAD to submit
a multi-year plan to dispose of the remaining obsolete vessels
in its fleet to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations within 60 days of enactment of this Act. This
document should include cost estimates for each year of the
plan.
Savannah.--Within the funds provided, the Committee
recommends $3,000,000 for maintenance and safeguarding of the
Nuclear Ship Savannah. The Savannah, the world's first nuclear
powered merchant ship, is a legacy asset assigned to the NDRF
in retention status.
MARITIME GUARANTEED LOAN (TITLE XI) PROGRAM
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $9,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... 3,688,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 3,688,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010..................... -5,312,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................... - - -
The Maritime Guaranteed Loan Program, as provided for by
Title XI of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, provides for
guaranteed loans for purchasers of ships from the U.S.
shipbuilding industry and for modernization of U.S. shipyards.
Funds for administrative expenses for the Title XI program are
appropriated to this account, and then paid to operations and
training to be obligated and outlayed.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $3,688,000 for the Maritime
Guaranteed Loan (Title XI) Program, equal to the budget request
and $5,312,000 below the amounts provided in fiscal year 2010.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION
Section 170. The Committee continues a provision that
allows the Maritime Administration to furnish utilities and
services and make repairs to any lease, contract, or occupancy
involving government property under the control of MARAD and
rental payments shall be paid into the Treasury as
miscellaneous receipts.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA) was established as an administration within the
Department of Transportation (DOT) on November 30, 2004,
pursuant to the Norman Y. Mineta Research and Special Programs
Improvement Act (Public Law 108-246). The PHMSA is responsible
for the safe transportation of hazardous materials by all modes
of transportation including pipelines. The agency's highest
priority is safety, and its work includes developing plans,
programs and regulations, as well as overseeing financial
assistance programs, which focus on preparedness and response.
The PHMSA uses safety management principles and security
assessments to mitigate vulnerabilities and disseminate
information concerning hazardous materials transportation.
OPERATIONAL EXPENSES
(PIPELINE SAFETY FUND)
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $21,132,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... 22,383,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 22,383,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... +1,251,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. - - -
This appropriation finances the program support costs for
the PHMSA. This includes policy development, legal counsel,
budget, financial management, civil rights, management,
administration and agency-wide expenses.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $22,383,000 for PHMSA operational
expenses, of which $639,000 shall be derived from the Pipeline
Safety Fund. This is equal to the budget request and $1,251,000
above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. The Committee has
included bill language directing PHMSA to transfer $1,000,000
to pipeline safety to fund pipeline information grants to
communities.
IT Modernization Plan.--PHMSA's budget requests an
additional $650,000 in fiscal year 2011 for the continuation of
its IT Modernization Plan, which also supports the agency's
special permits and approvals action plan. The Committee
approves this request so that PHMSA can continue the work it
started in fiscal year 2010 related to data and business
analysis for the hazardous materials information system, which
is a database used for hazmat incident reporting. The Committee
believes that this funding is vital in order for PHMSA to
significantly improve data quality, transparency, and the
ability to base safety decisions on facts rather than
assumptions and fragmented data.
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $37,994,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... 40,434,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 40,434,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... +2,440,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. - - -
The hazardous materials safety program has responsibility
for the safety and security of hazardous materials shipments by
commercial air, truck, railroad and vessel. The agency is the
primary resource and regulatory authority for hazardous
materials safety and promulgates regulations which cover
hazardous materials safety security, shipper and carrier
operations, training, and packaging and container
specifications.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee provides $40,434,000 to continue the agency's
hazardous materials safety functions, which is $2,440,000 above
the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and equal to the budget
request.
Multimodal hazardous materials intelligence portal.--
Included within the hazardous materials program appropriation
is $2,107,000, as requested, to fund the multimodal hazardous
materials intelligence portal. This funding level is $847,000
above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. The portal integrates
inspection, incident, regulation, penalty, and other data
collected by multiple administrations. Integrated data allows
PHMSA and other users to develop comprehensive, risk-based
strategies to identify emerging safety issues. The Committee
notes that this system is used by and benefits the Federal
Aviation Administration, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, the Federal Railroad Administration, as well as
the United States Coast Guard, and this additional funding will
eliminate the need for PHMSA to rely on funding from the other
modal administrations within DOT.
Hazardous materials information system.--This web-based
system is an integral tool used for daily hazardous materials
operations, workflow, and document management. The Committee
continues to encourage PHMSA to ensure that this important
system is searchable and useful to other operating
administrations and that the data is accurate and verified. The
Committee provides $2,255,000 in fiscal year 2011, as
requested, to continue with the modernization of this system.
PIPELINE SAFETY
(PIPELINE SAFETY FUND)
(OIL SPILL LIABILITY TRUST FUND)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Oil spill
(Pipeline safety liability trust Total
fund) fund)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010..................... $86,334,000 $18,905,000 $105,239,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................... 92,206,000 18,905,000 111,111,000
Recommended in the bill............................. 92,206,000 18,905,000 111,111,000
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................. +5,872,000 - - - +5,872,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011................ - - - - - - - - -
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PHMSA oversees the safety, security, and environmental
protection of pipelines through analysis of data, damage
prevention, education and training, development and enforcement
of regulations and policies, research and development, grants
for states pipeline safety programs, and emergency planning and
response to accidents. The pipeline safety program is
responsible for a national regulatory program to protect the
public against the risks to life and property in the
transportation of natural gas, petroleum and other hazardous
materials by pipeline. The enactment of the Oil Pollution Act
of 1990 expanded the role of the pipeline safety program in
environmental protection and resulted in a new emphasis on
spill prevention and containment of oil and hazardous
substances from pipelines.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $111,111,000 to continue pipeline
safety operations, research and development, and state grants-
in-aid in fiscal year 2011, which is $5,872,000 above the
fiscal year 2010 enacted level and the same as the budget
request. The bill specifies that of the total appropriation,
$18,905,000 shall be derived from the oil spill liability trust
fund and the remaining $92,206,000 shall be derived from the
pipeline safety fund.
State pipeline safety grants.--PHMSA's budget requests
$41,945,000 for fiscal year 2011 for the state pipeline safety
grants program, which is $3,986,000, or almost 11 percent,
above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. Section 2(c) of the
PIPES Act (49 U.S.C. 60107(a)), raised the Secretary of
Transportation's grant matching authority from 50 percent to 80
percent. The Committee supports PHMSA's goal to increase the
federal funding annually until the 80 percent cap is reached.
Pipeline integrity management.--The Committee recommends
$9,658,000 for PHMSA's pipeline integrity management program in
fiscal year 2011, as requested. This $1,000,000 increase over
the fiscal year 2010 enacted level will allow the agency to
conduct timely and technically sufficient analyses of the
nontraditional design and operating parameters of proposed
natural and hazardous liquid pipelines in Alaska, as well as
other major interstate pipeline projects already proposed or
underway in the lower 48 states, in order to meet the
construction schedule of these projects.
State one-call grants.--The Committee directs that no less
than $1,053,000 of the funds provided shall be for state one-
call grants, as requested.
Pipeline safety improvements.--While the Committee
recognizes that pipeline safety improvements have been made,
exemplified by the declining average fatality rate associated
with pipeline incidents over the last 20 years, the recent
explosion at a natural gas facility in Texas and the
underground oil pipeline leak in Utah have reinforced the need
to remain vigilant in seeking continued incremental
improvements. Furthermore, the BP oil disaster in the Gulf of
Mexico has demonstrated the catastrophic human and
environmental impacts that can occur when lapses in oversight
of oil and gas systems occurs.
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has
investigated numerous incidents and provided PHMSA with
recommendations for improving the agency's safety oversight.
Specifically, in response to a fatal 2007 accident in
Mississippi, the NTSB investigated and concluded that current
inspection and testing programs are not sufficiently reliable
to identify features associated with longitudinal seam failures
of electric resistance welded (ERW) pipe prior to catastrophic
failure in operating pipelines. The Committee directs PHMSA to
conduct a comprehensive study to identify actions that can be
implemented by pipeline operators to eliminate catastrophic
longitudinal seam failures in ERW pipes. At a minimum, the
study should include assessments of the effectiveness and
effects of in-line inspection tools, hydrostatic pressure
tests, and spike pressure tests; pipe material strength
characteristics and failure mechanisms; the effects of aging on
ERW pipelines; operational factors; and data collection and
predictive analysis. The Committee directs PHMSA to submit a
report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations and
to the NTSB by June 1, 2011, with the results of this study.
In addition, the Committee is acutely aware of the findings
in the report Human Factors Analysis of Pipeline Monitoring and
Control Operations that analyzed the role of human factors in
ten severe accidents. Accordingly, the Committee directs the
Department of Transportation Inspector General to review
PHMSA's implementation of Federal pipeline safety regulations,
49 CFR Parts 192 and 195, to address human factors and other
aspects of control room management for pipelines where
controllers use supervisory control and data acquisition
systems. The review should cover, but is not limited to, the
processes in place to validate operators' individual management
procedure plans in the absence of standardized requirements and
PHMSA's process for verifying implementation of the required
management plans after their August 1, 2011 submission
deadline. The Committee directs the Inspector General to report
to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by
September 1, 2011, with the results of that review.
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS GRANTS
(EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUND)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Emergency (Emergency
preparedness preparedness
fund) grant program)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010... $188,000 ($28,318,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.. 188,000 (28,318,000)
Recommended in the bill........... 188,000 (28,318,000)
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year - - - (- - -)
2010.............................
Budget request, fiscal year - - - (- - -)
2011.............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act
of 1990 (Public Law 101-615) requires PHMSA to: (1) develop and
implement a reimbursable emergency preparedness grant program;
(2) monitor public sector emergency response training and
planning and provide technical assistance to states, political
subdivisions and Indian tribes; and (3) develop and update
periodically a mandatory training curriculum for emergency
responders.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $28,318,000 for the emergency
preparedness grants program, which is the same as the fiscal
year 2010 enacted level and the budget request.
Research and Innovative Technology Administration
The Research and Innovative Technology Administration
(RITA) was established as an administration within the
Department of Transportation (DOT) effective November 30, 2004,
pursuant to the Norman Y. Mineta Research and Special Programs
Improvement Act, Public Law 108-426. As DOT's lead organization
for research and innovation, RITA's mission is to provide
strategic clarity to DOT's multi-modal and intermodal research
efforts, while coordinating the multifaceted research agenda of
the department.
RITA coordinates, facilitates, and reviews the Department's
research and development programs and activities; advances
innovative technologies, including intelligent transportation
systems; performs comprehensive transportation system research,
analysis, and reporting; and provides education and training in
transportation and transportation-related fields through the
John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, the
Transportation Safety Institute, and the University
Transportation Centers (UTC) Program.
Also included within RITA is the Bureau of Transportation
Statistics (BTS), funded from the Federal Highway
Administration's federal-aid highway account. BTS is
responsible for developing and disseminating timely, relevant,
and high quality transportation data and information for all
modes to public and private transportation decision makers.
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $13,007,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... 17,200,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 18,900,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010..................... 5,893,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................... 1,700,000
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The bill includes $18,900,000 to continue research and
development activities in fiscal year 2011, which is $5,893,000
greater than fiscal year 2010 enacted and $1,700,000 greater
than the budget request.
Administrative Expenses.--The Committee provides $7,135,000
for administrative expenses, an increase of $164,000 over
fiscal year 2010 enacted and a decrease of $65,000 from the
fiscal year 2011 request. This funding level is sufficient for
26.5 full-time equivalents (FTEs), an increase of .5 FTE from
fiscal year 2010 enacted. The Committee does not provide
additional funds outside of salaries and benefits for the
additional .5 FTE and anticipates RITA absorbing this FTE into
other current service cost levels.
Research Programs.--Within the fiscal year 2010 recommended
funding level, the Committee provides $11,765,000 for RITA's
research, development, and technology (RD&T) programs as
follows:
Alternative Fuels Research and Development (R&D)...... $500,000
Research, Development, and Technology (RD&T) 900,000
Coordination.........................................
Nationwide Differential Global Positioning System 9,400,000
(NDGPS)..............................................
Positioning, Navigation and Timing (PN&T)............. 965,000
The Committee's recommendation for research programs
represents an increase of $5,729,000 over fiscal year 2010 and
an increase of $1,765,000 over the budget request. The
Committee funds the Alternative Fuels R&D and the RD&T
Coordination at the budget request.
The Committee funds PN&T at $965,000, largely funding the
request of $1,000,000. This is an increase of $565,000 from the
fiscal year 2010 enacted level.
The Committee funds NDGPS at $9,400,000, which is
$4,800,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and
$1,800,000 above the fiscal year 2011 request. The reasons for
this increase are twofold. First, the Committee funds a
$1,000,000 increase to Operations and Maintenance (O&M), equal
to the requested increase for O&M. This increase will allow for
proper servicing and tower inspections to prevent service loss
and/or system failures. In some instances, towers have not been
inspected in more than four years. Second, the Committee funds
the equipment recapitalization at $3,800,000, an increase of
$1,800,000 over the budget request. At present, NDGPS equipment
is operating beyond its service life, which not only increases
the risk of system failures, but manifests as higher costs in
the O&M account, now and into the future. While the request
estimates the total cost of recapitalization at $4,000,000 over
two years, the Committee funds NDGPS at $3,800,000 in fiscal
year 2011, allowing for upfront savings in purchase of the new
equipment.
The bill also includes language that allows funds received
from states, counties, municipalities, other public
authorities, and private sources for expenses incurred for
training to be credited to this appropriation.
BUREAU OF TRANSPORTATION STATISTICS
(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... ($28,000,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... (30,000,000)
Recommended in the bill............................... (27,000,000)
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010..................... (-1,000,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................... (-3,000,000)
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The most recent long-term surface transportation
authorization act, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU),
expired on September 30, 2009. Since that time, Congress has
passed several short-term extension bills that have continued
to provide contract authority for the Bureau of Transportation
Statistics. However, the current extension will expire on
December 31, 2010. Because reauthorization actions have not yet
been completed, the Committee has continued the fiscal year
2010 program structure for the account and has assumed that the
funding levels provided for the first quarter of fiscal year
2011 will be extended and annualized for the remainder of the
year.
The Committee notes that the Federal Aviation
Administration's Air Traffic Organization budget request
includes $4,000,000 for the Office of Airline Statistics within
BTS.
Office of Inspector General
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $75,114,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... 79,772,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 86,406,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010..................... +11,292,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................... +6,634,000
The Inspector General's office was established in 1978 to
provide an objective and independent organization that would be
more effective in: (1) preventing and detecting fraud, waste,
and abuse in departmental programs and operations; and (2)
providing a means of keeping the Secretary of Transportation
and the Congress fully and currently informed of problems and
deficiencies in the administration of such programs and
operations. According to the authorizing legislation, the
Inspector General is to report dually to the Secretary of
Transportation and to the Congress.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommendation provides $86,406,000 for
activities of the Office of Inspector General (OIG), an
increase of $11,292,000 above fiscal year 2010 and $6,634,000
above the budget request.
Full-time equivalent staff years (FTE).--Funding is
sufficient to finance 426 FTE in fiscal year 2011, an increase
of 8 FTE above the fiscal year 2010 level as requested in the
budget.
Mandatory cost increases.--Consistent with the budget
request, the Committee provides the OIG with the funds
necessary to meet mandatory increases above the fiscal year
2010 enacted level, in the following amounts:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salaries and benefits................................. +$1,960,000
Working capital fund.................................. +212,000
Rental payments to GSA/rental security payments to DHS +190,000
Inflation............................................. +94,000
-----------------
Total............................................. +$2,456,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New or expanded programs.--In addition to the mandatory
cost increases identified above, the Committee recommendation
includes $2,202,000, as requested, for the OIG to expand
existing programs or embark on new initiatives. Included within
this amount is $1,525,000 to fund the salaries, benefits, and
operating costs associated with 8 additional FTE. The Committee
continues to value the work of the OIG in its oversight of
departmental programs and activities and is committed to
providing the Inspector General with the resources necessary to
ensure that the office continues to complete its mission at the
highest level.
Funding from other agencies.--Consistent with prior years,
the OIG's budget for fiscal year 2011 requests $6,634,000 from
other agencies within the Department, as noted below, to fund
audit and investigative efforts associated with those agencies:
Federal Highway Administration........................ $3,809,000
Federal Transit Administration........................ 2,075,000
Federal Aviation Administration....................... 650,000
National Transportation Safety Board.................. 100,000
The Committee recommends fully funding the OIG through a
direct appropriation, rather than relying on transfers and
offsetting collections. The Committee believes that this
provides greater transparency with regard to the actual funding
level of the office and eliminates the need for the OIG to rely
on receiving funding from the agencies it is auditing. This
increase in the appropriation to the OIG is offset by
corresponding reductions to the budgets of the operating
administrations.
Unfair business practices.--The bill maintains language
first enacted in fiscal year 2000 which authorizes the OIG to
investigate allegations of fraud and unfair or deceptive
practices and unfair methods of competition by air carriers and
ticket agents.
Audit reports.--The Committee requests that the OIG to
continue forwarding copies of all audit reports to the
Committee immediately after they are issued, and to continue to
make the Committee aware immediately of any review that
recommends cancellation or modifications to any major
acquisition project or grant, or which recommends significant
budgetary savings. The OIG is also directed to withhold from
public distribution for a period of 15 days any final audit or
investigative report which was requested by the House or Senate
Committees on Appropriations.
Surface Transportation Board
The Surface Transportation Board (STB) was created by the
Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995 and is
the successor agency to the Interstate Commerce Commission. The
STB is an economic regulatory and adjudicatory body charged by
Congress with resolving railroad rate and service disputes and
reviewing proposed railroad mergers. The STB is independent,
although it is affiliated administratively with the Department
of Transportation. The Passenger Rail Investment and
Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA) further expanded the
responsibilities of the STB.
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $29,066,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... 25,988,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 31,249,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010..................... +2,183,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................... +5,261,000
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $31,249,000
for fiscal year 2011, which is $2,183,000 above the fiscal year
2010 enacted level and $5,261,000 above the fiscal year 2011
budget request. Included in the recommendation is an offsetting
collection of $1,250,000 from user fees established by the STB
Chairman. The Committee recommendation is consistent with the
budget request submitted independently by the Surface
Transportation Board.
Uniform railroad costing system.--The Committee recommends
$1,000,000 for the STB to continue its work on updating the
Uniform Railroad Costing System. This system is used to set the
Board's rate jurisdiction, is the basis for Board decisions,
and estimates the variable cost of transporting a given
commodity for each Class I railroad. The system was originally
adopted in 1989. The Committee was pleased with the level of
detail provided in the STB's ``Report to Congress Regarding the
Uniform Rail Costing System'' and looks forward to periodic
updates on the STB's progress on this initiative.
General Provisions--Department of Transportation
Section 180. The Committee continues the provision allowing
the Department of Transportation (DOT) to use funds for
aircraft; motor vehicles; liability insurance; uniforms; or
allowances, as authorized by law.
Section 181. The Committee continues the provision limiting
appropriations for services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 to the
rate for an Executive Level IV.
Section 182. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting funds in this act for salaries and expenses of more
than 110 political and Presidential appointees in the DOT and
prohibits political and Presidential personnel from being
assigned on temporary detail outside the DOT.
Section 183. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting funds for the implementation of section 404 of
title 23, United States Code.
Section 184. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting recipients of funds made available in this Act from
releasing personal information, including social security
number, medical or disability information, and photographs from
a driver's license or motor vehicle record, without express
consent of the person to whom such information pertains; and
prohibits the withholding of funds provided in this Act for any
grantee is a state is in noncompliance with this provision.
Section 185. The Committee continues the provision allowing
funds received by the Federal Highway Administration, Federal
Transit Administration, and the Federal Railroad Administration
from states, counties, municipalities, other public
authorities, and private sources to be used for expenses
incurred for training may be credited to each agency's
respective accounts.
Section 186. The Committee continues the provision
requiring funding of certain programs, projects and activities
identified in the accompanying report within the accounts of
the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Railroad
Administration, and the Federal Transit Administration.
Section 187. The Committee continues the provision
authorizing the Secretary of Transportation to allow issuers of
any preferred stock to redeem or repurchase preferred stock
sold to the DOT.
Section 188. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting funds from being used to make a grant unless the
Secretary of Transportation notifies the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations not less than three full business
days before any discretionary grant award, letter of intent, or
full funding grant agreement totaling $1,000,000 or more is
announced by the department or its modal administrations, and
directs the Secretary to give concurrent notification for any
``quick release'' of funds from the Federal Highway
Administration's emergency relief program.
Section 189. The Committee continues a provision allowing
funds received from rebates, refunds, and similar sources to be
credited to appropriations of the DOT.
Section 190. The Committee continues a provision allowing
amounts from improper payments to a third party contractor that
are lawfully recovered by the DOT to be available to cover
expenses incurred in the recovery of such payments.
Section 191. The Committee continues a provision mandating
that reprogramming actions are to be approved or denied solely
by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
Section 192. The Committee continues a provision capping
the amount of fees the Surface Transportation Board can charge
and collect for rate complaints filed at the amount authorized
for court civil suit filing fees.
Section 193. The Committee continues a provision allowing
the Department to provide payments in advance to carry out its
contract for the implementation of a debit card program for
distribution of transit benefits.
Section 194. The Committee includes a provision providing
$7,622,655 in increase the Department's acquisition workforce
capacity and capabilities.
TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Management and Administration
Management and Administration provides operating support to
the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD),
including salaries and expenses (S&E) for all HUD employees.
The Committee supports the Department's efforts to transform
the way HUD does business and recommends the Department first
and foremost focus its efforts on its human capital needs.
Therefore, the Committee directs HUD to provide quarterly
updates on its efforts to improve the Department's hiring
process, the performance appraisal process, the succession
planning process and the budgeting of S&E resources. In
addition, these reports should include updates on the number of
FTE projected for each office in the Department compared to
last year's actual level and the authorized level for the
current fiscal year.
Congressional budget justification.--The Committee directs
HUD to provide in its fiscal year 2012 budget request, and all
future budget requests, detailed staffing justifications for
each office within the Department, including an organizational
chart for each operating area within the Department. Further,
the Department is directed to include in the budget
justification funding levels for the past five fiscal years for
all offices.
The budget submitted by the Department must also include a
detailed justification for the incremental funding increases,
decreases and FTE fluctuations being requested program,
activity, or program element. The Committee encourages the
Department to format the discussion of these changes in a
similar format to the Department of Transportation Office of
the Secretary Salaries and Expenses justification for each of
its offices. In addition, the Committee directs the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) to examine the Department's method
for estimating and allocating S&E resources.
Reprogramming.--As in previous years, the Committee
reiterates that the Department must limit the reprogramming of
funds between the program, projects, and activities within each
account to not more than $500,000 without prior written
approval of the Committees on Appropriations. Unless otherwise
identified in the bill or report, the most detailed allocation
of funds presented in the budget justifications is approved,
with any deviation from such approved allocation subject to the
normal reprogramming requirements. Further, it is the intent of
the Committee that all carryover funds in the various accounts,
including recaptures and de-obligations, are subject to the
normal reprogramming requirements outlined above.
Reorganizations.--The Committee expects one month prior
notice of office, program or activity reorganizations.
Additionally, the Committee requires notice on a monthly basis,
of all ongoing litigation, including any negotiations or
discussions, planned or ongoing, regarding a consent decree
between the Department and any other entity, including the
estimated costs of such decrees.
New initiatives.--The Committee reiterates that no changes
may be made to any program, project, or activity if it is
construed to have policy implications, without prior approval
of the Committees on Appropriations. The Committee is dismayed
that on many occasions the Department has taken action on new
initiatives without seeking, or before receiving, formal
approval, as required in Section 405 of the appropriations act.
For example, the Committee was displeased to learn of the
establishment of the Disaster Relief Enhancement Fund (DREF), a
diversion of funds to a new initiative without an approved
reprogramming request. Examples such as this diminish the
Department's credibility, especially in light of the
Department's recent requests for increased flexibility.
Relationship between HUD and the Committee on
Appropriations.--The primary relationship between the Committee
and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
exists via the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, or the
budget office. This relationship, an absolute necessity in
structuring the annual appropriations Act, is based on the
sharing of a wide range of budgetary and cost information. The
Committee retains the right to call upon all offices and
agencies within the Department, but the primary connection
between the two entities exists through the budget office. To
that end, the Committee expects that all offices within HUD
will work with the budget office to provide timely and accurate
information for submission to the Committee. In particular, the
Committee is dismayed that HUD has not provided all of the
reports or followed all of the directives that were required in
the fiscal year 2010 Appropriations Act. Therefore, the
Committee has addressed many of these concerns in bill
language. The Department is reminded that directives and
reports mandated in the House or Senate Appropriations reports
are not optional, unless revised or eliminated by the Statement
of Managers accompanying the Act. Finally, the Committee
cautions HUD that Section 405 of the Appropriations Act governs
the creation of new offices and policies.
Executive Direction
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $26,855,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... 30,265,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 30,265,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... +3,410,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. - - -
The Executive Direction account encompasses the offices of
the major policymakers at the Department, including all of the
Senate-confirmed political appointees. The responsibilities of
the Department are administered under the supervision and
direction of the Secretary, who is responsible for the
administration of all programs, functions and authorities of
the Department. The Deputy Secretary assists the Secretary in
the execution of these duties and responsibilities, and serves
as Acting Secretary in the absence of the Secretary.
In fiscal year 2010 the Department created the Office of
the Chief Operating Officer to manage and provide comprehensive
strategy for HUD's support operations, with a particular focus
on the transformation of HUD's human capital, procurement, and
information technology functions. In addition to the Office of
the Secretary, Deputy Secretary and the Chief Operating
Officer, the offices of seven Assistant Secretaries are
included, as well as the immediate offices of the Chief
Financial Officer and the General Counsel. This account also
includes the activities of two offices of highly specialized
staff with Department-wide responsibility, the Office of
Hearings and Appeals and the Office of Small and Disadvantaged
Business Utilization.
The Office of Hearings and Appeals is an independent
adjudicatory office within the Office of the Secretary whose
administrative judges conduct hearings and make determinations
for the Department in accordance with existing statutes and
departmental policies, regulations, and procedures. The Office
of Hearings and Appeals is headed by a Director appointed by
the Secretary who supervises the administrative judges,
administrative law judges of the Office of Administrative Law
Judges, and support staff.
The Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization
is responsible for the implementation and execution of the
Department's activities on behalf of small businesses, minority
businesses, businesses owned and controlled by disadvantaged
persons, and firms, in accordance with Sections 8 and 15 of the
Small Business Act, as amended. For the functions and
responsibilities required by this law, the Director shall be
responsible and report directly to the Secretary or Deputy
Secretary.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $30,265,000 for this account,
which is $3,410,000 above the level enacted in the fiscal year
2010 bill and equal to the budget request. The funds are to be
distributed as follows:
Immediate Office of the Secretary and Deputy Secretary $7,674,000
Office of the Chief Operating Officer................. 549,000
Office of Hearings and Appeals........................ 1,706,000
Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization 719,000
Immediate Office of the Chief Financial Officer....... 999,000
Immediate Office of the General Counsel............... 1,503,000
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional 2,709,000
and Intergovernmental Relations......................
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs.. 4,861,000
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and 2,163,000
Indian Housing.......................................
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 1,117,000
Development and Research.............................
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and 945,000
Equal Opportunity....................................
In fiscal year 2008, the structure of the Management and
Administration account was altered to separate the salaries and
expenses of the Department from one account into nine accounts.
This change was made to improve transparency and to give the
Committee greater oversight of this large account. By splitting
the Senate-confirmed Secretary, Deputy Secretary and Assistant
Secretaries into the ``Executive Direction'' account, the
Committee aimed to increase accountability over the lead
policymakers of the Department. The Committee instructs the
Department to use this structure in submitting all future
budgets.
As this structure was created to increase oversight, the
Committee directs HUD to only fund senior policymakers out of
the Executive Direction account. In addition, all senior
advisors to the Secretary should be funded directly through the
Office of the Secretary. The Committee directs the Department
to specify the number of senior advisors in the Office of the
Secretary salaries and expenses budget justification.
The Secretary is authorized to transfer funds within
offices under Executive Direction following written
notification to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations, provided that no amount for any office may be
increased or decreased by more than 5 percent by all transfers.
Notice of any change in funding greater than 5 percent must be
submitted to and receive prior written approval from the
Committees on Appropriations.
Further, the Secretary must provide quarterly status
updates to the Committees regarding on pending congressional
reports. The bill also provides that no more than $25,000
provided under the immediate Office of the Secretary shall be
available for the official reception and representation
expenses as the Secretary may determine. In addition, the bill
includes a provision requiring the Department to notify the
Committees on Appropriations one month in advance of any
international travel.
Administration, Operations and Management
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $537,011,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... 538,552,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 538,552,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... +1,541,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. - - -
This account funds the personnel compensation and benefits
of ten program offices, as well as non-personnel expenses for
the entire Department, such as travel and training. Included in
the account are salaries and expenses of the programs listed in
the following paragraphs.
The Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer provides
general support services to all offices and divisions
throughout HUD. These services include: management analysis,
human resource management, employee training, performance
analysis; providing general building and office services; as
well as carrying out special activities directly assigned by
the Secretary of HUD.
The Office of Departmental Operations and Coordination
(ODOC) performs a broad range of cross-program functions that
assist the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary with HUD's
continuing management improvement initiatives. Key
responsibilities include: managing the Department's Compliance
and Monitoring Program; managing HUD's oversight and monitoring
of labor standards for HUD-funded construction projects;
managing HUD's Quality Management Review process; oversight of
OIG and GAO reviews and audits; and coordinating Executive
Management and Field Office Management Meetings for the Deputy
Secretary.
The Office of Field Policy and Management (FPM) serves as
the principal advisor providing oversight and communicating
Secretarial priorities and policies to field office staff and
HUD clients. The Regional and Field Office Directors act as the
operational managers in each of the field offices. The Regional
and Field Office Directors manage and coordinate cross program
delivery of the Department's programs in the field.
The Office of the Chief Procurement Officer's (OCPO)
mission is to provide high-quality acquisition support services
to all HUD program offices by purchasing necessary operational
and mission-related goods and services; provide advice,
guidance and technical assistance to all departmental offices
on matters concerning procurement; assist program offices in
defining and specifying their procurement needs; develop and
maintain all procurement guidance including regulations,
policies, and procedures; and assist in the development of
sound acquisition strategies.
The Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) provides
leadership in instituting financial integrity, fiscal
responsibility and accountability. The CFO is responsible for
all aspects of financial management, accounting and budgetary
matters; ensures the Department establishes and meets financial
management goals and objectives; ensures the Department is in
compliance with financial management legislation and
directives; analyzes budgetary implications of policy and
legislative proposals; and provides technical oversight with
respect to all budget activities throughout the Department.
Appropriations Attorneys.--During consideration of the
fiscal year 2003 appropriations legislation, it became apparent
to the Committee that both the Committee and the Department
would be better served if the attorneys responsible for
appropriations matters were housed in the Office of the Chief
Financial Officer (OCFO), and the fiscal year 2003 Act provided
funds and FTE to the OCFO to accommodate four attorneys
transferred from the Office of General Counsel (OGC). Since
that time, the Committee has routinely received prompt,
accurate, and reliable information from the OCFO on various
appropriations law matters. For fiscal year 2011, the Committee
continues to fund appropriations attorneys in the OCFO and
directs HUD to maintain this responsibility within the OCFO.
The General Counsel, as the chief legal officer and legal
voice of the Department, is the legal adviser to the Secretary
and other principal staff of the Department. It is the
responsibility of the Office of the General Counsel (OGC) to
provide legal opinions, advice and services with respect to all
programs and activities, and to provide counsel and assistance
in the development of the Department's programs and policies.
The mission of the Office of Departmental Equal Employment
Opportunity (ODEEO) is to ensure the enforcement of Federal
laws relating to the elimination of all forms of discrimination
in the Department's employment practices. The mission is
carried out through the functions of three divisions: the
Affirmative Employment division, the Alternative Dispute
Resolution division, and the Equal Employment Opportunity
division.
The Office of Faith-based and Community Initiatives
conducts outreach, recommends changes to HUD policies and
programs that present barriers to grassroots organizations, and
initiates special projects, such as grant writing training.
The Office of Sustainability provides technical and policy
support for energy, green building, and transportation programs
at HUD and other relevant departments. The office will manage
new grant programs to catalyze the home retrofit market and
promote sustainable community planning and development. This
office will also coordinate inter- and intra-agency efforts to
ensure that housing programs targeting the built environment
are well coordinated with the programs of the Department of
Transportation, the Department of Energy, the Environmental
Protection Agency, and other relevant Federal agencies. The
office will also coordinate with the Office of Policy
Development and Research to develop and undertake integrated
research to support efforts leading to sustainable housing and
regional planning.
The Office of Strategic Planning and Management drives
organizational, programmatic, and operational change across the
Department to maximize efficiency and performance. The office
will facilitate HUD's strategic planning process by identifying
the Department's strategic priorities and transformational
change initiatives, create and manage work plans for targeted
transformation projects, and develop key program performance
measures and targets for monitoring.
The Office of Disaster and Emergency Management will advise
the Secretary, Deputy Secretary, and Departmental leadership on
all aspects of disaster preparedness, response, recovery, and
emergency management, and will implement programs to mitigate
threats to employees, public resources, and critical
infrastructure. The Office will work with key stakeholders,
including the Department of Homeland Security and White House
National Security Staff, to establish policy and ensure
compliance with directives for safety and welfare of HUD
equities and partners. Through Regional Disaster Coordinators,
the Office will ensure preparedness and response across the
nation.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer Personnel $65,049,000
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 13,861,000
Compensation and Benefits............................
Office of the Chief Financial Officer Personnel 33,831,000
Compensation and Benefits............................
Office of the General Counsel Personnel Compensation 86,482,000
and Benefits.........................................
Office of the Departmental Equal Employment 3,115,000
Opportunity Personnel Compensation and Benefits......
Office of 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 Disaster and Emergency Management........... 4,875,000
Non-personnel expenses................................ 264,479,000
The Committee recommends $538,552,000 for this account,
which is $1,541,000 above the level enacted in the fiscal year
2010 bill, and equal to the budget request. The Committee will
continue to monitor hiring and personnel needs as the
appropriation process moves forward.
The bill provides funding in this account for necessary
administrative and non-administrative expenses of the
Department. Funds may be used for advertising and promotional
activities that support the housing mission area. Further, the
Secretary is authorized to transfer funds between offices under
this account, after such transfer has been submitted to, and
received written approval by, the Committees on Appropriations.
No appropriation for any office may be increased or decreased
by more than 10 percent. In addition, the bill includes a
provision requiring the Department to notify the Committees on
Appropriations one month in advance of any international
travel. Finally, the bill contains a general provision (Sec.
234), as requested in the budget, which includes an additional
$2,070,635 to increase the Department's acquisition workforce
capacity and capabilities. Finally, the Committee includes
$11,000,000, as requested in the budget, for modernization of
the Robert C. Weaver, HUD Headquarters building.
PERSONNEL COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS
PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $197,074,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... 197,282,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 197,282,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... +208,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. - - -
The Office of Public and Indian Housing (PIH) oversees the
administration of HUD's Public Housing, Housing Choice Voucher,
and Native American Programs. PIH is responsible for
administering and managing programs authorized and funded by
Congress under the basic provisions of the U.S. Housing Act of
1937.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $197,282,000 for this account,
which is $208,000 above the level enacted for fiscal year 2010
and is equal to the budget request.
COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $98,989,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... 105,768,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 105,768,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... 6,779,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. - - -
The Office of Community Planning and Development (CPD)
assists in developing viable communities by promoting
integrated approaches that provide decent housing, a suitable
living environment, and expand economic opportunities for low
and moderate-income persons. The primary means toward this end
is the development of partnerships among all levels of
government and the private sector, including for-profit and
nonprofit organizations. This Office is responsible for the
effective administration of Community Development Block Grant
programs (CDBG), Home Investment Partnership (HOME),
Brownfields Economic Development Initiative (BEDI), Self-Help
Homeownership Opportunity Program (SHOP), Housing Opportunities
for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) and other HUD community
development programs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $105,768,000 for this account,
which is $6,779,000 above the level enacted in the fiscal year
2010 bill and equal to the budget request.
HOUSING
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $374,887,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... 395,917,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 395,917,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... +21,030,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. - - -
The Office of Housing implements programmatic, regulatory,
financial, and operational responsibilities under the
leadership of six deputy assistant secretaries and the field
staff for activities related to Federal Housing Administration
(FHA) multifamily and single family homeownership programs, the
housing counseling grant program, and assisted rental housing
programs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $395,917,000 for this account,
which is $21,030,000 above the level enacted in the fiscal year
2010 bill and is equal to the budget request.
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNMENT NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $11,095,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... 10,902,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 10,902,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... -193,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. - - -
The Office of the Government National Mortgage Association
(GNMA) supports the Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS) program,
which is the guarantee of timely payment of principal and
interest to investors on the mortgage-backed securities pools
of FHA, Veterans Affairs, Rural Development, and Public and
Indian Housing guaranteed loans. The mission of GNMA is to
expand affordable housing in America by linking domestic and
global capital markets to the Nation's housing markets.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $10,902,000, which is $193,000
below the level enacted in fiscal year 2010 and equal to the
budget request. The Committee recommends that the salaries and
expenses of GNMA be paid from revenue earned. As GNMA plays a
significant role in helping the housing sector respond to and
recover from the subprime crisis, the Committee recommends this
additional flexibility to ensure that GNMA will be staffed
adequately to respond to the increase in FHA guarantees.
POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $21,138,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... 23,588,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 23,588,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... +2,450,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. - - -
The Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R)
directs the Department's annual research agenda to support the
research and evaluation of housing and other departmental
initiatives to improve HUD's effectiveness and operational
efficiencies. Research proposals are determined through
consultation with senior staff from each HUD program office,
the Office of Management and Budget, and Congress as well as
discussion with key HUD stakeholders. The office addresses all
inquiries regarding key housing economic information such as
the American Housing Survey, Fair Market Rents, Median Family
Income Limits, annual housing goals and oversight of the
Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs), Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac and Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and mortgage
market analyses.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $23,588,000 for this account,
which is $2,450,000 above the level enacted in fiscal year 2010
and is equal to the budget request.
FAIR HOUSING AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $71,800,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... 67,964,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 67,964,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... -3,836,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. - - -
The Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) is
responsible for developing policies and guidance, and for
providing technical support for enforcement of the Fair Housing
Act and the civil rights statues. FHEO serves as the central
point for the formulation, clearance and dissemination of
policies, intra-departmental clearances, and public information
related to fair housing issues. FHEO receives, investigates,
conciliates and recommends the issuance of charges of
discrimination and determinations of non-compliance for
complaints filed under Title VIII and other civil rights
authorities. Additionally, FHEO conducts civil rights
compliance reviews and compliance reviews under Section 3.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $67,964,000 for this account,
which is $3,836,000 below the level enacted in the fiscal year
2010 bill and equal to the budget request.
OFFICE OF HEALTHY HOMES AND LEAD HAZARD CONTROL
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $7,151,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... 6,762,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 6,762,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... -389,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. - - -
The Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control
(OHHLHC) is directly responsible for the administration of the
Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction program authorized by Title X
of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992. The
office also addresses multiple housing-related hazards
affecting the health of residents, particularly children. The
office develops lead-based paint regulations, guidelines, and
policies applicable to HUD programs, and enforces the Lead
Disclosure Rule issued under Title X. For both lead-based paint
and healthy homes issues, the office designs and administers
programs for grants, training, research, education and
information dissemination, and serves as the Department's
central information source for the Secretary, the Congress, HUD
staff, HUD grantees, state and local governments and the
public.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $6,762,000 for this account, which
is $389,000 below the level enacted in the fiscal year 2010
bill and equal to the budget request.
Public and Indian Housing
TRANSFORMING RENTAL ASSISTANCE
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... $350,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... - - -
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. -350,000,000
The fiscal year 2011 budget request proposed the first
phase of a new multi-year initiative to transform up to 13
different rental assistance programs into one program that
converts these units to long-term property-based rental
assistance contracts.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends no funding for the Transforming
Rental Assistance (TRA) program. While the Administration
submitted a legislative proposal to Congress in mid-May, it has
not yet seen legislative action and remains unauthorized.
TRA represents a significant shift in policy for HUD and
its inventory of nearly 1.2 million public housing units, as
well as a myriad of other HUD-assisted housing units. TRA's
stated purpose is to preserve these units as affordable options
for low income families and individuals. Indeed, the Committee
agrees that preservation is a vital concern and that public
housing is an invaluable asset, evidenced by the Committee
investing $4,000,000,000 in the Public Housing Capital Fund
through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. To date,
181,809 units of public housing have been rehabilitated with
this funding, preservation of an historic level.
In addition, TRA strives to streamline HUD's rental
assistance rules and regulations, therefore reducing the
regulatory burden on public housing authorities (PHAs) and
allowing them greater access to private financing for the
further rehabilitation of units. Again, the Committee sees the
value in streamlining federal regulations and in thinking
broadly about recapitalization methods for the affordable
housing stock. However, the system that developed over 75 years
will take more than one year to reform. The TRA proposal is
still very much evolving, as evidenced in numerous briefings
with the Department, and the Committee has concerns about
funding a proposal when so much remains unknown. Particularly,
the Committee is concerned that future costs are potentially
large and cannot commit to an approach until long-term
budgetary exposure is better defined. Further, the Committee is
concerned that the proposals for resident mobility and PHA
regionalization, as examples, are not yet well formed.
The Committee understands that the Department has invested
a great deal of time and effort into the TRA proposal. However,
the attention granted to this proposal seems to have come at
the cost of other HUD programs, also in need of reform. The
Committee is disappointed the Department chose to spend such a
large amount of time and resources on this new proposal instead
of making the regulatory changes badly needed in existing
programs, such as Section 202 and 811, as HUD itself states in
the budget.
TENANT-BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $18,184,200,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... 19,550,663,183
Recommended in the bill............................... 19,395,663,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... +1,211,463,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. -155,000,183
In fiscal year 2005, the Housing Certificate Fund was
separated into two new accounts: Tenant-Based Rental Assistance
and Project-Based Rental Assistance. This account administers
the tenant-based Section 8 rental assistance program otherwise
known as the Housing Choice Voucher program.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $19,395,663,000 for tenant-based
rental assistance, an increase of $1,211,463,000 above the
fiscal year 2010 enacted level and $155,000,183 below the
budget request for Section 8 vouchers. Consistent with the
budget request, the Committee continues the advance of
$4,000,000,000 of the funds appropriated under this heading for
Section 8 programs to October 1, 2010.
Voucher Renewals.--The Committee provides $17,080,000,000,
which is an increase of $740,800,000 above the fiscal year 2010
enacted level for the renewal of tenant-based vouchers. The
Department is instructed to monitor and report to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations each quarter on the trends
in Section 8 subsidies and to report on the required program
alterations due to changes in rent or changes in tenant income.
The Committee takes very seriously the renewal needs of
this account and is dedicated to funding existing vouchers so
that no family or individual loses their assistance. In order
to make an accurate appropriation to this account, the
Committee monitors leasing and cost data throughout the year to
determine the true needs of the program. As such, the numbers
fluctuate from the President's budget. Over the course of the
past several months, the inflation factor used to calculate
needs in this program has decreased, resulting in a reduced
renewal number for this program. The Committee will continue to
monitor leasing and inflation data as the appropriations
process moves forward, and will make adjustments, as necessary.
Further, the Committee has adjusted the funding formula
used to calculate each PHA's allocation in this account,
shifting from a formula based on data from the previous federal
fiscal year to a formula based on data from calendar year 2010.
The Committee is hopeful that this change will result in a more
streamlined process for renewal funding and will reduce the
need for setasides and contingency funding in this account.
The Committee reminds the Department that this program is a
budget-based account and must be implemented as such. The
renewal demand for this program is considerable and growing
each year. In order to responsibly fund PHAs for providing
rental assistance to the 2 million families and individuals
that rely on this resource, HUD must adhere to the strict
principles of budgeting based on rents and inflation, not on
the number of units or other expenses. Any efforts to deviate
from a budget-based approach in this account will not be looked
upon favorably by the Committee. Further, the Committee expects
HUD to follow Treasury's rules on cash management in this
account.
Tenant protection.--The Committee provides $125,000,000 for
tenant protection vouchers, $5,000,000 above the level enacted
in fiscal year 2010 and equal to the budget request. As a
result of the variable nature of this activity from year to
year, language is included allowing the Department to use
carryover and recaptures of unexpended Section 8 balances to
fund additional rental assistance costs in addition to funds
appropriated for fiscal year 2011. These additional rental
assistance costs are limited to housing assistance payments and
administrative fees not to exceed the rate of administrative
fees provided for contract renewals.
Administrative Fees.--The Committee recommends
$1,851,000,000 for allocations to the PHAs to conduct
activities associated with placing and maintaining individuals
under Section 8 assistance. This amount is $216,000,000 above
the level enacted in fiscal year 2010 and is equal to the
budget request for administrative fees and family self-
sufficiency (FSS) coordinators. This increase in administrative
fees reflects the increased number of vouchers in use at PHAs,
including special purpose vouchers such as VASH vouchers. PHAs
must have adequate resources to ensure that the resources
provided for new and renewal vouchers will be used effectively
and efficiently. The Committee instructs the Administration to
fund administrative fees based on the number of units leased,
in accordance with section 8(q) of the Quality Housing and Work
Responsibility Act (QHWRA). As part of the administrative fees,
the Committee includes $60,000,000 for FSS coordinators, equal
to the budget request and to the level enacted for 2010. FSS
Coordinators are a critical component in the success of
families in the voucher program, and they served 55,231
families in fiscal year 2009. The Committee cannot comprehend
the delay in issuing these funds to PHAs in the past, and has
included bill language to mandate that these funds be obligated
to the recipients within 60 days of enactment of this Act.
Further, the Committee reminds HUD that training is an
allowable expense in the FSS program.
Mainstream Voucher Renewals.--The Committee recommends
$113,663,183 in this account for renewal of expiring Section
811 tenant-based subsidies. In doing so, the Committee directs
HUD to issue guidance to the housing agencies administering
these vouchers to continue to serve people with disabilities
upon turnover.
Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing.--The Committee
recommends $75,000,000 for incremental voucher assistance
through the Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) program,
the same as the enacted level for 2010 and $75,000,000 above
the budget request. This program will be administered in
conjunction with the Department of Veterans Affairs and these
vouchers shall remain available for homeless veterans upon
turnover. The Committee is disappointed that the Department did
not request funding for this vital program, especially since
HUD has improved the efficiency with which previously
appropriated vouchers have been allocated. The Committee
revived this program in fiscal year 2008 after more than a
decade of neglect, and has thus far provided 30,450 vouchers
for homeless veterans. This year's allocation will add 10,000
new vouchers to that total, and will support the Department of
Veterans Affairs' (VA) goal of ending homelessness amongst
veterans within five years. The Committee instructs HUD to rely
on the Continuum of Care system to assist the VA in identifying
eligible veterans, and directs the Department to focus on
chronically homeless veterans in allocating these resources.
This program is intended to serve the most vulnerable, long-
term homeless veterans, not those currently being served in VA
programs. In order to have an effect on the chronically
homeless population, which is the goal of both HUD and the VA,
the focus needs to be on the hardest to serve population. The
Committee expects to see progress on this front and will
continue to work with HUD and the VA to accelerate leasing in
this program. In addition, the Committee directs HUD to report
on VASH utilization rates, challenges encountered in the
program, and increases in veteran self-sufficiency by January
15, 2011.
Housing and Services for Homeless Persons Demonstration.--
The Committee includes $85,000,000 for the Housing and Services
for Homeless Persons Demonstration, as proposed in the fiscal
year 2011 budget request. The Committee is very pleased that
HUD and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) are
working together to establish a demonstration that coordinates
HUD housing funding with HHS services resources for homeless
persons. It is imperative that these agencies break down the
traditional federal silos that hinder assistance for vulnerable
populations, and this demonstration is a positive step in the
direction of leveraging the expertise and resources of each
agency. By facilitating access to mainstream health programs
combined with stable, affordable housing, HUD and HHS are
leading the way toward solving homelessness in this nation. The
Committee is very hopeful that HUD and HHS will work diligently
to streamline various program and application requirements for
these funds, and encourages HUD to utilize the Office of
Special Needs Assistance Programs and its extensive Continuum
of Care (CoC) network to identify best practices, as well as
assist PHAs in identifying clients. The CoCs should, to the
maximum extent possible, be the coordinating entities for these
resources, as these organizations have tremendous experience
and expertise in housing this population, as well as connecting
individuals with mainstream services resources. The Committee
further urges HUD and HHS to grant flexibility, as appropriate,
in overcoming traditional barriers between these programs,
starting with the application process. This demonstration
should heed the lessons of other demonstrations and programs
within HUD, such as the VASH program and the Homelessness
Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program, and the Committee
expects the funding to be allocated expeditiously. To that end,
the Committee urges the Secretary to use the waiver authority
granted to ensure that the targeted population is served. The
Committee looks forward to receiving data on this demonstration
and requires that HUD and HHS present a joint briefing to the
relevant Appropriations Subcommittees on progress with this
demonstration within 180 days of enactment of this Act.
The Committee includes a provision allowing the Secretary
of HUD to transfer up to $100,000,000 of the allocation in this
account to the Transformation Initiative. This program is an
absolute necessity for the nearly two million extremely low-
and low-income families that rely on it for safe and affordable
housing. The Committee knows, however, that budgetary
projections will continue to be updated as the appropriations
process moves forward. If the Secretary determines that factors
such as lower inflation rates have decreased the renewal needs
of this account, he may choose to transfer funding.
The Committee does not include any of the authorizing
changes that the Department's budget requested, including the
authority to offset renewal allocations for PHAs and reminds
the Department once again that these changes must be
contemplated in a full reauthorization bill, not in an
Appropriations bill. The changes proposed are significant
shifts in policy, such as lifting the cap on the number of
authorized units each PHA may lease, and are best addressed in
the context of a larger reform effort. Further, recent issues
at some PHAs point to the fact that the era of incremental
improvements in this program is over, and that only a
comprehensive reform effort will address these issues. The
Department is advised that there is a role for both the
authorizing and appropriations functions and that the two
should complement, not overstep or contradict, each other.
The Committee continues in bill language the direction to
the Department to communicate to each PHA, within 60 days of
enactment, the fixed amount that will be made available to each
PHA for fiscal year 2011. The amount being provided in this
account is the only source of federal funds that may be used to
renew tenant-based vouchers. The amounts appropriated here may
not be augmented from any other source.
HOUSING CERTIFICATE FUND
The Housing Certificate Fund, until fiscal year 2005,
provided funding for both the project-based and tenant-based
components of the Section 8 program. Project-Based Rental
Assistance and Tenant-Based Rental Assistance are now
separately funded accounts. The Housing Certificate Fund
retains balances from previous years' appropriations.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The President did not request, and the Committee does not
include, a rescission from the Housing Certificate Fund for
fiscal year 2011. Language is included to allow unobligated
balances from specific accounts may be used to renew or amend
Project-Based Rental Assistance contracts.
PUBLIC HOUSING CAPITAL FUND
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $2,500,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... 2,044,200,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 2,500,000,000
Bill compared with:...................................
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010..................... - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................... +455,800,000
The Public Housing Capital Fund provides funding for public
housing capital programs, including public housing development
and modernization. Examples of capital modernization projects
include replacing roofs and windows, improving common spaces,
upgrading electrical and plumbing systems, and renovating the
interior of an apartment.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a total funding level of
$2,500,000,000, which is equal to the level provided in fiscal
year 2010 and $455,800,000 above the budget request. The
Committee signaled its commitment to the Capital Fund through
the inclusion of $4,000,000,000 in the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA) in February, 2009, and believed that
HUD would be partner in this effort. In fact, the Committee
commends HUD and in particular, the Assistant Secretary for
Public and Indian Housing, for obligating these resources
extremely efficiently. However, in the fiscal year 2011 budget,
the Department used this unprecedented investment in public
housing as a reason to reduce funding for the account, which is
counterproductive to the goal of working through the capital
needs backlog that PHAs are facing. While the Department
performed admirably in allocating the funding provided in ARRA
to PHAs, it is disappointing that HUD's only strategy now for
reducing the capital backlog is its Transforming Rental
Assistance program, an unauthorized initiative.
Within the amounts provided the Committee directs that:
--$20,000,000 is made available for Emergency Capital
needs, excluding Presidentially declared disasters. The
Committee continues last year's language to ensure that
funds are used only for repairs needed due to an
unforeseen and unanticipated emergency event or natural
disaster that occurs during fiscal year 2011;
--$50,000,000 is directed to the Resident Opportunity
and Supportive Services program. This is equal to the
amount provided in the fiscal year 2010 enacted bill.
The Committee was disappointed to see that the
Department's budget request did not include funding for
this important program, especially in light of the fact
that 617 applications totaling $124,000,000 were
received in fiscal year 2009 for $40,000,000 in
available resources. For the second consecutive year,
the Committee is concerned about the large unexpended
balance in this account and directs, in bill language,
the Department to issue a Notice of Funding
Availability (NOFA) for these funds within 60 days of
enactment of this Act. The Committee notes that the
Department did not follow this directive in fiscal year
2010, so the directive has been included in bill
language to eliminate any potential confusion about
compliance;
--No more than $15,345,000 is directed to support the
ongoing Public Housing Financial and Physical
Assessment activities of the Real Estate Assessment
Center; and
--$8,820,000 is directed to the support of
administrative and judicial receiverships. The
Committee directs that the Department continue to
report to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations quarterly on the progress made at each
agency under receivership.
The Department is directed to continue to provide quarterly
detailed reports on those Public Housing Authorities with
obligation rates of less than 90 percent. In addition, the
fiscal year 2010 report included an instruction to HUD to
evaluate the effectiveness of the myriad of reporting and
planning mechanisms now being required of PHAs. The Committee
did not receive any such analysis, thus the Department is now
directed to provide a list to the Committee within 30 days of
enactment of this Act that details every reporting requirement
and data system that PHAs must adhere to, as well as the
explanation of how HUD uses this information.
PUBLIC HOUSING OPERATING FUND
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $4,775,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... 4,829,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 4,829,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010..................... +54,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................... - - -
The Public Housing Operating Fund subsidizes the costs
associated with operating and maintaining public housing. This
subsidy supplements funding received by public housing
authorities (PHA) from tenant rent contributions and other
income. In accordance with section 9 of the United States
Housing Act of 1937, as amended, funds are allocated by formula
to public housing authorities for the following purposes:
utility costs; anticrime and anti-drug activities, including
the costs of providing adequate security; routine maintenance
cost; administrative costs; and general operating expenses.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $4,829,000,000 for the federal
share of PHA operating expenses. This amount is $54,000,000
above the enacted level for fiscal year 2010 and is equal to
the budget request.
The Committee is pleased that the Administration has
recommended full funding for this account, but is concerned
about the $99,000,000 included in this account to support units
recently added to the federal inventory of public housing.
The Department's commitment to sustainability and energy
efficiency is admirable, and nowhere is this commitment needed
more than in public housing units. The Committee expects that
HUD and the Public Housing Authorities will work together to
find ways to achieve greater energy efficiency in public
housing, which will ease the pressure of rising utility costs
on this account.
CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS INITIATIVE
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $ - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... 250,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... - - -
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010..................... - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................... -250,000,000
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends no funding for the Choice
Neighborhoods Initiative, as this program is, yet again,
unauthorized. The Committee has instead elected to fund the
HOPE VI program to further complete the work of revitalizing
severely distressed public housing units, as this proven
program has been in existence since 1993. In the fiscal year
2010 bill, the Committee funded Choice Neighborhoods as a
demonstration, and no awards have been made. Therefore, it is
premature to create an entirely new program without evidence of
how the demonstration will work. Further, the Committee has
concerns about the Department's proposal to use HUD funds to
pay for items such as transportation improvements or
educational facilities. The Committee has no intent to dilute
the valuable and limited funding for the revitalization of
public housing by funding enhancements that should be supported
by other federal departments. Furthermore, it would be more
efficient for HUD to leverage its federal partnerships with the
Department of Education and the Department of Transportation to
support the place-based enhancements that advance each agency's
mission. There is no need for HUD to tackle all of the problems
of a distressed neighborhood alone, and to do so would negate
all of the work that has been done on building partnerships and
interagency collaborations thus far.
REVITALIZATION OF SEVERELY DISTRESSED PUBLIC HOUSING (HOPE VI)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $200,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... - - -
Recommended in the bill............................... 200,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. +200,000,000
The Revitalization of Severely Distressed Public Housing
program, also known as HOPE VI, provides competitive grants to
public housing authorities to revitalize entire neighborhoods
adversely impacted by the presence of badly deteriorated public
housing projects. In addition to developing and constructing
new affordable housing, the program provides PHAs with the
authority to demolish obsolete projects and to provide self-
sufficiency services for families who reside in and around the
facility.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee provides $200,000,000 for the Severely
Distressed Public Housing program (HOPE VI) for fiscal year
2011, equal to the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and
$200,000,000 above the budget request. The Committee commends
HUD for its recent work with the earliest HOPE VI grantees and
its success in getting some of the oldest projects moving
forward again. HUD must continue to work with grantees that
have been delayed for various reasons, and the Committee
expects that the backlog of unexpended funds will continue to
diminish. Particularly since the NOFA does not change
significantly from year to year, the Committee directs HUD to
issue its fiscal year 2011 NOFA within 90 days of enactment, as
included in bill language.
NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANTS
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $700,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... 580,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 700,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. 120,000,000
The Native American Housing Block Grants program provides
funds to Indian tribes and their Tribally Designated Housing
Entities (TDHES) to address housing needs within their
communities. The block grant is designed to fund TDHE operating
requirements and capital needs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $700,000,000 for the Native
American Housing Block Grants. This is $120,000,000 above the
budget request and the same as the level enacted in fiscal year
2010.
The Committee is disappointed that the Department
continually cuts funding for this program in its annual budget
request. As discussed during the Committee's hearing an
``Housing and Transportation Issues in Native American
Communities,'' the need for affordable housing units in Indian
Country is undeniable. A 2003 United States Commission on Civil
Rights study (``A Quiet Crisis: Federal Funding and Unmet Needs
in Indian Country'') found that nearly 200,000 housing units
are needed immediately to adequately house Native Americans on
their native land. Further, high rates of unemployment on
native lands and inadequate infrastructure need to be
addressed. The Native American Housing Block Grant funds
present an opportunity to better the lives of Native Americans
through both housing and employment. In addition, construction
of housing in Indian Country is a significant chance to advance
sustainable building practices and lower the energy costs of
housing in often remote and expensive areas of the country.
Of the amounts made available under this heading:
--$2,000,000 is included for Title VI loan
guarantees. However, the Department is advised that
loan level activity must be monitored to ensure that
sufficient grant funds are available as collateral for
new loans;
--$4,250,000 is for technical assistance training and
associated travel. The Committee recognizes that the
Department has proposed to consolidate technical
assistance funding in the Transformation Initiative.
However, the Committee remains committed to increasing
the capacity of grantees on tribal lands and wants to
ensure that funds will be dedicated to this activity;
and
--$3,500,000 is included for contracted assistance
regarding a national organization representing Native
American housing interests for providing training and
technical assistance to tribally designated housing
entities as authorized under NAHASDA.
In 2003, when HUD began using the new 2000 Census data, HUD
shifted the basis for the needs portion of the formula
distribution of funds from single-race to multi-race. The
Committee continues language from last year instructing HUD to
distribute funds based on single-race or multi-race data,
whichever is the higher amount for each recipient.
The Committee includes language requiring the Department to
notify grantees of their formula allocation within 60 days of
enactment of this Act.
Technical assistance.--The Committee expects HUD will
provide targeted and valuable technical assistance to Indian
tribes to assure the best expenditure of Native American
Housing Block Grant funds. Too often, technical assistance in
this program has been slow or ineffective, and the Committee
will not tolerate inefficiency in this regard. The demand is
too great, and the consequences too dire, for HUD to ignore the
needs of this population.
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds.--The
Committee commends HUD for its quick obligation of funds
provided for this program in ARRA. The Committee expects HUD
will continue to work diligently with tribes to ensure these
funds are used effectively and efficiently.
Coordination of Indian programs.--The Committee is pleased
the Department's budget discussed the need for improved
coordination of Federal housing programs for Native Americans
and Alaska Natives. The Committee directs HUD to work with the
Department of the Interior to clarify the roles and
responsibilities of each Department and coordinate the delivery
of housing programs to ensure maximum benefit and avoid
duplicative efforts. The Committee directs the Departments to
submit a report to the Committees on Appropriations outlining
the progress that has been made on this request by March 29,
2011.
Transformation initiative.--The Committee looks forward to
the results of the Assessment of Housing Needs in Indian
Country and the demonstration of sustainable building practices
on Native American lands, both funded through the Department's
Transformation Initiative in fiscal year 2010.
NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANT
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $13,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... 10,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 10,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... -3,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. - - -
The Hawaiian Homelands Homeownership Act of 2000 created
the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant program to provide
grants to the State of Hawaii Department of Hawaiian Home Lands
for housing and housing-related assistance to develop, maintain
and operate affordable housing for eligible low-income Native
Hawaiian families.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for this program,
$3,000,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2010 and
equal to the budget request. Of the amounts provided, $300,000
is for technical assistance.
The Committee is concerned about the high carryover balance
in this account and directs HUD to work with the Department of
Hawaiian Home Lands to ensure that the funds provided in this
account will be fully utilized in a timely and expeditious
manner because the need remains great. Over 20,000 Native
Hawaiians are on the waiting list for homestead properties. The
Committee urges the Department to put these funds, and prior
year's funds, to immediate use in addressing this backlog. The
Committee directs the Department to report on the progress of
obligating these funds within 90 days of enactment of this Act
and quarterly thereafter.
INDIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT
Program account:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... $7,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. 9,000,000
Recommended in the bill........................... 9,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... +2,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. - - -
Limitation on direct loans:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... $919,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. 994,000,000
Recommended in the bill........................... 994,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... +75,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. - - -
Section 184 of the Housing and Community Development Act of
1992 establishes a loan guarantee program for Native Americans
to build or purchase homes on trust land. This program provides
access to sources of private financing for Indian families and
Indian housing authorities that otherwise cannot acquire
financing because of the unique legal status of Indian trust
land. This financing vehicle enables families to construct new
homes or to purchase existing properties on reservations.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $9,000,000 in new credit subsidy
for the Section 184 loan guarantee program, $2,000,000 above
the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and the same as the budget
request to guarantee a total loan volume of $994,000,000.
NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT
Program account:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... $1,044,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. - - -
Recommended in the bill........................... 1,044,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. +1,044,000
Limitation on direct loans:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... $41,504,255
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. - - -
Recommended in the bill........................... 41,504,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... -255
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. +41,504,000
The Hawaiian Homelands Homeownership Act of 2000 created
the Native Hawaiian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund to provide loan
guarantees for native Hawaiian individuals and their families,
the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, the Office of Hawaiian
Affairs, and private, nonprofit organizations experienced in
the planning and development of affordable housing for Native
Hawaiians. The funds can be used for the purchase,
construction, and/or rehabilitation of single-family homes on
Hawaiian Home Lands. This program provides access to private
sources of financing that would otherwise not be available
because of the unique legal status of Hawaiian Home Lands.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $1,044,000 for this program, the
same amount as provided in fiscal year 2010 and $1,044,000
above the President's request to guarantee a total loan volume
of $41,504,000.
The Committee is concerned about the slow expenditure of
credit subsidy in this account. The Department is instructed to
take the necessary steps to ensure that the credit subsidy in
this account will be fully utilized in a timely and expeditious
manner because the need remains great. Over 20,000 Native
Hawaiians are on the waiting list for homestead properties. The
Committee urges the Department to put these funds, and prior
year's funds, to immediate use in addressing this backlog. The
Committee directs the Department to report on the progress of
obligating these funds within 90 days of enactment of this Act
and quarterly thereafter.
Community Planning and Development
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $335,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... 340,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 350,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... +15,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. +10,000,000
The Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA)
program is authorized by the Housing Opportunities for Persons
with AIDS Act. This program provides states and localities with
resources and incentives to devise long-term comprehensive
strategies to meet the housing needs of persons with HIV/AIDS
and their families. Ninety percent of funding is distributed by
formula to qualifying states and metropolitan areas based on
the cumulative number and incidences of AIDS reported to the
Centers for Disease Control. The remaining 10 percent of
funding is distributed through a national competition.
Government recipients are required to have a HUD-approved
Comprehensive Plan or Comprehensive Housing Affordability
Strategy (CHAS).
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $350,000,000, which is $15,000,000
above the enacted level for fiscal year 2010 and $10,000,000
above the budget request.
Within the funds provided, the Department should continue
to give priority to creating new housing opportunities for
persons with HIV or AIDS. The Committee believes affordable
housing is a critical component of effective HIV/AIDS
prevention, treatment and care. Up to 70 percent of all people
living with HIV or AIDS report a lifetime experience of
homelessness or housing instability and the HIV/AIDS death rate
is seven to nine times higher for homeless adults than for the
general population. The Committee provides additional funding
for this program in order to provide a stable cost-effective
option to more persons living with HIV or AIDS.
The Committee continues language requiring the Secretary to
renew eligible, expiring permanent supportive housing contracts
previously funded under the national competition before
awarding new competitive grants.
The Committee includes language requiring the Department to
notify grantees of their formula allocation within 60 days of
enactment of this Act.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $4,450,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... 4,380,100,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 4,352,100,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... -97,900,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. -28,000,000
The Community Development Fund provides funding to state
and local governments, as well as other eligible entities, to
carry out community and economic development activities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a total of $4,352,100,000 for the
Community Development Fund account, which is $97,900,000 below
the fiscal year 2010 level and $28,000,000 below the fiscal
year 2011 budget request.
Of the amounts made available:
--$3,990,755,000 is for the formula grants and state
share;
--$65,000,000 for the Native American Housing and
Economic Development Block Grant;
--$150,000,000 for the Sustainable Communities
Initiative;
--$25,000,000 for the Rural Innovation Fund;
--$25,000,000 for the University Community Fund--
Section 107 Grants;
--$77,145,000 for economic development initiative
activities and $12,200,000 for neighborhood initiative
activities; and
--$7,000,000 for insular areas.
The Committee includes language requiring the Department to
notify grantees of their formula allocation within 60 days of
enactment of this Act.
Sustainable Communities Initiative.--The Committee provides
$150,000,000 for the Sustainable Communities Initiative, equal
to the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and the budget request.
The Committee is very pleased by HUD's collaboration with the
Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) in the Partnership for Sustainable
Communities. The strength of the partnership is admirable, and
the accomplishments to date are impressive. Within six months
of receiving the funding for the Sustainable Communities
Initiative, HUD conducted a listening tour and solicited pre-
NOFA comments from interested communities and stakeholders. The
three agencies have collaborated on reviewing grant
applications and formulating policies for the future. The level
of attention to this effort is impressive and the Committee
urges HUD to continue to work with DOT and EPA, as well as
other agencies as appropriate, to advance the goals of
sustainable communities. The Department must be cautious,
however, that the roles and responsibilities of the three
departments are separate and defined, but complementary. There
can be no duplication of effort. Further, HUD is reminded that
sustainability is not a concept that exists only in urban
areas, but that many rural communities are struggling with
energy efficiency, regional planning and livability, as well.
HUD is encouraged, along with its partners, to address the
needs of rural communities, as well as urban centers, with
these resources.
Rural Innovation Fund.--The Committee provides $25,000,000
for the Rural Innovation Fund, equal to the fiscal year 2010
budget and $25,000,000 above the level requested. The Committee
is disappointed that the Department would abandon this program
one year after bringing it into existence, and believes that
the needs of small and rural communities are an important part
of HUD's mission. The Committee directs HUD to brief the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations on the planned
expenditure of these funds and the funds appropriated in fiscal
year 2010 within 60 days of enactment of this Act.
University Community Fund.--The Committee denies the
Department's request to consolidate the four separate
university partnership programs into one unified $25,000,000
University Community Fund. As in prior years, funding will be
awarded to historically black colleges and universities, tribal
colleges and universities, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian
Institutions, and Hispanic-serving institutions. The Committee
expects these resources will be used to revitalize
neighborhoods surrounding these Colleges and Universities and
to assist the residents of these neighborhoods.
Catalytic Competition Grants.--The Committee denies the
Department's request to include $150,000,000 within this
account to create the Catalytic Competition Grant program. The
Committee recognizes the great need for capital assistance for
stalled industrial and commercial development projects in
distressed areas across the country. However, the Committee
believes localities could undertake these efforts with their
regular Community Development Block Grant funds. In addition,
creation of a new program to target the complex needs of
distressed areas should be developed through the regular
authorization process.
The Committee directs HUD to implement the Economic
Development Initiative program as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recipient Project Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
American Legion Post 139, CA...... Rehabilitation and $95,000
Renovation of an
American Legion
Hall.
American Red Cross, Cincinnati Construction and 750,000
Area Chapter, OH. Build Out of a
Regional Red Cross
Hub.
Appalachia Service Project, TN.... Home Repair Program 350,000
for Low-Income
Families.
ARC Community Services, MA........ Renovate a Building 300,000
that Provides
Services for
Individuals with
Developmental
Disabilities.
Ashunti Residential Management Renovation of 600,000
Systems Inc., IL. Existing Facility.
Atlanta Center for Civil and Human Construction of a 500,000
Rights, GA. Civil Rights Museum
and Visitor Center
in Downtown Atlanta.
Black Economic Union of Greater Planning, Design, 1,000,000
Kansas City, MO. Renovation and
Revitalization of a
Historic Building.
Blue Springs Hoke County CDC (BSHC- Acquisition of Land 500,000
CDC), NC. for an Affordable
Housing Initiative.
Boys Town of Chicago, IL.......... Construction of 500,000
Housing for Low-
Income Youth.
Bristol Boys and Girls Club Planning, Design and 1,000,000
Association, CT. Construction of a
Boys and Girls Club.
Brooke County Commission, WV...... Development and 400,000
Construction of a
Park and Memorial.
Brooklyn Navy Yard Development Design and 500,000
Corporation, NY. Construction of a
Facility.
Bucks County Housing Development Construction of 500,000
Corporation, PA. Affordable Housing
for Disabled
Veterans.
CAMBA, Inc., NY................... Construction of 1,000,000
Supportive Housing.
Chabad of the Valley, CA.......... Renovation of a 250,000
Facility.
Charles City County, VA........... Construction of a 500,000
Library Facility.
Charles County, Department of Renovation of Low- 300,000
Community Services, MD. Income Housing.
Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc., AZ... Building 400,000
Rehabilitation for
a Workforce
Readiness Center.
Children's Museum of Tampa, FL.... Construction of a 750,000
Facility.
City of Albany, NY................ Construction and 750,000
Renovation of a
Facility.
City of Astoria, OR............... Construction of a 800,000
Park.
City of Burbank, CA............... Planning, Design and 100,000
Construction of a
Library.
City of Canton, OH................ Infrastructure 500,000
Improvement and
Streetscaping for
Mahoning Road
Economic
Development Project.
City of Chicago, IL............... Construction of 750,000
Veterans Housing.
City of Cleburne, TX.............. Construction of the 250,000
Lake Pat Cleburne
Trail System.
City of Cortland, NY.............. Engineering, 400,000
Preparation and
Construction of a
Community Center.
City of Creedmoor, NC............. Planning and Design 500,000
for a Community
Center.
City of Dubuque, IA............... Renovation of 750,000
Buildings to Create
Affordable
Workforce Housing.
City of Durham, NC................ Streetscaping of 500,000
Fayetteville Street
Corridor Project.
City of Ecorse, MI................ Demolition of 1,000,000
Blighted Buildings.
City of Enterprise, AL............ Demolition, 500,000
Planning,
Construction, and
Renovation of
Downtown Business
District.
City of Fort Lauderdale, FL....... Streetscaping in 500,000
Underserved
Communities.
City of Fullerton, CA............. Demolition, 500,000
Planning, Design
and Construction of
a Community Center.
City of Gary, IN.................. Demolition of 500,000
Buildings and
Neighborhood
Redevelopment.
City of Glens Falls, NY........... Land Acquisition and 500,000
Rehabilitation of a
Community Service
Center.
City of Gonzales, LA.............. Park Improvements... 250,000
City of Grants, NM................ Planning, Design, 750,000
Construction and
Build Out of a
Library.
City of Green Bay, WI............. Demolition of a 1,000,000
Blighted Building.
City of Inkster, MI............... Construction of a 550,000
Senior Center.
City of La Joya, TX............... Construction of 500,000
Youth Facilities.
City of Lawndale, CA.............. Design and 500,000
Construction of a
Community Center.
City of Mount Rainier, MD......... Planning and Design 350,000
of a Library.
City of New Bedford, MA........... Demolition and 750,000
Construction of an
ADA-Compliant
Pedestrian Bridge.
City of Port Orchard, WA.......... Parcel Acquisition 500,000
and Project Design.
City of River Rouge, MI........... Demolition of 500,000
Blighted Buildings.
City of Salem, OR................. Construct Waterline 500,000
Improvements.
City of Stevens Point, WI......... Environmental 750,000
Remediation and
Development within
the City of Stevens
Point.
City of Toledo, OH................ Ohio Broadway Street 1,000,000
Corridor
Enhancement.
City of Tucson, AZ................ Stabilization and 500,000
Renovation of the
Historic Marist
College Building.
City of Warren, MI................ Facility and 750,000
Security
Improvements to
Senior Apartments.
City of Winter Park, FL........... Acquisition of Land 250,000
for Expansion of a
Park.
City of Worcester, MA............. Gardner-Kilby- 450,000
Hammond
Neighborhood
Revitalization.
Community Advocates, Inc., WI..... Acquisition and 250,000
Remodeling of a
Facility.
Community Development Corporation Redevelopment of the 600,000
of South Berkshire, MA. former Searles
Bryant School
Complex in Great
Barrington.
Community Food Bank, Inc., AZ..... Installation of 200,000
Solar Panels.
Community Hospitals of Central Design, 750,000
California Foundation, dba Construction,
Community Medical Foundation, CA. Engineering,
Furnishings and
Equipment.
Comprehensive Community Action, Renovations 250,000
Inc., RI. including Energy
Efficient Upgrades.
Concourse House, HDFC, NY......... Renovation of a 150,000
Facility.
Connecticut Food Bank, Inc., CT... Renovation of a 1,000,000
Facility.
Coos County Historical Society, OR Planning, 500,000
Development and
Construction of a
Facility.
Covenant House, LA................ Acquisition of Land 250,000
for a Low-Income
Youth Initiative.
Davis Street Community Center, Building Acquisition 500,000
Inc., CA.
Domestic Abuse Intervention Construction of a 300,000
Services, Inc., WI. Domestic Violence
Shelter.
East Hartford Housing Authority, ADA Upgrades to and 500,000
CT. Renovation of a
Community Center.
Emlenton Borough, PA.............. Redevelopment of a 150,000
Former Industrial
Site.
Essex County Family Justice Renovations of Essex 700,000
Center, NJ. County Family
Justice Center.
Family Service Association of San Renovation of a 500,000
Antonio, TX. Roof, HVAC and
Other Facilities.
Friends of the Waterboro Public Construction of a 500,000
Library, ME. Community Center.
Glenridge Senior Citizen Multi- Construction of a 230,000
Service & Advisory Center, Inc, Community Center.
NY.
Hilltown Community Development Development of 300,000
Corporation, MA. Energy-Efficient
Affordable Senior
Housing.
Historic Seattle, WA.............. Restoration and 475,000
Preservation of
Washington Hall.
Island Municipality of Rota, MP... Design and 500,000
Renovation of a
Facility.
Isles, Inc., NJ................... Construction of a 300,000
Green Job Training
Center.
Josephine Solomon Ellis Construction of Low- 500,000
Foundation--CDC, PA. Income Housing.
Joseph's Home, Inc., NY........... Rehabilitation of a 350,000
Community Room for
Veterans.
Kips Bay Boys & Girls Club, NY.... Construction, 75,000
Renovations and
Equipment.
Kittay House, Jewish Home Building Renovation 200,000
Lifecare, Inc, NY. and Repairs.
Lake Eufaula Association, OK...... Construction of a 400,000
Facility.
Lawrence Economic Development Redevelopment of a 700,000
Corporation, OH. Park.
Liberty House Shelter Inc, NH..... Building Acquisition 250,000
for Housing for
Homeless Veterans.
Los Angeles County Department of Construction of a 300,000
Parks and Recreation, CA. Park.
Lutheran Social Service of Renovation of Homes 225,000
Minnesota, MN. for the Disabled.
Luzerne County Commissioners, PA.. Infrastructure 750,000
Improvements at the
Crestwood and
Hanover Industrial
Parks.
Martin House Restoration Restoration and 1,000,000
Corporation, NY. Improvements to the
Historic Darwin
Martin House Home
and Complex.
Middlesex Community College, MA... Planning, Design and 300,000
Renovation of a
Historic Building.
Morehouse College, GA............. Construction of a 500,000
Facility to Display
the Papers of
Martin Luther King,
Jr.
Mount Washington Community Planning and 100,000
Development Corporation, PA. Construction of a
Trail.
Municipality of Yauco, PR......... Construction of a 150,000
Children's
Playground.
Museum for African Art, NY........ Streetscaping....... 500,000
My Sister's House, CA............. Renovation of Asian 250,000
and Pacific
Islander Domestic
Violence Survivor
Home.
National Civil Rights Museum, TN.. Renovation of a 750,000
Facility.
Nepperhan Community Center, Inc., Renovation of a 200,000
NY. Community Center.
New River Community and Technical Acquisition and 600,000
College, WV. Renovation of a
Building to be Used
as Technical
Training Center.
Niles Township Government, IL..... Renovation of a 250,000
Facility for the
Niles Township Food
Pantry.
Northern Illinois Food Bank, IL... Construction of a 300,000
Facility.
Old Sturbridge Village, MA........ Renovation of 135,000
Historic Buildings.
Paul J. Cooper Center for Human Building 300,000
Services, Inc., NY. Acquisition,
Renovation,
Expansion and Build
out of a Facility.
People in Progress, Inc., CA...... Acquisition of a 380,000
Building for
Homeless Veterans.
Porter County Government, IN...... Streetscaping....... 500,000
Positive Workforce INC., NY....... Completion of a Job 250,000
Training Facility.
Project Angel Food, CA............ Installation of a 150,000
Roof and Solar
Energy Panels.
ProLiteracy, NY................... Planning, Design and 1,000,000
Construction of a
Building.
Providence Community Action Renovation and 750,000
Program, RI. Rehabilitation of a
Community Center.
Rebuilding Together Broward Renovations to Low- 250,000
County, Inc., FL. Income Housing.
Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Planning, Design and 1,000,000
MN. Construction of a
Multi-Purpose
Facility.
Redevelopment Authority of the Redevelopment of a 250,000
County of Westmoreland, PA. Brownfield Site.
Rum River Health Services, Inc., Construction of 500,000
MN. Temporary and
Permanent
Supportive Housing
Units.
Senior Services of Snohomish Construction and 500,000
County, WA. Equipment for a
Service Delivery
Facility.
Southern Queens Park Association, Modernization and 800,000
Inc., NY. Improvements to Roy
Wilkins Complex.
St. Louis Development Corporation, Development of Road 750,000
MO. and Stormwater
Infrastructure for
Carondelet Commons
Business Park
Development.
Suwannee County Board of County Engineering, Design 500,000
Commissioners, FL. and Construction of
a Library.
The Children's Aid Society's Acquisition of Land 1,000,000
Goodhue Center, NY. for a Park.
The Children's Campus of Kansas Facility Upgrades... 200,000
City, Inc., KS.
The Neighborhood House Charter Planning and 300,000
School, MA. Construction of a
Facility.
The Resurrection Project, IL...... Planning, Design, 500,000
and Construction of
a Residence Hall
for Low-Income
Youth.
Three Square Food Bank, NV........ Construction of a 750,000
Solar Power Array.
Tibbits Opera House, MI........... Renovation and 150,000
Restoration of a
Facility.
Toledo Metropolitan Area Council Construction of a 2,500,000
of Governments, OH. Facility.
Town of Braintree, MA............. Restoration and 500,000
Rehabilitation of
the Original Thayer
Library.
Town of Hempstead, Department of Streetscaping....... 750,000
Planning & Economic Development,
NY.
Town of Islip, NY................. Restoration and 500,000
Renovation of
Veteran Facilities.
Town of Madison, WI............... Construction of the 500,000
Novation Technology
Campus
Redevelopment
Project.
Town of North Castle, NY.......... Streetscaping....... 200,000
Town of Seymour, CT............... Construction of a 100,000
Community Center.
Town of South Boston, VA.......... Renovations and 750,000
Development of a
Community Center.
Town of Sprague, CT............... Renovation of a 750,000
Senior Housing
Complex.
Town of Steilacoom, WA............ Construction and 500,000
Expansion of a
Community Center.
Township of Moorestown, NJ........ Reconstruction of a 750,000
Library.
Tubman African American Museum, GA Construction of a 500,000
Facility.
Ulster County, NY................. Rehabilitation and 350,000
Stabilization of a
National Historic
Landmark.
Union City Family Support Center, Renovation of a 200,000
PA. Facility.
Variety Boys and Girls Club, CA... Demolition and 200,000
Reconstruction of a
Facility.
Veterans Green Jobs, CO........... Planning, Design and 500,000
Renovation of a
Disabled Veterans
Green Jobs Training
Center.
Veterans Museum of Mid Ohio Acquisition, 300,000
Valley, WV. Construction and
Renovation of a
Veterans Museum.
Veterans of Foreign Wars, William Renovation of a 70,000
F Taylor Post 9486, NY. Veterans Facility.
Vienna Town Council, VA........... Streetscaping....... 500,000
Village of North Riverside, IL.... Construction and 135,000
Build Out of a Park.
Village of Port Washington, NY.... Revitalization of 750,000
Manhasset Bay
Waterfront.
Whitman Walker Clinic, Inc., DC... Planning, Design and 400,000
Construction.
Williamsburg County, SC........... Construction of a 1,000,000
Community Center.
Woodward Development Corporation, Renovation of a 750,000
OH. Building in
Downtown Mount
Vernon.
Wynnefield Overbrook Streetscaping and 500,000
Revitalization Corporation Infrastructure for
(WORC), PA. WORC Commercial
Center.
YMCA of San Diego County, CA...... Planning, Design and 1,500,000
Construction of a
Housing and
Community Center.
YMCA of San Francisco, Bayview Renovation Costs 600,000
Hunters Point branch, CA. Associated with
Expansion of a
Community Center.
YMCA of San Francisco, Chinatown Construction of 500,000
YMCA branch, CA. Transitional
Housing Units for
Domestic Violence
Victims.
York County Community Development Construction of a 700,000
Corporation, SC. Neighborhood
Community Center.
Youngstown Edison Incubator Renovation of a 700,000
Corporation dba Youngstown Facility.
Business Incubator, OH.
YWCA of Northwest Georgia, GA..... Construction and 250,000
Renovation of a
Domestic Violence
Shelter and
Outreach Facility.
YWCA of Silicon Valley, CA........ Renovation of a 350,000
Domestic Violence
Shelter.
YWCA Southeastern Massachusetts, Building Expansion 475,000
MA. and Construction.
Zavala County, TX................. Construction and 300,000
Renovation of
Facilities for
Senior Citizens.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee directs HUD to implement the Neighborhood
Initiatives program as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recipient Project Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City and County of San Francisco, For Critical $1,250,000
Mayor's Office of Housing, CA. Infrastructure and
Housing Development
Work.
City of Jackson, MI............... Demolition of 1,500,000
Buildings and
Neighborhood
Redevelopment.
City of Wausau Community Acquisition and 2,000,000
Development Area, WI. Remediation of
Blighted Properties.
Community Legal Services of Mid- Housing Counseling 500,000
Florida, FL. and Foreclosure
Modification.
Greenfield Community College, MA.. Renovation of 1,000,000
Buildings.
Los Angeles Neighborhood Housing Counsel and Assist 500,000
Services, Inc., CA. Homeowners Facing
Foreclosures.
National Council of La Raza, DC... Capitalization of a 1,000,000
Revolving Loan Fund
to be Used for
Nationwide
Community
Development
Activities.
New Hampshire Food Bank, NH....... Expansion of Food 1,000,000
Assistance Programs.
Shelter Network of San Mateo Shelter Network's 200,000
County, CA. Maple Street
Project.
United Way for Southeastern Foreclosure 1,500,000
Michigan, MI. Prevention Program.
Wisconsin Indianhead Technical Construction of a 1,750,000
College, WI. Training Center.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LOAN GUARANTEES PROGRAM ACCOUNT
Program cost:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... $6,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. - - -
Recommended in the bill........................... 10,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... +4,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. +10,000,000
Limitation on guaranteed loans:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... 275,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. 500,000,000
Recommended in the bill........................... 247,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... -28,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. -253,000,000
The Section 108 Loan Guarantees program underwrites private
market loans to assist local communities in the financing of
the acquisition and rehabilitation of publicly owned real
property, rehabilitation of housing, and certain economic
development projects.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for the Section 108
loan guarantees program, $4,000,000 above the enacted level for
fiscal year 2010 and $10,000,000 above the level in the budget
request. The Committee does not agree that the activities of
this account are best funded through the Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) program. Further, the Committee does not
believe that the fee structure proposed by the Administration
is the best way to resolve the need for appropriations in this
account. In fact, the fee proposal will increase the cost of
capital for these projects, which will negatively impact the
ability of local governments to carry out revitalization
efforts in areas of low capital investment. Further, the type
of redevelopment projects funded through the Section 108
program are similar to the investments that the Department
anticipates making in the Catalytic Competition Grants, an
unauthorized program requested within the CDBG account. The
Committee does not see the utility in diminishing the
effectiveness of the Section 108 program, which many
communities have used successfully, while proposing a new
program with ambiguous goals. Section 108 is a valuable tool
for local communities in revitalizing distressed areas, and the
fee proposed will impede the effectiveness of this program.
Since 1977, HUD has issued 1,781 commitments totaling more than
$8.3 billion without a single default or delinquent payment.
BROWNFIELDS REDEVELOPMENT
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $17,500,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... - - -
Recommended in the bill............................... 17,500,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. +17,500,000
The Brownfields Redevelopment program provides competitive
economic development grants in conjunction with section 108
loan guarantees for qualified brownfields projects. Grants are
made in accordance with section 108(q) selection criteria. The
goal of the program is to return contaminated sites to
productive uses with an emphasis on creating substantial
numbers of jobs for lower-income people in physically and
economically distressed neighborhoods.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $17,500,000 for the Brownfields
Redevelopment program, equal to the level enacted for fiscal
year 2010 and $17,500,000 above the amount in the budget
request. It is disappointing that the Department, which is
actively pursuing sustainability and revitalization efforts
elsewhere in the budget request, would ignore the success of
the Brownfields program in transforming environmentally damaged
and useless properties into economic development engines in
communities. HUD asserts that the rationale for not funding
this account lies within the slow expenditure of funds within
the program, but the Committee notes that the Department has
gotten into the habit of only issuing a NOFA for these funds
once every two years. The Department is reminded that when the
Committee appropriates funding for a particular fiscal year, it
expects that HUD will expeditiously compete and award those
funds in that fiscal year. As such, bill language is included
that directs HUD to publish a NOFA for these funds within 90
days of enactment of this Act.
HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $1,825,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... 1,650,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 1,825,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. +175,000,000
The HOME investment partnerships program uses formula
allocations to provide grants to states, units of local
government, Indian tribes, and insular areas for expanding the
supply of affordable housing in the jurisdiction. Upon receipt,
state and local governments develop a comprehensive housing
affordability strategy that enables them to acquire,
rehabilitate, or construct new affordable housing, or to
provide rental assistance to eligible families.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $1,825,000,000 for activities
funded under this account, equal the level enacted in fiscal
year 2010 and $175,000,000 above the budget request. Funds are
provided for formula grants for participating jurisdictions
(states, units of local government and consortia of units of
local government) and insular areas. Of the amount provided,
pursuant to the authorizing statute, at least 15 percent of
each participating jurisdiction's allocation is reserved for
housing that is developed, sponsored, or owned by Community
Housing Development Organizations (CHDOs).
The Committee includes language requiring the Department to
notify grantees of their formula allocation within 60 days of
enactment of this Act.
CAPACITY BUILDING
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... 60,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... - - -
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. -60,000,000
The fiscal year 2011 budget request proposed a new Capacity
Building program to develop the capacity and ability of
community development corporations, community housing
development organizations, and local governments to undertake
community development and affordable housing projects and
programs for low-income families.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee does not recommend funding for this new,
unauthorized program and does not agree with the Department's
argument for replacing the successful Self-Help Homeownership
Opportunity Program. While it is admirable that the Department
wishes to build the expertise of local governments, it is not
clear that HUD possesses the capacity to do so at this point.
In this time of economic crisis for local communities,
introducing a new program and a new competition without
specific parameters is not helpful to those neighborhoods or
local governments.
SELF-HELP AND ASSISTED HOMEOWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $82,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... - - -
Recommended in the bill............................... 82,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. +82,000,000
Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program (SHOP) funds
make competitive grants to national and regional nonprofit
organizations and consortia that have experience in providing
or facilitating self-help housing opportunities. Grant funds
are used to develop housing for low-income families and to
develop the capacity of nonprofit organizations for such
development. In 2006, SHOP became a separate account. SHOP was
previously funded as a set-aside within the Community
Development Fund.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $82,000,000 for the Self Help and
Assisted Homeownership Program. This account funds programs
that previously have been funded as set asides within the
Community Development Fund. This is equal to the fiscal year
2010 enacted funding level and $82,000,000 above the budget
request. The Committee is disappointed that HUD would recommend
eliminating this program, as it is one of the most highly rated
and successful programs within the Department. This program is
one of the best returns on investment that the federal
government makes, as the recipients of these funds go above and
beyond the leveraging requirement of 3-to-1, often raising
outside funds to the level of 10-to-1 leveraging. The
organizations funded in this account have the expertise to
effect real change in the communities that they touch, and have
been leaders in addressing the foreclosure crisis, in
particular. Therefore language is included that provides:
$5,000,000 for capacity building activities as
authorized in Sections 6301 through 6305 of Public Law
110-234;
$27,000,000 for the Self Help Homeownership Program;
and
$50,000,000 for the Section 4 program for the Local
Initiatives Support Corporation, Enterprise Community
Partners, Habitat for Humanity International, of which
not less than $5,000,000 is designated for rural and
tribal areas.
The Committee notes with extreme disappointment that HUD
has not followed report language for the past several years to
publish a NOFA for these funds within a specified time period.
In order to ensure that the communities that need these funds
will not be hindered by HUD's reluctance to compete the funds,
bill language is included to mandate the publication of a NOFA
within 60 days of enactment of the Act.
The Committee is concerned that the economic recession has
left self-help housing organizations with real estate sites
that have substantially declined in value, and urges the
Department to work with the authorizing committees to
expeditiously address this issue so that self-help
organizations can participate in the SHOP program.
HOMELESS ASSISTANCE GRANTS
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $1,865,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... 2,055,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 2,200,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... +335,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. +145,000,000
The homeless assistance grants account provides funding for
the following homeless programs under title IV of the McKinney
Act: (1) the emergency shelter grants program; (2) the
supportive housing program; (3) the section 8 moderate
rehabilitation (Single Room Occupancy) program; and (4) the
shelter plus care program. This account also supports
activities eligible under the innovative homeless initiatives
demonstration program.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends funding homeless programs at
$2,200,000,000, an increase of $335,000,000 above the enacted
level for 2010 and $145,000,000 above the budget request.
The Committee recommends an increase in this account in
recognition of the passage of the Homeless Emergency Assistance
and Rapid Transition to Housing (HEARTH) Act. It is to the
benefit of homeless services organizations across the country
that this important legislation now governs the delivery of
homeless services to the most vulnerable populations, and the
Committee is very pleased to be a partner in this effort. The
Committee commends the Office of Special Needs Assistance
Programs for its implementation of the Homelessness Prevention
and Rapid Re-Housing Program in the ARRA legislation and its
leadership in the effort to reauthorize these programs. The
Committee looks forward to the first year of implementation of
the HEARTH Act and appreciates HUD's role in partnering with
other federal agencies and with the Interagency Council on
Homelessness to make significant progress in the prevention of,
and rapid resolution of, homelessness in this country.
Housing Programs
PROJECT-BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $8,557,853,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... 9,382,328,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 9,382,328,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... +824,475,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. - - -
The Project-Based Rental Assistance account (PBRA) provides
a rental subsidy to a private landlord tied to a specific
housing unit so that the properties themselves, rather than the
individual living in the unit, remain subsidized. Amounts
provided in this account include funding for the renewal of
expiring project-based contracts, including Section 8, moderate
rehabilitation, and single room occupancy (SRO) contracts,
amendments to Section 8 project-based contracts, and
administrative costs for performance-based, project-based
Section 8 contract administrators and costs associated with
administering moderate rehabilitation and single room occupancy
contracts.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee provides a total of $9,382,328,000 for the
annual renewal of project-based contracts, of which not less
than $315,000,000 is for the cost of contract administrators.
This funding level is $824,475,000 above the enacted level for
fiscal year 2010 and is equal to the budget request. The
Committee's recommendation includes the use of project-based
recaptures for the renewal of project-based contracts and
amendments as well as for performance-based contract
administrators in 2010. As the Department rebids the contracts
for performance-based contract administrators, the Committee
strongly believes that there should be a preference for public
entities whose mission is oriented towards a public purpose. In
an increasingly tight fiscal environment, it is difficult to
fund increases in programs, so these important federal funds
should be used to support the public mission of safe,
affordable rental housing.
HOUSING FOR THE ELDERLY
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $825,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... 273,700,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 825,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. +551,300,000
The Housing for the Elderly (Section 202) program provides
eligible private, non-profit organizations with capital grants
to finance the acquisition, rehabilitation or construction of
housing intended for low-income elderly people. In addition,
the program provides project-based rental assistance contracts
(PRAC) to support operational costs for units constructed under
the program.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $825,000,000 for the Section 202
program for fiscal year 2010, which is equal to the level
enacted for fiscal year 2010 and $551,300,000 above the request
for fiscal year 2011. The recommendation allocates funding as
follows:
--$491,300,000 for new capital and project rental
assistance contracts (PRAC);
--$183,700,000 for one-year renewals of expiring PRAC
payments;
--$90,000,000 for service coordinators and the
continuation of congregate services grants; and
--$40,000,000 for grants to convert Section 202
projects to assisted living facilities; the Committee
intends that the Assisted Living Conversion Program
funds be made available to cover the cost of the
following three activities: (1) conversion of existing
affordable housing sites to assisted living; (2)
substantial capital repairs; and (3) emergency capital
repair grants.
The Committee continues language relating to the initial
contract and renewal terms for assistance provided under this
heading. Language is also included to allow these funds to be
used for inspections and analysis of data by HUD's Real Estate
Assessment Center (REAC).
The Committee rejects the Administration's proposal to
eliminate funding for new capital grants in fiscal year 2011.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the number of elderly is
expected to rise to 72 million by 2030, which is more than
double the number in 2000. The United States already has a
shortage of housing for the elderly--the American Association
of Retired Persons estimates that there are 10 seniors on a
waiting list for every one unit of elderly housing that becomes
available--and the rise in the number of elderly will continue
to exacerbate this housing shortage. Further, in a report
released in 2002, the bipartisan Commission on Affordable
Housing and Health Facility Needs for seniors in the 21st
Century estimated that an additional 730,000 units of
affordable housing for the elderly will be needed by 2020. The
Section 202 program is the largest housing program specifically
dedicated to serving the elderly, with over 268,000 units for
seniors. The Committee believes this program is a wise
investment in both the current and future needs of the nation's
elderly population.
The Committee agrees with the Department that reforms to
the Section 202 program are needed, especially those that will
hasten the development process and increase program efficiency.
In particular, the Committee is concerned about the continuing
large carryover balances in this program, as well as delays in
the distribution of project rental assistance (PRAC payments).
However, the Committee believes the need for affordable senior
housing is too high to put this program on hold. Therefore, the
Committee directs HUD to submit to the Committees on
Appropriations within 30 days of enactment of this Act a list
of administrative reforms the Department can complete without
legislative action to begin the reform process. The Committee
looks forward to working with HUD's leadership on implementing
these necessary reforms to ensure that the funds dedicated to
this program are expended in an effective and expeditious
manner.
The Committee supports increased collaboration between HUD
and other agencies in order to meet the supportive services
needs of Section 202 residents. However, in its partnership
with the Department of Health and Human Services, the Committee
directs HUD to incorporate support services beyond those
targeting frail elders. The Committee believes an important
component of the Section 202 program is serving seniors of all
ages, not just the frail, and assisting them to age in place.
Like HUD, the Committee believes that the use of tax
credits with the Section 202 program will result in a greater
number of affordable senior housing units built, but that the
complexity of mixed financing, and associated delays, have
limited its use. The Committee recommends continued exploration
of this area through the authorization process.
The Committee is concerned about the Department's proposals
to both increase the minimum number of units allowed for
development under the Section 202 program and to eliminate the
targeted distribution of funds across the country. The
Committee fears these changes would result in fewer units being
developed in rural areas and leave some areas of the country
without desperately needed housing resources.
HOUSING FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $300,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... 90,036,817
Recommended in the bill............................... 300,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. +209,963,183
The Housing for Persons with Disabilities (Section 811)
program provides eligible private, non-profit organizations
with capital grants to finance the acquisition, rehabilitation
or construction of supportive housing for disabled persons and
provides project-based rental assistance (PRAC) to support
operational costs for such units.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $300,000,000 for Section 811
activities, which is equal to the fiscal year 2010 enacted
level, and $209,963,183 above the budget request. The Committee
finds that there is universal agreement at all levels of
analysis that facility construction is needed for this program
in fiscal year 2010. The recommendation allocates funding as
follows:
--Up to $209,900,000 for capital grants and PRAC;
--$90,100,000 for PRAC renewals; and
--No funds are provided for additional ``mainstream''
vouchers in fiscal year 2011.
The Committee continues language allowing these funds to be
used for inspections and analysis of data by HUD's Real Estate
Assessment Center program office.
As requested in the budget, the Committee provides funding
for the renewals or amendments of expiring ``mainstream''
tenant based rental assistance in the tenant based rental
assistance account.
The Committee rejects the Administration's proposal to
eliminate funding for new units. The Committee notes that
funding for this program has been virtually flat for the past
decade, despite the increase in the population eligible for and
in need of this housing. Further, as the need to renew rental
contracts in this account has grown over the years, fewer and
fewer housing units have been produced. The Committee
recommends an increase in the capital funding for this program,
recognizing that Section 811 is a cost-effective supportive
housing alternative to expensive institutional settings. A
study by the Center for Outcome Analysis found that people
entering Section 811 units required 61 percent less public
financing--a savings of more than $40,000 per person.
Further, the 2007 HUD report, ``Worst Case Housing Needs
Report to Congress,'' uses 2005 data to show that 542,000 non-
elderly disabled households without children have ``worst
case'' housing needs, meaning that these households have income
below half of their area's Area Median Income (AMI) and either
pay more than half of their income for housing or live in
severely substandard housing. It is estimated between 2.1
million and 2.3 million non-elderly disabled households have
worst case housing needs. Further, the population in need of
Section 811 housing is growing. Approximately 700,000 people
with developmental disabilities live with one or more parents
over the age of 65, further demonstrating the growing need for
supportive housing units for persons with disabilities.
As with the Section 202 program, HUD has the opportunity to
eliminate administrative hurdles that have prevented mixed-
finance deals, including the use of tax credits, from
successfully using Section 811 funding. The Committee fully
expects HUD to do everything in its power to immediately
eliminate any and all administrative barriers that have
prevented the effective use of Section 811 funds, including in
mixed finance deals. The Committee believes the Section 811
program is an excellent candidate for the Department to
demonstrate its ability to streamline a program and make
incremental, positive changes. Therefore, the Committee directs
HUD to submit to the Committees on Appropriations within 30
days of enactment of this Act a list of administrative reforms
the Department can complete without legislative action to begin
the reform process.
HOUSING COUNSELING ASSISTANCE
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $87,500,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... 88,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 88,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... +500,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. - - -
Section 106 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of
1968 authorized HUD to provide housing counseling services to
homebuyers, homeowners, low and moderate income renters, and
the homeless.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $88,000,000 for housing
counseling, equal to the budget request and $500,000 more than
the level enacted in the fiscal year 2010 bill. Previously,
this activity was funded as a set-aside within the HOME
Investments Partnership Program account.
However, the Committee is concerned by the slow expenditure
of funds in this account. Again, the Committee is puzzled by
HUD's inability to publish a NOFA within a reasonable amount of
time of enactment. In fact, the inability of HUD to compete and
obligate funding within any acceptable timeframe is the reason
that the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation was chosen to
run the National Foreclosure Mitigation Counseling Program
instead of HUD. HUD must improve its ability to obligate funds,
especially in light of increasingly tight budgets. The
stagnation of funding for a year or more makes it very
difficult to defend as a necessary expenditure, despite the
obvious demand for the program. With the dire need for these
funds in light of the current housing crisis, bill language is
included that mandates the publication of a NOFA within 60 days
of enactment of this Act.
The Committee is concerned about reports of foreclosure
`rescue scams' and other predatory practices targeting
vulnerable populations. Consistent with its mandate, the
Committee believes HUD should assure that its housing
counseling program reaches all communities, with attention to
regional and locally specific needs and including those
underserved population not literate or fluent in English. The
Committee is encouraged by HUD's recent designation of the
first Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI)-serving HUD
Housing Counseling Intermediary. This Intermediary is a first
step to supporting a network of housing counseling agencies
that provide in-language housing and foreclosure counseling to
all communites.
OTHER ASSISTED HOUSING PROGRAMS
RENTAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $40,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... 40,600,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 40,600,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... +600,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. - - -
The Rental Housing Assistance account provides amendment
funding for housing assisted under a variety of HUD housing
programs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $40,600,000 for the Rental Housing
Assistance Program, as proposed in the budget request.
RENT SUPPLEMENT
(RESCISSION)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... -$72,036,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... -40,600,000
Recommended in the bill............................... -40,600,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... +31,436,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. - - -
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a rescission of $40,600,000, the
same as the budget request and $31,436,000 above the level
enacted in fiscal year 2010.
PAYMENT TO MANUFACTURED HOUSING FEES TRUST FUND
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $9,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... 7,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 7,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... -2,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. - - -
The National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety
Standards Act of 1974, as amended by the Manufactured Housing
Improvement Act of 2000, authorized the Secretary to establish
Federal manufactured home construction and safety standards for
the construction, design, and performance of manufactured
homes.
All manufactured homes are required to meet the Federal
standards, and fees are charged to producers to cover the costs
of administering the Act.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends up to $21,000,000 for the
manufactured housing standards programs to be derived from fees
collected and deposited in the Manufactured Housing Fees Trust
Fund established pursuant to the Manufactured Housing
Improvement Act of 2000. The amount recommended is the same as
the budget request and the fiscal year 2010 enacted level.
In addition, the Committee includes language allowing the
Department to collect fees from program participants for the
dispute resolution and installation programs. These fees are to
be deposited into the trust fund and may be used by the
Department subject to the overall cap placed on the account.
The Committee recognizes that the manufactured housing
industry has been impacted greatly by the subprime and
unemployment crises that plague the housing sector. However,
this sector of the housing market has not gotten a great deal
of attention from HUD, as evidenced by the lack of a proposed
rule in this account, and several key vacancies in this office.
The Committee urges HUD to focus on this portion of the housing
market and to issue the final rule and mortgagee letter that
will enable this sector of the housing market to begin
recovery.
Federal Housing Administration
MUTUAL MORTGAGE INSURANCE PROGRAM ACCOUNT
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation of Limitations of Administrative Positive credit
direct loans guaranteed loans contract expenses subsidy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010..... $50,000,000 $400,000,000,000 $188,900,000 $0
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.... 50,000,000 400,000,000,000 207,000,000 250,000,000
Recommended in the bill............. 50,000,000 400,000,000,000 207,000,000 250,000,000
Bill compared with: ................. ................. ................. .................
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010. ................. ................. +18,100,000 .................
Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................. ................. ................. .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Housing Administration's (FHA) mutual mortgage
insurance program account includes the mutual mortgage
insurance (MMI) and cooperative management housing insurance
funds. This program account covers unsubsidized programs,
primarily the single-family home mortgage program, which is the
largest of all the FHA programs. The cooperative housing
insurance program provides mortgages for cooperative housing
projects of more than five units that are occupied by members
of a cooperative housing corporation.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends the following limitations on loan
commitments in the MMI program account: $400,000,000,000 for
loan guarantees and $50,000,000 for direct loans. The
recommendation also includes $207,000,000 for administrative
contract expenses, of which $71,500,000 is transferred to the
Working Capital Fund for development and modifications to
information technology systems that serve programs or
activities under the Federal Housing Administration. The
Committee continues language, as requested, appropriating
additional administrative expenses in certain circumstances.
The Committee includes $150,000,000 to allow the
continuation of the Home Equity Conversion Mortgage (HECM)
program, which is a reduction of $100,000,000 from the budget
request. The Committee has been monitoring volume in this
program, and the updated estimates indicate that the full
request is not needed in this program for fiscal year 2011. The
Committee will continue to monitor volume in this program as
the Appropriations process moves forward, and will adjust as
necessary to ensure that this program will continue to provide
a resource for seniors. HECM mortgages are an important tool
for elderly homeowners, enabling them to stay in their homes
and avoid more expensive assisted living facilities. The
Committee is pleased that HUD is working on alternatives to the
traditional HECM program that may mitigate the need for an
appropriation in the future, and looks forward to future
conversations about the best way to assist seniors without cost
to the taxpayers.
GENERAL AND SPECIAL RISK PROGRAM ACCOUNT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation of Limitations of Administrative
direct loans guaranteed loans contract expenses Credit subsidy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010..... $20,000,000 $15,000,000,000 $0 $8,600,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.... 20,000,000 20,000,000,000 0 0
Recommended in the bill............. 20,000,000 20,000,000,000 0 0
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010. +5,000,000,000 ................. -8,600,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011 ................. ................. ................. .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Housing Administration's (FHA) general and
special risk insurance (GI and SRI) program account includes 17
different programs administered by FHA. The GI fund includes a
wide variety of insurance programs for special purpose single
and multifamily loans, including loans for property
improvements, manufactured housing, multifamily rental housing,
condominiums, housing for the elderly, hospitals, group
practice facilities, and nursing homes. The SRI fund includes
insurance programs for mortgages in older, declining urban
areas that would not be otherwise eligible for insurance,
mortgages with interest reduction payments, mortgages for
experimental housing, and for high-risk mortgagors who would
not normally be eligible for mortgage insurance without housing
counseling.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends the following limitations on loan
commitments for the general and special risk insurance program
account as requested: $20,000,000,000 for loan guarantees and
$20,000,000 for direct loans.
The Committee is very concerned about the increasing length
of time necessary to complete processing for Section 232
applications, which are applications to finance housing for the
frail elderly, such as nursing homes and assisted living
facilities. As private financing has become increasingly
difficult to secure, FHA has been a resource for the
construction and refinancing of units for elders, particularly
those in need of supportive services. However, the timeline for
getting an application through FHA's LEAN processing model has
increased by months during fiscal year 2010. Since the
Committee has been diligent about providing more staff for FHA
in light of its increased workload, this is not due to lack of
staff, but rather a misallocation of staff. Therefore, FHA is
directed to transfer 25 qualified underwriters into the Office
of Insured Healthcare Facilities to ease the workload
experienced in that office within 30 days of enactment of this
Act. These staff must be trained on the LEAN processing model
and qualified to assist in reducing the backlog of applications
in a timely manner.
Government National Mortgage Association
GUARANTEES OF MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM ACCOUNT
Limitation of guaranteed loans:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... $500,000,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. 500,000,000,000
Recommended in the bill........................... 500,000,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year.................... - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.............. - - -
The guarantee of mortgage-backed securities program
facilitates the financing of residential mortgage loans insured
or guaranteed by the Federal Housing Administration, the
Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Rural Housing Services
program. The Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA)
guarantees the timely payment of principal and interest on
securities issued by private service institutions such as
mortgage companies, commercial banks, savings banks, and
savings and loan associations that assemble pools of mortgages,
and issues securities backed by the pools. In turn, investment
proceeds are used to finance additional mortgage loans.
Investors include non-traditional sources of credit in the
housing market such as pension and retirement funds, life
insurance companies, and individuals.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The recommendation includes a $500,000,000,000 limitation
on loan commitments for mortgage-backed securities as
requested.
Policy Development and Research
RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $48,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... 87,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 50,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... +2,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. -37,000,000
The Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970 directs the
Secretary to undertake programs of research, studies, testing,
and demonstrations related to the HUD mission. These functions
are carried out internally through contracts with industry,
non-profit research organizations, and educational institutions
and through agreements with state and local governments and
other Federal agencies.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $50,000,000 for the Office of
Policy Development and Research. This is $2,000,000 above the
level of funding enacted for fiscal year 2010 and $37,000,000
below the budget request.
The role of research is an important one, and one that the
Committee takes very seriously, as evidenced by the fiscal year
2010 appropriation for the Transformation Initiative. Through
the Transformation Initiative, the Committee has approved 17
research projects and demonstrations that would not have been
possible otherwise. However, in this time of tight budget
constraints, an 81 percent increase is unsustainable. Further,
the request for $32,000,000 in government-wide research is
poorly justified. There is no information regarding the
participation of or funding by other agencies, and very little
information about how the data gathered will be used in
policymaking. In addition, of the three studies described in
the ``Evaluation Initiative,'' all three received funding in
the fiscal year 2010 Transformation Initiative.
Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity
FAIR HOUSING ACTIVITIES
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $72,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... 61,100,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 72,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. +10,900,000
The Fair Housing Act, title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of
1968, as amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988,
prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental and financing of
housing and authorizes assistance to state and local agencies
in administering the provision of fair housing statutes. The
Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) assists state and local
fair housing enforcement agencies that are certified by HUD as
``substantially equivalent'' to HUD with respect to enforcement
policies and procedures. FHAP assures prompt and effective
processing of complaints filed under title VIII that are within
the jurisdiction of state and local fair housing agencies. The
Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP) alleviates housing
discrimination by providing support to private nonprofit
organizations, state and local government agencies and other
nonfederal entities for the purpose of eliminating or
preventing discrimination in housing, and to enhance fair
housing opportunities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a total of $72,000,000 for this
account, equal to the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and
$10,900,000 above the Administration's budget request. Of this
amount, $29,500,000 is for FHAP and $42,500,000 is for FHIP.
The Committee expects HUD to continue to provide quarterly
reports on obligation and expenditure of these funds,
delineated by each program and activity.
Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes
LEAD HAZARD REDUCTION
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $140,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... 140,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 140,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. - - -
The Lead Hazard Reduction Program, authorized under the
Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, provides grants
to state and local governments to perform lead hazard reduction
activities in housing occupied by low-income families. The
program also provides technical assistance, undertakes research
and evaluations of testing and cleanup methodologies, and
develops technical guidance and regulations in cooperation with
the Environmental Protection Agency.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $140,000,000 for this account,
equal to both the budget request and the level enacted in
fiscal year 2010. Amounts provided are to be allocated as
follows:
--$96,000,000 for the lead-based paint hazard control
grant program to provide assistance to state and local
governments and Native American tribes for lead-based
paint abatement in private low-income housing;
--$4,000,000 for technical assistance and support to
state and local agencies and private property owners;
and
--$40,000,000 for the Healthy Homes Initiative for
competitive grants for research, standards development,
and education and outreach activities to housing-
related diseases and hazards.
The Committee continues language delegating the authority
and responsibility for performing environmental review for the
Healthy Homes Initiative, LEAP, and Lead Technical Studies
projects and programs to governmental entities that are
familiar with local environmental conditions, trends and
priorities.
Additionally, the Committee includes language pertaining to
fund flexibility for available amounts from prior
appropriations Acts. The Committee directs the Department to
include in future congressional justifications the demand for
each of its competitive programs in tabular format for the
previous five years.
The Committee includes language requiring the Department to
publish the Notice of Funding Availability for this program
within 60 days of enactment of this Act.
Management and Administration
WORKING CAPITAL FUND
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $200,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... 243,500,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 243,500,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... +43,500,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. - - -
The Working Capital Fund was established pursuant to 42
U.S.C. 3535 to provide necessary capital for the development
of, modifications to, and infrastructure for Department-wide
information technology systems, and for the continuing
operation of both Department-wide and program-specific
information technology systems.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $243,500,000 in direct
appropriations for the Working Capital Fund to support
Department-wide information technology systm activities, which
is 43,500,000 above the fiscal year 2010 level and equal to the
budget request. In addition to the direct appropriation for
Department-wide systems, funds are transferred from FHA.
The Committee directs that funds appropriated for specific
projects and activities should not be reduced or eliminated in
order to fund other activities inside and outside of HUD
without the expressed approval of the Committee. HUD is not to
contribute or participate in activities that are specifically
precluded in legislation, unless the Committee agrees to a
change.
The Committee recognizes the Department's effort to improve
the activities, oversight and management of the Working Capital
Fund. However, the Committee remains distressed about these
systems, many of which are outdated and insufficient to carry
out the functions necessary to keep the Department's valuable
programs running effectively. The Committee is pleased with the
focus on new development to improve the Department's largest
programs, such as the Tenant Based Rental Assistance program
and the Federal Housing Administration. In addition, the
Committee directs HUD to focus its attention on reducing the
maintenance costs of existing legacy systems. An investigation
by the Committee found that the estimation and accounting
process for maintenance costs lacked transparency and provided
no incentive for cutting costs. The Committee expects the
Department to address these concerns. In addition, the
Committee directs the Department to include in its budget
justification in fiscal year 2012 and all future budgets, a
list of each system being supported by this account, the
program or office it serves and the annual maintenance costs
for the last five fiscal years.
Office of Inspector General
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $125,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... 122,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 122,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... -3,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. - - -
In 1978, Congress established the Office of Inspector
General (IG) to conduct and supervise audits and investigations
of agency operations and programs in order to: (1) promote
administrative economy, efficiency, and effectiveness; and (2)
prevent and detect programmatic and operational fraud, waste,
and abuse. The IG is required to keep both Congress and the
Secretary of HUD fully and currently informed about problems
and deficiencies relating to the administration of programs and
operations and the necessity for and progress of corrective
action.
At HUD, the audit function provides internal audit,
contract audit, and inspection services. Internal audits
evaluate all aspects of agency operations. Contract audits
provide professional advice to agency contracting officials on
accounting and financial matters relative to negotiation,
award, administration, re-pricing, and settlement of contracts.
Inspection services provide detailed technical evaluations of
agency operations. The investigative function provides for the
detection and investigation of improper and illegal activities
involving programs, personnel, and operations.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $122,000,000 for the Office of
Inspector General, equal to the budget request and $3,000,000
below the amount provided in fiscal year 2010.
The Committee directs the Office of Inspector General to
submit the Top Management Challenges Report directly to the
Appropriations Committee staff at the time of report
transmittal to the HUD Secretary. Additionally, the Committee
directs the Office of Inspector General to separately post this
report on the IG web site.
Language is included in the bill which clarifies the
authority of the Inspector General with respect to certain
personnel issues.
TRANSFORMATION INITIATIVE
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $20,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... 20,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 20,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. - - -
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee provides $20,000,000 for the Transformation
Initiative, which is equal to the budget request. This funding
amount will support HUD's proposed Combating Mortgage Fraud
initiative, which was initially funded in the fiscal year 2010
budget. The Committee will continue to monitor the use of these
funds to ensure that HUD is not duplicating the efforts of any
other agencies, such as the Department of Treasury or the
Department of Justice.
As in fiscal year 2010, the Administration requests
authority to transfer up to one percent of funding from most
HUD program areas to the Transformation Initiative (TI). The
Committee provided $258,787,060 for this initiative in fiscal
year 2010 to specifically address four areas: (1) Research,
Evaluation and Performance Metrics; (2) Program Demonstrations;
(3) Technical Assistance and Capacity Building; and (4)
Information Technology. For fiscal year 2011, the Department
requests $475,616,500 for TI; the Committee recommends
$220,740,500, a decrease of $254,876,000 from the request and
$38,046,560 from the fiscal year 2010 enacted level.
The Committee recognizes and appreciates the steps HUD has
taken in transforming the agency, including the adoption of a
new strategic plan, the hiring of an outstanding Chief
Operating Officer, and the collaboration with the National
Association of Public Administration (NAPA) on a variety of HUD
operating concerns. Additionally, the Committee is pleased that
HUD has begun to increase utilization of field offices and
associated staff by delegating greater decision-making
authority to those with the ``boots on the ground'' expertise.
It is no secret that current leadership inherited a
Department riddled with problems and suffering from a deficit
in many foundational areas including information technology,
human resources, and procurement. While the breadth of these
areas is great, they do contain one unifying thread:
internality. To transform HUD, as the Transformation Initiative
proposes to do, requires not a series of new demonstrations,
research projects, and programs, but rather a dedication and
focus on the internal issues facing the Department.
This is a critical point in the history of HUD. Instead of
expending valuable resources on newly developed, theoretical
programs, the Committee expects to see the Department turn its
focus inward. Before assuming a slate of new responsibilities,
HUD must prove that it can efficiently administer its existing
responsibilities. The Committee's reluctance to fund many of
HUD's new initiatives comes not from differing objectives, but
a concern about HUD's lack of progress on reducing
administrative inefficiencies in its existing programs. There
is no questioning the need for innovation in helping solve the
housing challenges facing this nation's citizens, but
successful innovation requires successful implementation. And
successful implementation requires HUD to have a strong
internal foundation.
The Committee has high expectations for the Department and
is pleased that the majority of the high level staff consists
of experienced housing practitioners. However, it is critical
that these practitioners not only bring their housing
experience to HUD, but also their management experience. The
Committee is confident that the team in place can successfully
address many of these internal challenges.
To this end, the Committee is encouraged by the hiring of a
Chief Operating Officer and believes this expertise is exactly
what the Department requires for long-term transformation. With
this in mind, the Committee expects that the Chief Operating
Officer will play a critical role in the formation and
implementation of the Transformation Initiative activities in
fiscal year 2011.
Transforming HUD, and thus the Transformation Initiative,
must be envisioned more broadly than budgetary flexibility.
Flexibility, or lack thereof, is not the primary challenge
facing HUD. Therefore, the Committee has limited the use of the
Transformation Initiative funds to the core needs of the
Department. The majority of the funds provided ($130,000,000)
are directed toward upgrades to HUD's information technology so
that HUD's programs and core administrative functions can
continue to improve. In addition, the Committee includes
funding for technical assistance and capacity building
($40,000,000), because it is critical for HUD to improve these
functions while it improves its own capacity. Lastly, a portion
of the funding for research and demonstrations (which totals
$30,740,500) is dedicated to the completion of the Housing
Discrimination Study which began in the fiscal year 2010 TI
appropriation as well as conducting an assessment of the
effectiveness of HUD funded service coordinators. Due to the
fact that the Committee had numerous holes to fill in the
President's budget, the Department is not allowed to transfer
funding from accounts that were proposed for decreases or for
elimination.
The Committee denies the Department's request for a central
salaries and expenses fund in the Transformation Initiative.
The Committee believes all of the objectives of this request
can be addressed through the normal reprogramming process.
General Provisions--Department of Housing and Urban Development
Section 201. The Committee continues the provision that
relates to the division of financing adjustment factors.
Section 202. The Committee continues the provision that
prohibits available funds from being used to investigate or
prosecute lawful activities under the Fair Housing Act.
Section 203. The Committee continues language to correct an
anomaly in the HOPWA formula that results in the loss of funds
for certain states.
Section 204. The Committee continues language requiring
funds appropriated to be distributed on a competitive basis in
accordance with the Department of Housing and Urban Development
Reform Act of 1989.
Section 205. The Committee continues language regarding the
availability of funds subject to the Government Corporation
Control Act and the Housing Act of 1950.
Section 206. The Committee continues language regarding
allocation of funds in excess of the budget estimates.
Section 207. The Committee continues language regarding the
expenditure of funds for corporations and agencies subject to
the Government Corporation Control Act.
Section 208. The Committee continues language requiring the
Secretary to provide quarterly reports on uncommitted,
unobligated and excess funds in each departmental program and
activity.
Section 209. The Committee continues the provision that
extends a technical amendment included in the fiscal year 2000
appropriations Act relating to the allocation of HOPWA funds in
the Philadelphia and Raleigh-Cary metropolitan areas. A proviso
is added to allow a state to administer the HOPWA program in
the event that a local government is unable to undertake the
HOPWA grants management functions.
Section 210. The Committee continues the provision that
requires that the Administration's budget and the Department's
budget justifications for fiscal year 2012 shall be submitted
in the identical account and sub-account structure provided in
this Act.
Section 211. The Committee continues the provision that
exempts PHA Boards in Alaska, Iowa, and Mississippi and the
County of Los Angeles from public housing resident
representation requirement.
Section 212. The Committee continues the provision that
authorizes HUD to transfer debt and use agreements from an
obsolete project to a viable project, provided that no
additional costs are incurred, and other conditions are met.
Section 213. The Committee continues the provision that
distributes 2010 Native American housing block grant funds to
the same Native Alaskan recipients as 2005.
Section 214. The Committee continues the provision that
prohibits the IG from changing the basis on which the audit of
GNMA is conducted.
Section 215. The Committee continues the provision that
sets forth requirements for eligibility for Section 8 voucher
assistance, and includes consideration for persons with
disabilities.
Section 216. The Committee continues the provision that
authorizes the Secretary to insure mortgages under Section 255
of the National Housing Act.
Section 217. The Committee continues the provision that
instructs HUD on managing and disposing of any multifamily
property that is owned by HUD.
Section 218. The Committee continues the provision that
authorizes the Secretary to waive certain requirements on
adjusted income for certain assisted living projects for
counties in Michigan.
Section 219. The Committee continues the provision that
provides that the Secretary shall report quarterly on HUD's use
of all sole source contracts.
Section 220. The Committee continues the provision that
allows the recipient of a section 202 grant to establish a
single-asset nonprofit entity to own the project and may lend
the grant funds to such entity.
Section 221. The Committee continues the provision that
allows amounts provided under the Section 108 loan guarantee
program may be used to guarantee notes or other obligations
issued by any State on behalf of non-entitlement communities in
the State, and that regulations shall be promulgated within 60
days of enactment.
Section 222. The Committee includes the provision that
amends section 24 of the 1937 Housing Act by extending the HOPE
VI program through September 30, 2011.
Section 223. The Committee continues the provision that
instructs HUD that PHAs that own and operate 400 units or fewer
of public housing are exempt from asset management
requirements.
Section 224. The Committee continues the provision that
restricts the Secretary from imposing any requirement or
guideline relating to asset management that restricts or limits
the use of capital funds for central office costs, up to the
limit established in QHWRA.
Section 225. The Committee continues the provision that
provides that no employee of the Department shall be designated
as an allotment holder unless the CFO determines that such
allotment holder has received training.
Section 226. The Committee continues the provision that
provides that funding for indemnities is limited to non-
programmatic litigation and is restricted to the payment of
attorney fees only.
Section 227. The Committee continues the provision that
allows refinancing of certain section 202 loans.
Section 228. The Committee continues the provision that
makes reforms to the Federal Surplus Property Program for the
homeless.
Section 229. The Committee continues the provision that
authorizes the Secretary to transfer up to 5 percent of funds
appropriated under the title ``Personnel Compensation and
Benefits.''
Section 230. The Committee continues the provision that
allows HUD to consider industry standard appraisal practices,
including the cost of repairs, when determining market value.
Section 231. The Committee continues the provision that
allows the Disaster Housing Assistance Programs to be
considered a program of the Department of Housing and Urban
Development for the purpose of income verifications and
matching.
Section 232. The Committee includes a provision that
restructures FHA premiums.
Section 233. The Committee includes a provision providing
$2,070,635 to increase the Department's acquisition workforce
capacity and capabilities.
Section 234. The Committee includes a provision that
repeals the paragraphs under the heading ``Flexible Subsidy
Fund.''
Section 235. The Committee continues the provision that
raises loan limits for FHA through the end of the fiscal year.
Section 236. The Committee continues the provision that
raises the GSE conforming loan limit for fiscal year 2011.
Section 237. The Committee continues the provision that
raises the Home Equity Conversion Mortgage loan limit for
fiscal year 2011.
Section 238. The Committee includes a provision prohibiting
funds from being used for salaries and expenses of more than 75
political and Presidential appointees in HUD. The provision
also requires that none of the personnel covered by this
provision may be assigned on temporary detail outside HUD.
TITLE III--RELATED AGENCIES
Access Board
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $7,300,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... 7,300,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 7,300,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. - - -
The United States Access Board was established by section
502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and is the only Federal
Agency whose primary mission is accessibility for people with
disabilities. The Access Board is responsible for developing
guidelines under the Architectural Barriers Act, the Americans
with Disabilities Act, the Telecommunications Act, the
Rehabilitation Act, and the Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act. This responsibility ensures that buildings and
facilities, transportation vehicles, telecommunications
equipment, electronic and information technology used by
federal agencies, and medical diagnostic equipment are readily
accessible to and usable by people with disabilities. The
Access Board also provides technical assistance and training on
its guidelines and standards, as well as a variety of other
accessibility issues.
Additionally, the Access Board has responsibilities under
the Help America Vote Act to serve on the Election Assistance
Commission's Board of Advisors and Technical Guidelines
Development Committee. In this role, Access Board helps the
Election Assistance Commission develop voluntary guidelines for
voting systems, including guidance regarding accessibility for
people with disabilities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $7,300,000 for the operations of
the Access Board, equal to the budget request and to the level
enacted in fiscal year 2010.
Federal Maritime Commission
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $24,135,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... 25,498,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 25,300,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... 1,165,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. -198,000
Established in 1961, the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC)
is an independent government agency, responsible for the
regulation of oceanborne transportation in the foreign commerce
of the United States. FMC policy focuses on 1) maintaining an
efficient and competitive international ocean transportation
system; and 2) protecting the public from unlawful, unfair, and
deceptive ocean transportation practices. The Federal Maritime
Commission monitors ocean common carriers, marine terminal
operators, conferences, ports, and ocean transportation
intermediaries to ensure they maintain just and reasonable
practices. Among other activities, FMC also maintains a trade
monitoring and enforcement program, monitors the laws and
practices of foreign governments and their impacts on shipping
conditions in the U.S., and enforces special regulatory
requirements as they apply to controlled carriers.
The principal shipping statutes administered by the FMC are
the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. 40101-41309), the Foreign
Shipping Practices Act of 1988 (46 U.S.C. 42301-42307), Section
19 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 U.S.C. 42101-42109),
and Public Law 89-777 (46 U.S.C. 44101-44106).
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $25,300,000 for the Federal
Maritime Commission, which is $1,165,000 above the amount
provided in fiscal year 2010 and $198,000 below the budget
request.
The reduction from the budget request is due, in part, to
not fully funding the furniture and equipment request, as this
account has seen substantial investment in prior years from
other program savings. The remaining reduction is due to
overall budget constraints.
Of the funds provided, not more than $260,000 can be used
for performance awards.
National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $19,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... $22,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... $22,000,000
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... +3,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. - - -
The Amtrak Inspector General is expected to be an
independent, objective unit responsible for detecting and
preventing fraud, waste, abuse, and violations of law and
promoting economy, efficiency and effectiveness at Amtrak.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $22,000,000 for Amtrak's Office of
Inspector General (Amtrak OIG), which is $3,000,000 above the
fiscal year 2010 enacted level and equal to the level proposed
in the fiscal year 2011 budget.
As in fiscal year 2010, the Committee continues to fund the
Amtrak OIG as a separate entity and denies the budget's request
to fund the Amtrak OIG through a direct grant from the Federal
Railroad Administration. The Committee created the separate
appropriation last year in order to ensure the independence of
the Inspector General. The Committee believes it is too early
in the new process for the Department to eliminate this added
autonomy.
Budget justification.--The Committee directs the Amtrak OIG
to submit to the Committees on Appropriations a comprehensive
budget justification for fiscal year 2012 in similar format and
substance to those submitted by other agencies of the Federal
government and similar to the Amtrak OIG submission last year.
OIG independence.--The Committee commends the Amtrak OIG
for its efforts to improve its objectivity and independence and
is pleased with the initial report from the Council of the
Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE) on the
steps that have been taken thus far. The Committee recognizes
this endeavor will require a multi-year approach to change the
culture and organization of the Amtrak OIG. The Committee looks
forward to periodic updates from the Amtrak OIG and documented
progress in the CIGIE's one-year review.
National Transportation Safety Board
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $98,050,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... 100,400,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 104,232,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... +6,182,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. +3,832,000
Initially established along with the Department of
Transportation (DOT), the National Transportation Safety Board
(NTSB) commenced operations on April 1, 1967, as an independent
federal agency charged by Congress with investigating every
civil aviation accident in the United States, as well as
significant accidents in other modes of transportation--
railroad, highway, marine and pipeline--and issuing safety
recommendations aimed at preventing future accidents. Although
it has always operated independently, the NTSB relied on the
DOT for funding and administrative support until the
Independent Safety Board Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-633)
severed all ties between the two organizations effective April
of 1975.
In addition to its investigatory duties, the NTSB is
responsible for maintaining the government's database of civil
aviation accidents and conducting special studies of
transportation safety issues of national significance.
Furthermore, in accordance with the provisions of international
treaties, the NTSB supplies investigators to serve as U.S.
Accredited Representatives for aviation accidents overseas
involving U.S.-registered aircraft, or involving aircraft or
major components of U.S. manufacture. The NTSB also serves as
the ``court of appeals'' for any airman, mechanic or mariner
whenever certificate action is taken by the Administrator of
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) or the U.S. Coast
Guard Commandant, or when civil penalties are assessed by the
FAA. In addition, the NTSB operates the NTSB Academy in
Ashburn, Virginia.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $104,232,000 for the salaries and
expenses of the NTSB, an increase of $6,182,000 above fiscal
year 2010 and $3,832,000 above the budget request. Of this
amount, no more than $2,000 may be used for official reception
and representation expenses.
Consistent with the budget request, the Committee provides
the NTSB with the funds necessary to meet mandatory increases
above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level, in the following
amounts:
Salaries and benefits................................. +$1,206,000
Annualization of fiscal year 2010 positions........... +867,000
Rent.................................................. +2,980,000
Inflation............................................. +113,000
Inspector General audits.--The recommendation includes a
reduction of $100,000 for the costs associated with the
Department of Transportation's Inspector General to conduct the
annual audit of the NTSB's financial statements. In an effort
to provide greater transparency, the Committee has provided
these resources directly to the Office of Inspector General.
Expiring leases.--The lease that the NTSB holds on its
current headquarters office space is due to expire early in
fiscal year 2011 and the agency has been working with the
General Services Administration (GSA) on a competitive lease
acquisition. In addition, the NTSB has leases which are also
expiring in fiscal year 2011 for four of its regional offices.
The Committee recommendation includes $2,416,000, as requested,
to cover the moving and build out costs associated with these
expiring leases. The NTSB is directed to keep the Committee
informed about the progress made in negotiating the new leases
for these offices and the potential cost increases or savings
that may result.
Full-time equivalent staff years (FTE).--As noted in
previous years, the Committee continues to be concerned about
the NTSB's ability to examine wreckage, publish safety briefs,
and issue safety recommendations in a timely manner from all of
the aviation and surface transportation accidents that it must
investigate. After achieving a staffing level of 427 FTE in
fiscal year 2003, the agency was forced to absorb across-the-
board cuts, unfunded pay raises, and mandatory increases to
contracts and other non-salary related administrative expenses
that reduced the number of positions that could actually be
funded to a low of 377 FTE in fiscal year 2007. The Committee
has worked over the past few years to provide the NTSB with
additional resources in order to return the agency to its
previous staffing level. Yet, despite these efforts, the
President's request for fiscal year 2011 forces the agency to
cut 13 FTE in order to stay within a constrained budget. The
Committee rejects this proposal and provides the resources
necessary to fully fund the NTSB's 415 FTE. In addition, the
Committee provides $1,116,000 above the request for the half-
year costs associated with 10 additional positions for the NTSB
to fill its most critical safety and technical staffing needs.
The resulting staffing level of 425 FTE will return the NTSB to
the FTE level held during fiscal year 2002 and will give the
agency the personnel needed to adequately investigate
transportation-related accidents and meet the agency's mission
requirements. Furthermore, the Committee directs that none of
these additional funds shall be used for the Academy.
Modernization of NTSB labs.--In fiscal year 2010, the
Committee appropriated $800,000 to the NTSB for equipment to
modernize the NTSB's data recorder laboratory. This funding was
intended to be a one-time increase to the agency's budget.
However, the NTSB has since developed a five-year capital
investment plan of $2,855,000 to maintain its laboratories in
order to keep current capabilities from being lost as
technology changes. Given the important role that these
laboratories play in determining the probable causes of
accidents, the Committee does not believe that the NTSB can
afford to lose the capability of analyzing data and materials
from transportation accidents. The Committee recommendation,
therefore, retains the funding provided in fiscal year 2010 for
the NTSB to modernize and maintain its laboratories in order to
support the accident investigations conducted by headquarters
and regional investigators.
Lease payments.--The Committee continues to note that the
NTSB violated and continues to be in violation of the Anti-
deficiency Act because it did not obtain or have budget
authority to cover the net present value of the entire 20-year
training center lease obligation at the time the capital lease
agreement was signed in 2001. To ensure that the NTSB can
satisfy its contractual obligations, the Committee has
continued language that allows the NTSB to use its fiscal year
2011 appropriation to make the lease payments for the Academy.
NTSB Academy.--The agency is encouraged to continue to seek
additional opportunities to lease out, or otherwise generate
revenue from the NTSB Academy, so that the agency can
appropriately focus its resources on the important
investigative work that is central to the agency's mission. In
addition, the agency is again directed to submit detailed
information on the costs associated with the NTSB Academy, as
well as the revenue the facility is expected to generate, as
part of the fiscal year 2012 budget request.
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation
PAYMENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT CORPORATION
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $233,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... 250,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 285,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... +52,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. +35,000,000
The Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation was created by
the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation Act (title VI of the
Housing and Community Development Amendments of 1978).
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation now operates under the
trade name ``NeighborWorks America.'' NeighborWorks America
helps local communities establish working partnerships between
residents and representatives of the public and private
sectors. These partnership-based organizations are independent,
tax-exempt, community-based nonprofit entities, often referred
to as NeighborWorks organizations.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a funding level of $285,000,000
for fiscal year 2011, which represents an increase of
$52,000,000 above the level enacted in fiscal year 2010. Of
this amount, $35,000,000 is appropriated for continuation of a
program began in fiscal year 2010 for capital grants to
rehabilitate or finance the rehabilitation of affordable
housing units. In total, $113,000,000 is provided for the
National Foreclosure Mitigation Counseling (NFMC) program,
which has provided foreclosure counseling for nearly one
million families to date. This program has also provided
training for more than 4,000 foreclosure counselors. The data
collected from this effort demonstrates that counseled
homeowners were about 1.6 times as likely to avoid a
foreclosure completion than they would have been had they not
received NFMC program counseling. As the foreclosure crisis
continues in this nation, the need for counseling only
increases, and NeighborWorks has done an admirable job of
responding to this need.
United States Interagency Council on Homelessness
OPERATING EXPENSES
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010....................... $2,450,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011...................... 2,680,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 2,680,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2010................... +230,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2011.................. - - -
The Committee recommends $2,680,000 for operating expenses
of the Interagency Council on Homelessness, $230,000 above the
enacted amount for fiscal year 2010 and equal to the requested
amount.
The Committee commends the ICH on its publication of
``Opening Doors: The Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and End
Homelessness'' on June 22, 2010. Pulling together 19 Federal
agencies and thousands of stakeholders across the nation is an
admirable feat, and shows that the leadership of the ICH is
moving the agency in the right direction. The plan's focus on
measurable goals, definite timetables, and interagency
cooperation is exactly what the nation needs in this time of
challenge and opportunity. The Committee is pleased that the
ICH is living up to its mission and will work alongside this
important agency to achieve the goals set forth in the plan.
TITLE IV--GENERAL PROVISIONS, THIS ACT
Section 401. The Committee continues the provision
requiring pay raises to be funded within appropriated levels in
this Act or previous appropriations Acts.
Section 402. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting pay and other expenses for non-Federal parties in
regulatory or adjudicatory proceedings funded in this Act.
Section 403. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting obligations beyond the current fiscal year and
prohibiting transfers of funds unless expressly provided in
this Act.
Section 404. The Committee continues the provision limiting
consulting service expenditures of public record in procurement
contracts.
Section 405. The Committee continues the provision
specifying reprogramming procedures by subjecting the
establishment of new offices and reorganizations to the
reprogramming process.
Section 406. The Committee continues the provision
providing that fifty percent of unobligated balances may remain
available for certain purposes.
Section 407. The Committee continues the provision
requiring agencies and departments funded in this Act to report
on all sole source contracts.
Section 408. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting employee training not directly related to the
performance of official duties.
Section 409. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting funds from being used for any project that seeks to
use the power of eminent domain unless eminent domain is
employed only for a public use.
Section 410. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting the transfer of funds made available in this Act to
any instrumentality of the United States Government except as
authorized by this Act or any other appropriations Act.
Section 411. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting funds in this Act from being used to permanently
replace an employee intent on returning to his past occupation
after completion of military service.
Section 412. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting funds in this Act from being used unless the
expenditure is in compliance with the Buy American Act.
Section 413. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting funds from being appropriated or made available to
any person or entity that has been found to violate the Buy
American Act.
Section 414. The Committee continues the provision that
prohibits funds for first-class airline accommodations in
contravention of section 301-10.122 and 301-10.123 of title 41
CFR .
Section 415. The Committee continues the provision that
prohibits funds from being used to purchase light bulbs for an
office building unless, to the extent practicable, the light
bulb has an Energy Star or Federal Energy Management Program
designation.
Section 416. The Committee continues the provision which
prohibits funds in this Act or any prior Act from going to the
group ACORN or any of its affiliates, subsidiaries, or allied
organizations.
Section 417. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting for-profit earmarks.
Section 418. The Committee includes a provision prohibiting
the use of funds to establish or maintain a computer network
unless such network blocks the viewing, downloading, and
exchanging of pornography, except for law enforcement
investigation, prosecution or adjudication activities.
Section 419. The bill prohibits the obligation of funds in
this Act in contravention of the new certification requirement
established by section 6(b) of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996,
which is to be included in revisions to the Federal Acquisition
Regulation pursuant to that section. The revised FAR will
require a certification from each prospective contractor that
it does not engage in any activity for which sanctions may be
imposed under section 5 of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996.
Section 6(b) of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 was added by
section 102(b) of the recent Comprehensive Iran Sanctions,
Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010.
House of Representatives Reporting Requirements
The following items are submitted in accordance with
various requirements of the Rules of the House of
Representatives:
Changes in the Application of Existing Law
Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the following statements are
submitted describing the effect of provisions in the
accompanying bill which directly or indirectly change the
application of existing law.
TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Language is included under Office of the Secretary,
``Salaries and expenses'' specifying certain amounts for
individual offices of the Office of the Secretary and official
reception and representation expenses, and specifying transfer
authority among offices.
Language is included under Office of the Secretary,
``Salaries and expenses'' which would allow crediting the
account with up to $2,500,000 in user fees; prohibits
establishment of Assistant Secretary of Public Affairs.
Language is included under the Office of the Secretary,
``Livable Communities'' to coordinate livability and
sustainability initiatives; develop performance standards and
metrics; and provide grants to State, local and non-profit
organizations. Grants and technical assistance shall be for
improved performance measurement capabilities, alternatives
analysis, training and workshops.
Language is included under the Office of the Secretary,
``National Infrastructure Investment'' which provides funds for
competitive grants to state and local governments to make
investments in the Nation's transportation infrastructure.
Language is included under the Office of the Secretary,
``Financial Management Capital'' which provides funds to
upgrade DOT's financial systems and processes.
Language is included under the Office of the Secretary,
``Cyber Security Initiatives'' which provides funds to close
DOT's existing cyber security and privacy performance gaps;
adapt DOT's security posture to a Web 2.0 environment;
transition from a reactive to a proactive security posture; and
achieve the goals of Federal cyber security strategic plans and
initiatives.
Language is included for the Office of Civil Rights, which
is responsible for advising the Secretary on civil rights and
equal opportunity issues and ensuring the full implementation
of the civil rights laws and departmental civil rights policies
in all official actions and programs.
Language is included under the Office of the Secretary,
``Transportation planning, research, and development'' which
provides funds for conducting transportation planning,
research, systems development, development activities and
making grants, and makes funds available until expended.
Language is included that limits operating costs and
capital outlays of the Working Capital Fund for the Department
of Transportation; provides that services shall be provided on
a competitive basis, except for non-DOT entities; restricts the
transfer for any funds to the Working Capital Fund with
approval; and limits special assessments or reimbursable
agreements levied against any program, project or activity
funded in this Act to only those assessments or reimbursable
agreements that are presented to and approved by the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations.
Language is included under the Office of the Secretary,
``Minority business resource center'' which limits the amount
of loans that can be subsidized, and provides funds for
administrative expenses.
Language is included under Office of the Secretary,
``Minority business outreach'' specifying that funds may be
used for business opportunities related to any mode of
transportation, and limits the availability of funds.
Language is included under the Office of the Secretary,
``Payments to air carriers'' that provides funds from the
Airport and Airway Trust Fund, allows the Secretary of
Transportation to consider subsidy requirements when
determining service to a community, and allows the Secretary to
repay any funds borrowed from the Federal Aviation
Administration to fund the essential air service program.
Section 101 prohibits the Office of the Secretary of
Transportation from approving assessments or reimbursable
agreements pertaining to funds appropriated to the modal
administrations in this Act, unless such assessments or
agreements have completed the normal reprogramming process for
Congressional notification.
Section 102 prohibits the use of funds to implement an
essential air service local cost participation program.
Section 103 allows the Secretary of Transportation or his
designee to engage with states to consider proposals related to
the reduction of motorcycle fatalities.
Language is included under the Federal Aviation
Administration, ``Operations'' that provides funds for
operations, safety activities, staff offices and research
activities related to commercial space transportation,
administrative expenses for research and development,
establishment of air navigation facilities, the operation
(including leasing) and maintenance of aircraft, subsidizing
the cost of aeronautical charts and maps sold to the public,
lease or purchase of passenger motor vehicles for replacement;
funds for certain aviation program activities; and specifies
transfer authority among offices.
Language is included under the Federal Aviation
Administration, ``Operations'' permitting transfer of funds, as
specified.
Language is included requiring a controller workforce plan
by March 31 of each fiscal year required by section 221 of
Public Law 108-176 and reduces the appropriation by $100,000
for each day the report is late.
Language is included requiring a similar March 31 report on
flight standards and aircraft certification staff and reduces
the appropriation by $100,000 for each day the report is late.
Language is included under the Federal Aviation
Administration, ``Operations'' permitting the use of funds to
enter into a grant agreement with a nonprofit standard setting
organization to develop aviation safety standards.
Language is included under the Federal Aviation
Administration, ``Operations'' that prohibits the use of funds
for new applicants of the second career training program.
Language is included under the Federal Aviation
Administration, ``Operations'' that prohibits funds to plan,
finalize, or implement any regulation that would promulgate new
aviation user fees not specifically authorized by law after the
date of enactment of this Act.
Language is included under the Federal Aviation
Administration, ``Operations'' that credits funds received from
States, counties, municipalities, foreign authorities, other
public authorities, and private sources for expenses incurred
in the provision of agency services.
Language is included under the Federal Aviation
Administration, ``Operations'' that provides $9,500,000 for the
contract tower cost sharing program.
Language is included under the Federal Aviation
Administration, ``Operations'' that prohibits funds for
conducting and coordinating activities on aeronautical charting
and cartography through the Working Capital Fund.
Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration,
``Facilities and equipment'' that provides funds for
acquisition, establishment, technical support services,
improvement by contract or purchase, and hire of air navigation
and experimental facilities and equipment; engineering and
service testing, construction and furnishing of quarters and
related accommodations at remote localities; and the purchase,
lease, or transfer of aircraft.
Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration,
``Facilities and equipment'' that provides funds from the
Airport and Airway Trust Fund and limits the availability of
funds.
Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration,
``Facilities and equipment'' that allows certain funds received
for expenses incurred in the establishment and modernization of
air navigation facilities to be credited to the account.
Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration,
``Facilities and equipment'' that requires the Secretary of
Transportation to transmit a comprehensive capital investment
plan for the Federal Aviation Administration.
Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration,
``Research, engineering, and development'' that provides funds
from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund for research,
engineering, and development, including construction of
experimental facilities and acquisition of necessary sites by
lease or grant; and limits the availability of funds.
Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration,
``Research, engineering, and development'' that allows certain
funds received for expenses incurred in research, engineering
and development to be credited to the account.
Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration,
``Grants-in-aid for airports'' that provides funds from the
Airport and Airway Trust Fund for airport planning and
development; noise compatibility planning and programs;
procurement, installation, and commissioning of runway
incursion prevention devices and systems; grants authorized
under section 41743 of title 49, U.S.C.; and inspection
activities and administration of airport safety programs; and
limits the availability of funds.
Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration,
``Grants-in-aid for airports'' that limits funds available for
the planning or execution of programs with obligations in
excess of $3,515,000,000.
Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration,
``Grants-in-aid for airports'' that prohibits funds for the
replacement of baggage conveyor systems, reconfiguration of
terminal baggage areas, or other airport improvements that are
necessary to install bulk explosive detection systems.
Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration,
``Grants-in-aid for airports'' that provides $99,622,000 for
administration.
Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration,
``Grants-in-aid for airports'' that specifies $15,000,000 for
the airport cooperative research program, $27,217,000 for the
airport technology research program.
Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration,
``Grants-in-aid for airports'' that rescinds contract authority
above the obligation limitation.
Section 110 limits the number of technical workyears at the
Center for Advanced Aviation Systems Development to 600 in
fiscal year 2011.
Section 111 prohibits FAA from requiring airport sponsors
to provide the agency ``without cost'' building construction,
maintenance, utilities and expenses, or space in sponsor-owned
buildings, except in the case of certain specified exceptions.
Section 112 allows reimbursement for fees collected and
credited under 49 U.S.C. 45303.
Section 113 allows reimbursement of funds for providing
technical assistance to foreign aviation authorities to be
credited to the operations account.
Section 114 prohibits funds in the Act from being used to
change weight restrictions or prior permission rules at
Teterboro Airport in Teterboro, New Jersey.
Section 115 prohibits funds limited in this Act for the
Airport Improvement Program to be provided to an airport that
refuses a request from the Secretary of Transportation to use
public space at the airport for the purpose of conducting
outreach on air passenger rights as proposed by the House and
Senate.
Section 116 prohibits the use of funds for premium pay
under subsection 5546(a) of title 5, U.S.C. to any FAA employee
unless said employee worked during the corresponding timeframe.
Section 117 prohibits funds in the Act from being used to
buy store gift cards with Government issued credit cards as
proposed by the House and Senate.
Language is included under the Federal Highway
Administration, ``Limitation on administrative expenses'' that
limit the amount to be paid, together with advances and
reimbursements received, for the administrative expenses of the
agency, including an amount for financial system upgrades
subject to conditions. In addition to this limitation, an
amount is specified that is to be made available to the
Appalachian Regional Commission for administrative expenses.
Language is included under the Federal Highway
Administration, ``Federal-aid highways'' that limits the
obligations for Federal-aid highways and highway safety
construction programs; limits the amount available for the
implementation or execution of programs for transportation
research, which shall not apply to any authority previously
made available for obligation; and allows the Secretary to
charge, collect and spend fees for loan applications and that
such amounts are in addition to administrative expenses and are
not subject to any obligation limitation or limitation on
administrative expenses under section 608 of title 23, U.S.C.,
and which are available until expended.
Language is included under the Federal Highway
Administration, ``Federal-aid highways'' that liquidates
contract authority.
Section 120 distributes obligation authority among federal-
aid highway programs.
Section 121 credits funds received by the Bureau of
Transportation Statistics to the federal-aid highways account.
Section 122 provides requirements for any waiver of Buy
American requirements.
Section 123 prohibits tolling in Texas, with exceptions.
Section 124 reallocates $200,000,000 from other programs to
support the FHWA's livable communities program, as requested.
Section 125 clarifies funding for various projects which
were included in previous appropriations Acts.
Section 126 clarifies funding for various projects which
were included in section 1702 of Public Law 109-59.
Section 127 clarifies funding for various projects which
were included in section 1602 of Public Law 105-178.
Section 128 rescinds unobligated balances associated with
demonstration or high priority projects which were funded in
previous appropriations Acts.
Section 129 rescinds unobligated balances made available
for highway related safety grants in prior appropriations Acts.
Section 130 permanently rescinds unobligated contract
authority authorized for administrative expenses of the FHWA
that will not be available for obligation because of the
limitation on administrative expenses imposed in this Act and
prior Acts.
Language is included under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, ``Motor Carrier Safety Operations and
Programs'' that provides a limitation on obligations and
liquidation of contract authorization, including specifying
amounts available for research and technology programs and
commercial motor vehicle operator's grants; and prohibits funds
for outreach and education from being transferred.
Language is included under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, ``Motor carrier safety grants'' that provides a
limitation on obligations and liquidation of contract
authorization, including specifying amounts available for the
commercial driver's license improvements program, border
enforcement grants program, the performance and registration
information system management program, the commercial vehicle
information systems and networks deployment program, the safety
data improvement program, and the commercial driver's license
information system modernization program; and specifies amount
for new entrant audits.
Language is included under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, ``Motor Carrier Safety'' that rescinds
unobligated balances from prior appropriations Acts.
Language is included under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, ``Motor Carrier Safety Program'' that rescinds
unobligated balances from prior appropriations Acts.
Section 135 continues a provision subjecting funds
appropriated in this Act to the terms and conditions of section
350 of Public Law 107-87 and Section 6901 of Public Law 110-28,
including a requirement that the secretary submit a report on
Mexico-domiciled motor carriers.
Language is included under National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, ``Operations and research'' that limits the
availability of funds and prohibits the planning or
implementation of any rulemaking on labeling passenger car
tires for low rolling resistance.
Language is included under National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, ``Operations and research'' that provides a
limitation on obligations, limits the availability of funds,
and provides a liquidation of contract authorization from the
highway trust fund.
Language is included under the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration ``National driver register'' that
provides a limitation on obligations and a liquidation of
contract authorization from the highway trust fund.
Language is included under the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration ``National driver register
modernization'' that limits the availability of funds.
Language is included under the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration ``Highway traffic safety grants'' that
provides a limitation on obligations, limits the availability
of funds, specifies the amounts for certain safety grant
programs and provides a liquidation of contract authorization
from the highway trust fund.
Language is included under the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration that reallocates funds from the seat belt
performance grants program to fund a new distracted driving
grant program and allows a portion of the funding to be used
for the development, production, and use of broadcast and print
media in support of efforts to prevent distracted driving.
Language is included under National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, ``Highway traffic safety grants'' prohibiting
the use of funds for construction, rehabilitation or remodeling
costs or for office furniture for state, local, or private
buildings.
Language is included under National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, ``Highway traffic safety grants'' that limits
funding for an evaluation for the high visibility enforcement
program.
Language is included under National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, ``Highway traffic safety grants'' limiting the
amount of funds available for technical assistance to states
under section 410.
Section 140 provides funding for travel and related
expenses for state management reviews and highway safety core
competency development training.
Section 141 exempts obligation authority that was made
available in previous public laws for multiple years from
limitations on obligations for the current year.
Section 142 rescinds unobligated contract authority
authorized from the highway trust fund for NHTSA's highway
safety grant programs that will not be available for obligation
because of limitations on obligations imposed on those funds in
this Act or previous appropriations Acts.
Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration,
``Safety and operations'' limiting the availability of funds.
Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration,
``Railroad research and development'' limiting the availability
of funds.
Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration,
``Railroad safety technology program'' to provide funds for
grants to passenger, commuter and freight rail carriers,
railroad suppliers, and State and local governments for
projects that have a public benefit of improved railroad safety
and efficiency.
Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration,
``Railroad rehabilitation and improvement financing program''
authorizing the Secretary to issue fund anticipation notes
necessary to pay obligations under sections 511 and 513 of the
Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act.
Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration,
``Railroad rehabilitation and improvement program'' that
prohibits new direct loans or loan guarantee commitments using
federal funds for credit risk premium under section 502 of the
Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act.
Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration,
``Capital assistance for high speed rail corridors and
intercity passenger rail service'' to provide funds for
passenger rail infrastructure grants for intercity passenger
rail, high-speed passenger rail and reducing congestion or
facilitating ridership growth along passenger rail corridors.
Language is included under the Federal Railroad
Administration, ``Operating subsidy grants to the National
Railroad Passenger Corporation'' that allows the Secretary of
Transportation to make quarterly grants to the National
Railroad Passenger Corporation; allows the Secretary to approve
funding only after receiving and reviewing a grant request for
each train route; ensures that each grant request is
accompanied by a detailed financial analysis, revenue
projection, and capital expenditure projection; requires the
Corporation to achieve savings through operational
efficiencies; requires the Inspector General of the Department
of Transportation to provide quarterly reports to the Congress
on estimates of the savings due to operational reforms;
requires the Corporation to submit to Congress the status of
its plan to improve the financial performance of food and
beverage service as well as first class service, including
sleeper car service as well as a report on progress compared
with its targets provided in its fiscal year 2007 plan;
requires the Corporation to submit a detailed business plan
that includes targets for ridership, revenues, and capital and
operating expenses as well as monthly reports regarding the
status of the business plan; requires that contracts entered
into by the Corporation will be governed by the laws of the
District of Columbia; requires the Corporation to follow the
provisions of the direct loan agreement; and prohibits funds to
support any route with a discounted fare of more than 50
percent off the normal peak fare, unless the operating loss is
the result of a discount covered by a State.
Language is included under the Federal Railroad
Administration, ``Capital and Debt Service Grants to the
National Railroad Passenger Corporation'' that allows the
Secretary of Transportation to make grants to the National
Railroad Passenger Corporation for the maintenance and repair
of capital infrastructure and debt service; allows the
Secretary to retain some funds to be used for oversight; bars
funds under this section to be used for operating losses;
restricts the use of funds unless they have been approved by
the Secretary or are contained in the Corporation's business
plan; provides financial incentives that can be used for
capital improvements if the Corporation demonstrates
operational savings and meets ridership and revenue targets;
provides funds for the development and implementation of a
managerial cost accounting system; and requires the
establishment of a common definition for ``state of good
repair'' on the Northeast Corridor.
The Committee includes new language under Federal Railroad
Administration, ``Intercity Passenger Rail Program'' as
recommended in the President's budget that establishes and
provides funding for an Intercity Passenger Rail Grant program.
Section 150 retains a provision that ceases the
availability of Amtrak funds if the railroad contracts for
services outside the United States for any service performed by
a full-time or part-time Amtrak employee as of July 1, 2006.
Section 151 retains a provision, which allows FRA to
receive and use cash or spare parts to repair and replace
damaged automated track inspection cars and equipment in
connection with the automated track inspection program.
Language is included under Federal Transit Administration,
``Administrative Expenses'' specifying an amount for
administrative expenses and travel; prohibiting a permanent
office of transit security; directing the submission of the
annual report on new starts; provides funds for fixed guideway
oversight activities if authorized; and provides funds for
transit operating assistance, if authorized.
Language is included under Federal Transit Administration,
``Formula and Bus Grants'' that provides a limitation on
obligations from the Highway Trust Fund, liquidation of
contract authorization for the operating expenses of the
agency, limits the availability of funds, and rescinds
unobligated balances.
Language is included under Federal Transit Administration,
``Research and University Centers'' that limits the
availability of funds and specifies the amounts for certain
offices and programs.
Language is included under Federal Transit Administration,
``Capital Investment Grants'' that limits the availability of
funds, specifies certain amounts for specific projects, and
rescinds unobligated balances.
Language is included under Federal Transit Administration,
``Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority'' for capital
and preventive maintenance expenditures and requires the
Secretary to determine that WMATA has placed the highest
priority on safety investments.
Section 160 exempts previously made transit obligations
from limitations on obligations.
Section 161 allows unobligated funds for projects under
``Capital Investment Grants'' and bus and bus facilities under
``Formula and Bus Grants'' in prior year appropriations Acts to
be used in this fiscal year.
Section 162 allows for the transfer of prior year
appropriations from older accounts to be merged into new
accounts with similar, current activities.
Section 163 unobligated funds for projects under ``Capital
Investment Grants'' to be used in this fiscal year for
activities eligible in the year the funds were appropriated.
Section 164 requires that Section 5309 unobligated funds or
recoveries available for reallocation shall be directed to
projects eligible to use the funds for their originally
intended purpose.
Language is included under the Saint Lawrence Seaway
Development Corporation that authorizes expenditures,
contracts, and commitments as may be necessary.
Language is included under the Saint Lawrence Seaway
Development Corporation ``Operations and Maintenance'' that
provides funds derived from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
Language is included under Maritime Administration,
``Maritime Security Program'' that limits the availability of
funds.
Language is included under Maritime Administration,
``Operations and Training'' that provides dedicated funds for
salaries and benefits of employees of the United States
Merchant Marine Academy, capital improvements at the United
States Merchant Marine Academy, and the State Maritime Schools
Schoolship Maintenance and Repair; and limits the availability
of some funds.
Language is included under Maritime Administration, ``Ship
Disposal'' that limits the availability of funds.
Language is included under Maritime Administration,
``Maritime Guaranteed Loan (Title XI) Program Account'' that
provides for the transfer to Operations and Training and
rescinds unobligated balances.
Section 170 allows the Maritime Administration to furnish
utilities and services and make repairs to any lease, contract,
or occupancy involving government property under the control of
MARAD and rental payments shall be covered into the Treasury as
miscellaneous receipts.
Language is included under Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration, ``Operational expenses'' which specifies
the amount derived from the pipeline safety fund and requires
that $1,000,000 be transferred to the pipeline safety account
to fund pipeline safety information grants to communities.
Language is included under Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration, ``Hazardous materials safety'' which
limits the availability of a certain amount and allows up to
$800,000 in fees collected under 49 U.S.C. 5108(g) to be
deposited in the general fund of the Treasury as offsetting
receipts.
Language is included under Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration, ``Hazardous materials safety'' that
credits certain funds received for expenses incurred for
training and other activities incurred in performance of
hazardous materials exemptions and approval functions.
Language is included under Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration, ``Pipeline safety'' which specifies the
amounts derived from the pipeline safety fund and the oil spill
liability trust fund and limits their period of availability.
Language is included under Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration, ``Pipeline safety'' that requires the
agency to fund the one-call state grant program.
Language is included under Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration, ``Emergency Preparedness Grants'' which
specifies the amount derived from the emergency preparedness
fund, limits the availability of some funds, and prohibits
funds from being obligated by anyone other than the Secretary
or his designee.
Language is included under Research and Innovative
Technology Administration, ``Research and development'' that
limits the availability of funds and credits to the
appropriation funds received from States and other sources for
expenses incurred for training.
Language is included under Office of Inspector General,
``Salaries and expenses'' that provides the Inspector General
with all necessary authority to investigate allegations of
fraud by any person or entity that is subject to regulation by
the Department of Transportation and the authority to
investigate unfair or deceptive practices and unfair methods of
competition by domestic and foreign air carriers and ticket
agents.
Language is included under Office of Inspector General,
``Salaries and expenses'' that specifies an amount from the
highway trust fund to fund the annual audit of the highway
trust fund financial statements.
Language is included under Surface Transportation Board,
``Salaries and expenses'' allowing the collection of $1,250,000
in fees established by the Chairman of the Surface
Transportation Board; and providing that the sum appropriated
from the general fund shall be reduced on a dollar-for-dollar
basis as such fees are received.
Section 180 allows the Department of Transportation to use
funds for aircraft; motor vehicles; liability insurance;
uniforms; or allowances, as authorized by law.
Section 181 limits appropriations for services authorized
by 5 U.S.C. 3109 to the rate for an Executive Level IV.
Section 182 prohibits funds in this Act for salaries and
expenses of more than 110 political and Presidential appointees
in the Department of Transportation, and prohibits political
and Presidential personnel assigned on temporary detail outside
the Department of Transportation.
Section 183 prohibits funds for the implementation of
section 404 of title 23, United States Code.
Section 184 prohibits recipients of funds made available in
this Act from releasing personal information, including social
security number, medical or disability information, and
photographs from a driver's license or motor vehicle record,
without express consent of the person to whom such information
pertains; and prohibits the withholding of funds provided in
this Act for any grantee if a state is in noncompliance with
this provision.
Section 185 allows funds received by the Federal Highway
Administration, Federal Transit Administration, and the Federal
Railroad Administration from states, counties, municipalities,
other public authorities, and private sources to be used for
expenses incurred for training may be credited to each agency's
respective accounts.
Section 186 stipulates that funds provided or limited in
this Act for the Federal Highway Administration, Federal
Transit Administration, and the Federal Railroad Administration
shall be for the eligible programs, projects and activities in
the corresponding amounts identified in the committee report
accompanying this Act.
Section 187 authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to
allow issuers of any preferred stock to redeem or repurchase
preferred stock sold to the Department of Transportation.
Section 188 prohibits funds in Title I of this Act from
being issued for any grant unless the Secretary of
Transportation notifies the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations not less than three full business days before
any discretionary grant award, letter of intent, or full
funding grant agreement totaling $1,000,000 or more is
announced by the department or its modal administrations.
Section 189 allows funds received from rebates, refunds,
and similar sources to be credited to Department of
Transportation appropriations.
Section 190 allows amounts from improper payments to a
third party contractor that are lawfully recovered by the
Department of Transportation to be available to cover expenses
incurred in recovery of such payments.
Section 191 stipulates that the Committees on
Appropriations solely approve or deny any funds provided or
limited in this Act that are subject to a reprogramming action
that requires notice to be provided to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations.
Section 192 prohibits the Surface Transportation Board from
charging or collecting filing fees for rate complaints in an
amount in excess of the authorized amount under section 1914 of
title 28, United States Code.
Section 193 authorizes the Department's Working Capital
Fund to provide payments in advance to vendors under provision
included in Executive Order 13150 and section 3049 of Public
Law 109-59.
Section 194 provides $7,622,655 for additional acquisition
workforce capacity and capabilities.
TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Management and Administration'' which designates
funds for ``Executive Direction'' and ``Administration,
Operations and Maintenance.''
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Personnel Compensation and Benefits'' which
designates funds for ``Public and Indian Housing,'' ``Community
Planning and Development,'' ``Housing,'' ``Office of the
Government National Mortgage Association,'' ``Policy
Development and Research,'' ``Fair Housing and Equal
Opportunity'' and ``Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard
Control.''
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Tenant-Based Rental Assistance'' which specifies
funds for certain programs, activities and purposes and limits
the use and availability of certain funds; specifies the
methodology for allocation of renewal funding; directs the
Secretary to the extent possible to prorate each public housing
agency's (PHA) allocation; directs the Secretary to notify PHAs
of their annual budget not later than 60 days after enactment
of the Act; directs that those PHAs participating in Moving to
Work shall be funded according to that agreement; provides the
criteria to allocate a portion of Administrative Fees;
specifies the amounts available to the Secretary to allocate to
PHAs that need additional funds and for fees; specifies the
amount for additional rental subsidy due to unforeseen
emergencies and portability; provides for the transfer of funds
to the ``Transformation Initiative;'' provides that additional
tenant protection rental assistance costs be funded by prior
year unobligated balances; provides funding for incremental
vouchers for homeless veterans; provides incremental funding
for eligible Disaster Housing Assistance Program (DHAP)
families; provides funding for two competitive demonstration
programs addressing needs of those homeless and at risk of
homelessness; and directs that all funds shall be only for
activities related to the provision of tenant-based rental
assistance authorized under section 8.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Housing Certificate Fund'' which rescinds prior
year funds; and allows the Secretary to use recaptures to fund
project-based contracts and contract administrators.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Public Housing Capital Fund'' which limits the
availability of funds; limits the delegation of certain waiver
authorities and prohibits funds from being used for certain
activities; specifies the total amount available for certain
activities; directs HUD to issue a Notice of Funding
Availability (NOFA) not later than 60 days after enactment of
the Act; and specifies the amount for grants, support services,
service coordinators and congregate services, to support the
costs of administrative and judicial receiverships, and to
support the ongoing Public Housing Financial and Physical
Assessment activities of the Real Estate Assessment Center.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Public Housing Operating Fund'' which sets the
basis for the allocation of funds and prohibits the use of
funds under certain conditions.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Revitalization of Severely Distressed Public
Housing (HOPE VI)'' which limits the availability of funds;
specifies the amount for technical assistance and contract
expertise; and directs HUD to issue a NOFA not later than 60
days after enactment of the Act.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Native American Housing Block Grants'' which
limits the availability of funds; specifies the formula for
allocation; specifies the amounts for technical assistance and
capacity building to support the inspection of Indian housing
units, administrative expenses, to subsidize the total
principal amount of any notes, and the cost of guaranteed
notes, which are defined in section 502 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant'' which
limits the availability of funds and specifies the amount for
training and technical activities.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund Program
Account'' which limits the availability of funds; specifies how
to define the costs of modifying loans; specifies the amount
and availability of funds to subsidize total loan principal;
and provides a dedicated amount for administrative expenses.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Native Hawaiian Loan Guarantee Fund Program
Account'' which limits the availability of funds; specifies how
to define the costs of modifying loans; and specifies the
amount and availability of funds to subsidize total loan
principal.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS''
which limits availability of funds and sets forth certain
requirements for the allocation and renewal of funds and
contracts.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Community Development Fund'' which limits the
use and availability of certain funds; specifies the allocation
of certain funds; specifies the amount made available for
grants to federally-recognized Indian tribes, emergencies,
Economic Development Initiatives with certain restrictions, and
Neighborhood Initiatives with certain restrictions and the
Sustainable Communities Initiative.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Community Development Loan Guarantees Program
Account'' which limits the availability of funds; specifies how
to define the costs of modifying loans; and specifies the
amount and availability of funds to subsidize total loan
principal.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Brownfields Redevelopment'' which limits the
availability of funds and directs HUD to issue a NOFA not later
than 60 days after enactment of the Act.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Home Investment Partnerships Program'' which
limits the availability of funds; specifies the allocation of
certain funds for certain purposes; and directs HUD to notify
formula grantees no later than 60 days after enactment of the
Act.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Self-Help and Assisted Homeownership Opportunity
Program'' which limits the availability of funds; specifies the
allocation of certain funds for certain purposes; and directs
HUD to issue a NOFA not later than 60 days after enactment of
the Act.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Homeless Assistance Grants'' which limits the
availability of funds; specifies the allocation of certain
funds for certain purposes; specifies matching requirements;
directs the Secretary to renew contracts under certain
conditions; requires grantees to integrate homeless programs
with other social service providers.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Project-Based Rental Assistance'' which limits
the availability of funds and specifies the allocation of
certain funds for certain purposes.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Housing for the Elderly'' which limits the
availability of funds; specifies the allocation of certain
funds; designates certain funds to be used only for certain
grants; allows the Secretary to waive certain provisions
governing contract terms; and provides for the transfer of
funds to the Working Capital Fund.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Housing for Persons with Disabilities'' which
limits the availability of funds; specifies the allocation of
certain funds; allows funds to be used to renew certain
contracts; and allows the Secretary to waive certain provisions
governing contract terms.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Housing Counseling Assistance'' which limits the
availability of funds and specifies amounts to be used for
administrative contract services.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Rental Housing Assistance'' which limits the
availability of funds and rescinds funds.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Payment to Manufactured Housing Fees Trust
Fund'' which limits the availability of funds and permits fees
to be assessed, modified, and collected, and permits temporary
borrowing authority from the General Fund of the Treasury.
Language is included under the Department of Housing and
Urban Development, ``Mutual Mortgage Insurance Program
Account'' which sets a loan principal limitation; limits the
obligations to make direct loans; specifies funds for specific
purposes; allows for the transfer of certain funds; allows for
additional contract expenses as guaranteed loan commitments
exceed certain levels.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``General and Special Risk Program Account'' which
sets a loan principal limitation; limits the obligations to
make direct loans; specifies funds for specific purposes; and
allows for the transfer of funds.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Government National Mortgage Association'' which
limits new commitments to issue guarantees.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Policy Development and Research'' which limits
the availability of funds and specifies authorized uses.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity'' which
limits the availability of funds; authorizes the Secretary to
assess and collect fees; and places restrictions on the use of
funds for lobbying activities.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy
Homes'' which limits the availability of funds; specifies the
amount of funds for specific purposes; specifies the treatment
of certain grants; and directs HUD to issue a NOFA not later
than 60 days after enactment of the Act.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Management and Administration: Working Capital
Fund'' which limits the availability and purpose of funds,
including funds transferred.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Office of Inspector General'' which specifies
the use of funds and directs that the IG shall have independent
authority over all personnel issues within the office.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Transformation Initiative'' (TI) which limits
the availability of funds; specifies the purposes of funds;
identifies the accounts and amounts from which TI can receive
transfers; and directs HUD to submit a plan regarding the use
of TI funds to the Committees on Appropriations.
Section 201 relates to the division of financing adjustment
factors.
Section 202 prohibits available funds from being used to
investigate or prosecute lawful activities under the Fair
Housing Act.
Section 203 corrects an anomaly in the HOPWA formula that
results in the loss of funds for certain States.
Section 204 requires funds appropriated to be distributed
on a competitive basis in accordance with the Department of
Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989.
Section 205 concerns the availability of funds subject to
the Government Corporation Control Act and the Housing Act of
1950.
Section 206 concerns the allocation of funds in excess of
the budget estimates.
Section 207 concerns the expenditure of funds for
corporations and agencies subject to the Government Corporation
Control Act.
Section 208 requires the Secretary to provide quarterly
reports on uncommitted, unobligated and excess funds in each
departmental program and activity.
Section 209 extends a technical amendment included in the
fiscal year 2000 appropriations Act relating to the allocation
of HOPWA funds in the Philadelphia and Raleigh-Cary
metropolitan areas. A proviso is added to allow a state to
administer the HOPWA program in the event that a local
government is unable to undertake the HOPWA grants management
functions.
Section 210 requires that the Administration's budget and
the Department's budget justifications for fiscal year 2012
shall be submitted in the identical account and sub-account
structure provided in this Act.
Section 211 exempts PHA Boards in Alaska, Iowa, and
Mississippi and the County of Los Angeles from public housing
resident representation requirements.
Section 212 authorizes HUD to transfer debt and use
agreements from an obsolete project to a viable project,
provided that no additional costs are incurred, and other
conditions are met.
Section 213 distributes 2010 Native American housing block
grant funds to the same Native Alaskan recipients as 2005.
Section 214 prohibits the IG from changing the basis on
which the audit of GNMA is conducted.
Section 215 sets forth requirements for eligibility for
Section 8 voucher assistance, and includes consideration for
persons with disabilities.
Section 216 authorizes the Secretary to insure mortgages
under Section 255 of the National Housing Act.
Section 217 instructs HUD on managing and disposing of any
multifamily property that is owned by HUD.
Section 218 authorizes the Secretary to waive certain
requirements on adjusted income for certain assisted living
projects for counties in Michigan.
Section 219 provides that the Secretary shall report
quarterly on HUD's use of all sole source contracts.
Section 220 allows the recipient of a section 202 grant to
establish a single-asset non-profit entity to own the project
and may lend the grant funds to such entity.
Section 221 allows that amounts provided under the Section
108 loan guarantee program may be used to guarantee notes or
other obligations issued by any State on behalf of non-
entitlement communities in the State, and that regulations
shall be promulgated within 60 days of enactment.
Section 222 amends section 24 of the 1937 Housing Act by
extending the HOPE VI program through September 30, 2011.
Section 223 instructs HUD that PHAs that own and operate
400 units or fewer of public housing are exempt from asset
management requirements.
Section 224 restricts the Secretary from imposing any
requirement or guideline relating to asset management that
restricts or limits the use of capital funds for central office
costs, up to the limit established in QHWRA.
Section 225 provides that no employee of the Department
shall be designated as an allotment holder unless the CFO
determines that such allotment holder has received training.
Section 226 provides that funding for indemnities is
limited to non-programmatic litigation and is restricted to the
payment of attorney fees only.
Section 227 allows refinancing of certain section 202
loans.
Section 228 makes reforms to the Federal Surplus Property
Program for the homeless.
Section 229 authorizes the Secretary to transfer up to 5
percent of funds appropriated under the title ``Personnel
Compensation and Benefits.''
Section 230 allows HUD to consider industry standard
appraisal practices, including the cost of repairs, when
determining market value.
Section 231 allows the Disaster Housing Assistance Programs
to be considered a program of the Department of Housing and
Urban Development for the purpose of income verifications and
matching.
Section 232 restructures FHA premiums.
Section 233 provides $2,070,635 to increase the
Department's acquisition workforce capacity and capabilities.
Section 234 repeals the paragraphs under the heading
``Flexible Subsidy Fund.''
Section 235 raises loan limits for FHA through the end of
the fiscal year.
Section 236 raises the GSE conforming loan limit for fiscal
year 2011.
Section 237 raises the Home Equity Conversion Mortgage loan
limit for fiscal year 2011.
Section 238 prohibits funds from being used for salaries
and expenses of more than 75 political and Presidential
appointees in HUD. The provision also requires that none of the
personnel covered by this provision may be assigned on
temporary detail outside HUD.
TITLE III--RELATED AGENCIES
Language is included for the Access Board, ``Salaries and
Expenses'' that allows for the credit to the appropriation of
funds received for publications and training expenses.
Language is included for the Federal Maritime Commission,
``Salaries and Expenses'' that provides funds for services
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, the hire of passenger motor
vehicles, uniforms and allowances, and official reception and
representation expenses.
Language is included for the National Railroad Passenger
Corporation, Office of Inspector General, ``Salaries and
Expenses'' to provide funds for an independent, objective unit
responsible for detecting and preventing fraud, waste, abuse,
and violations of law and promoting economy, efficiency and
effectiveness at Amtrak.
Language is included under National Transportation Safety
Board, ``Salaries and expenses'' that provides funds for hire
of passenger motor vehicles and aircraft, services authorized
by 5 U.S.C. 3109, uniforms or allowances therefore, and for
official reception and representation expenses.
Language is included under National Transportation Safety
Board, ``Salaries and expenses'' that allows funds provided in
this Act to be used to pay for costs associated with a 2001
capital lease.
Language is included in the Neighborhood Reinvestment
Corporation (NRC), ``Payment to the Neighborhood Reinvestment
Corporation'' which limits the availability of funds; specifies
the allocation of funds to certain activities; and specifies
the terms and conditions surrounding NRC activities.
Language is included for the United States Interagency
Council on Homelessness, ``Operating Expenses'' that provides
funds for salaries, travel, hire of passenger motor vehicles,
rental of conference rooms, and the employment of experts and
consultants.
TITLE IV--GENERAL PROVISIONS, THIS ACT
Section 401 requires pay raises to be funded within
appropriated levels in this Act or previous appropriations
Acts.
Section 402 prohibits pay and other expenses for non-
Federal parties in regulatory or adjudicatory proceedings
funded in this Act.
Section 403 prohibits obligations beyond the current fiscal
year and prohibits transfers of funds unless expressly so
provided herein.
Section 404 limits consulting service expenditures of
public record in procurement contracts.
Section 405 specifies reprogramming procedures by
subjecting the establishment of new offices and reorganizations
to the reprogramming process.
Section 406 provides that fifty percent of unobligated
balances may remain available for certain purposes.
Section 407 requires a report from all agencies and
departments funded under this Act to the Committees on
Appropriations on all sole source contracts by no later than
July 30, 2010.
Section 408 prohibits federal training not directly related
to the performance of official duties.
Section 409 prohibits funds from being used for any project
that seeks to use the power of eminent domain unless eminent
domain is employed only for a public use.
Section 410 prohibits the transfer of funds made available
in this Act to any instrumentality of the United States
Government except as authorized by this Act or any other
appropriations Act.
Section 411 prohibits funds in this Act from being used to
permanently replace an employee intent on returning to his past
occupation after the completion of military service.
Section 412 prohibits funds in this Act from being used
unless the expenditure is in compliance with the Buy American
Act.
Section 413 prohibits funds from being appropriated or made
available to any person or entity that has been found to
violate the Buy American Act.
Section 414 prohibits funds for first-class airline
accommodations in contravention of section 301-10.122 and 301-
10.123 of title 41 CFR.
Section 415 prohibits funds from being used to purchase
light bulbs for an office building unless, to the extent
practicable, the light bulb has an Energy Star or Federal
Energy Management Program designation.
Section 416 prohibits funds in this Act or any prior Act
from going to the group ACORN or any of its affiliates,
subsidiaries, or allied organizations.
Section 417 prohibits for-profit earmarks.
Section 418 prohibits the use of funds to establish or
maintain a computer network unless such network blocks the
viewing, downloading, and exchanging of pornography, except for
law enforcement investigation, prosecution or adjudication
activities.
Section 419 prohibits the obligation of funds in this Act
in contravention of the new certification requirement
established by section 6(b) of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996,
which is to be included in revisions to the Federal Acquisition
Regulation pursuant to that section. The revised FAR will
require a certification from each contractor that it does not
engage in any activity for which sanctions may be imposed under
section 5 of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996. Section 6(b) of
the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 was added by section 102(b) of
the recent Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and
Divestment Act of 2010.
Appropriations Not Authorized by Law
Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the following table lists the
appropriations in the accompanying bill which are not
authorized by law:
APPROPRIATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations in
Program Last year of Authorization last year of Amount of program
authorization level authorization or new fees
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONFederal Aviation Administration:
Operations...................... 2009 $9,042,467 $9,042,067 $9,793,000
Facilities and Equipment........ 2009 2,742,095 2,742,095 3,000,000
Research, Engineering and 2009 171,000 171,000 198,000
Development....................
Grants-in-Aid for Airports...... 2009 3,900,000 3,514,500 3,515,000
Federal Highway Administration:
Federal-aid Highways............ 2010 42,942,152 41,107,000 45,217,700
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration:
Motor Carrier Safety Operations 2010 239,828 239,828 259,878
and Programs...................
Motor Carrier Safety Grants..... 2010 307,000 310,070 310,070
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration:
Operations and Research--General 2009 157,400 127,000 148,127
Fund...........................
Operations and Research--Highway 2010 107,329 105,500 110,073
Trust Fund.....................
National Driver Register........ 2010 4,078 4,000 4,170
National Driver Register ................. ................. ................. 2,530
Modernization..................
Highway Traffic Safety Grants... 2010 626,047 619,500 626,328
Federal Railroad Administration:
Grade Crossings on Designated 2010 15,000 15,000 15,000
Corridors......................
High Speed and Intercity 2011 750,000 ................. 1,400,000
Passenger Rail.................
Federal Transit Administration:
Administrative Expenses......... 2010 98,911 98,911 130,698
Formula & Bus Grants............ 2010 8,360,565 8,343,171 8,961,348
Research and University......... 2010 69,750 65,670 65,376
Capital Investment Grants....... 2010 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
Maritime Administration:
Operations and Training......... 2010 152,900 149,750 169,353
Ship Disposal................... 2010 15,000 15,000 10,000
Maritime Security............... 2010 174,000 174,000 174,000
Title XI........................ 2010 64,000 9,000 3,688
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration:
Operational Expenses............ ................. ................. ................. 22,383
Hazardous Materials Safety...... 2009 32,000 32,000 40,434
Research and Innovative Technology
Administration:
Research and Development........ ................. ................. ................. 18,900
Surface Transportation Board:
Surface Transportation Board.... 1998 12,000 25,597 29,999 TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENTRental Assistance:
Section 8 Contract Renewals and 1994 8,446,173 4,558,106 9,376,000
Administrative Expenses........
Section 441 Contracts........... 1994 109,410 150,000 .................
Section 8 Preservation, 1994 759,259 541,000 .................
Protection, and Family
Unification....................
Contract Administrators......... ................. ................. ................. 315,000
Public Housing Capital Fund..... 2003 3,000,000 2,712,255 2,500,000
Public Housing Operating Fund... 2003 2,900,000 3,576,600 4,829,000
Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund.. 2007 \1\SSAN 6,000 9,000
Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant. 2005 ................. 8,928 10,000
Native Hawaiian Loan Guarantee Fund. 2005 ................. 992 1,044
Housing Opportunity for Persons with 1994 156,300 156,000 350,000
Aids...............................
Community Development Fund:
Community Development Block 1994 4,168,000 4,400,000 3,998,255
Grant..........................
Economic Development Initiatives ................. ................. ................. 76,645
Neighborhood Initiatives........ ................. ................. ................. 12,200
Home Program:
Home Investment Partnership..... 1994 2,173,612 1,275,000 1,825,00
Down Payment Assistance 2007 200,000 24,750 .................
Initiative.....................
HOPE VI............................. 2010 \1\SSAN 198,000 200,000
Brownfields Redevelopment........... ................. ................. ................. 17,500
Self-Help and Assisted Homeownership
Opportunity:
Capacity Building............... 1994 25,000 20,000 53,000
Self-Help Homeownership 2000 ................. 20,000 82,000
Opportunity Program............
National Housing Development ................. ................. ................. .................
Corporation....................
Housing for the Elderly......... 2003 ................. 778,195 825,000
Housing for Persons with 2003 ................. 248,886 300,000
Disabilities...................
FHA General and Special Risk Program
Account:
Limitation on Guaranteed Loans.. 1995 ................. (20,885,072) 20,000,000
Limitation on Direct Loans...... 1995 ................. (220,000) 20,000
Credit Subsidy.................. 1995 ................. 188,395 .................
Administrative Expenses......... 1995 ................. 197,470 .................
GNMA Mortgage Backed Securities Loan
Guarantee Program Account:
Limitations on Guaranteed Loans. 1996 (110,000,000) (110,000,000) 500,000,000
Administrative Expenses......... 1996 ................. 9,101 10,902
Policy Development and Research. 1994 36,470 35,000 50,000
Fair Housing Activities, Fair 1994 26,000 25,000 72,000
Housing Program................
Lead Hazard Reduction Program... 1994 250,000 150,000 140,000
Salaries and Expenses........... 1994 1,029,496 916,963 1,379,070
Transformation Initiative........... ................. ................. ................. 220,741 TITLE III--RELATED AGENCIESAccess Board........................ 2003 ................. 5,194 7,300
Federal Maritime Commission......... 2008 22,575 22,072 25,300
National Transportation Safety Board 2008 92,625 84,499 104,232
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\SSAN: Such sums as necessary.
Transfer of Funds
Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the following statement is submitted
describing the transfers of funds provided in the accompanying
bill.
APPROPRIATION TRANSFERS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL
UNDER TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Account to which
Account from which the transfer the transfer is Amount
is made made
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Secretary......... Office of the 2% of certain
Secretary. funds subject to
conditions
Federal Aviation Administration. Federal Aviation 2% of certain
Administration. funds subject to
conditions
FHWA: Limitation on Appalachian $3,300,000
administrative expenses. Regional
Commission.
Pipeline & Hazardous Materials Pipeline Safety... $1,000,000
Safety Administration.
MARAD: Operations & Training.... Maritime $3,688,000
Guaranteed Loan
(Title XI)
Program Account.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNDER TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Account to which
Account from which the transfer the transfer is Amount
is made made
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHA MMI Program Account......... Working Capital $71,500,000
Fund.
Any HUD Account*................ Transformation 1%
Initiative.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Accounts from which funds may not be transferred: Project-Based Rental
Assistance, Native Hawaiian Loan Guarantee Fund, Indian Housing Loan
Guarantee Fund, Public Housing Capital Fund, Native American Housing
Block Grants, Housing for the Elderly, Housing for Persons with
Disabilities, G1/SR1 Fund, HOME, Homeless Assistance Grants,
Brownfields, HOPE VI, Section 108 Loan Guarantees, Self-Help and
Assisted Homeownership Opportunity Program, and Fair Housing
Activities.
Rescissions
Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII
of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the following
table is submitted describing the rescissions recommended in
the accompanying bill:
Title I--Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration........................ -35,772,424
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Motor -7,330,000
Carrier Safety.......................................
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, National -15,076,000
Motor Carrier Safety Program.........................
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, -7,907,000
Highway Traffic Safety Grants........................
Title II--Department of Housing and Urban Development
Rent Supplement....................................... -$40,600,000
Comparison With the Budget Resolution
Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires an explanation of compliance with
section 308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as
amended, which requires that the report accompanying a bill
providing new budget authority contain a statement detailing
how that authority compares with the reports submitted under
section 302 of the Act for the most recently agreed to
concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal year from
the Committee's section 302(a) allocation.
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
302b allocation This bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget authority Outlays Budget authority Outlays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary....................... 67,400 136,446 67,400 \1\136,444
Mandatory........................... 0 0 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
Five-Year Outlay Projections
In compliance with section 308(a)(1)(B) of the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974
(Public Law 93-344), as amended, the following table contains
five-year projections associated with the budget authority
provided in the accompanying bill as provided to the Committee
by the Congressional Budget Office.
[In millions of dollars]
2011....................................................... \1\49,459
2012....................................................... 37,335
2013....................................................... 15,992
2014....................................................... 7,200
2015 and future years...................................... 9,264\1\Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
Assistance to State and Local Governments
In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974
(Public Law 93-344), as amended, the Congressional Budget
Office has provided the following estimates of new budget
authority and outlays provided by the accompanying bill for
financial assistance to state and local governments.
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget
authority Outlays
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Financial assistance to State and local 36,144 \1\32,065
governments for 2011.........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
Constitutional Authority
Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives states:
Each report of a committee on a bill or joint resolution of
a public character shall include a statement citing the
specific powers granted to the Congress in the Constitution to
enact the law proposed by the bill or joint resolution.
The Committee on Appropriations bases its authority to
report this legislation from clause 7 of section 9 of Article I
of the Constitution of the United States of America which
states:
No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in
consequence of Appropriations made by law * * *
Appropriations contained in this Act are made pursuant to
this specific power granted by the Constitution.
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the following is a statement of
general performance goals and objectives for which this measure
authorizes funding:
The Committee on Appropriations considers program
performance, including a program's success in developing and
attaining outcome-related goals and objectives, in developing
funding recommendations.
Compliance With Rule XIII, Cl. 3(e) (Ramseyer Rule)
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):
* * * * * * *
SECTION 1702 OF THE SAFE, ACCOUNTABLE, FLEXIBLE, EFFICIENT
TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT: A LEGACY FOR USERS
SEC. 1702. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.
Subject to section 117 of title 23, United States Code, the
amount listed for each high priority project in the following
table shall be available (from amounts made available by
section 1101(a)(16) of this Act) for fiscal years 2005 through
2009 to carry out each such project:
Highway Projects High Priority Projects
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. State Project Description Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 CA Construct safe access to $400,000
streets for bicyclists and
pedestrians including
crosswalks, sidewalks and
traffic calming measures,
Covina....................
* * * * * * *
1366 NY [Improve Long and Short $2,100,000
Beach Road, Southampton]
Road and bridge
improvements and storm
water mitigation in the
Town of Southampton.......
* * * * * * *
2252 WI [Realign U.S. 8 near $1,600,000
Cameron, Barron County]
Operational safety
studies, final design and/
or construction of
intersection operational
and safety improvements
for USH 53 between Rice
Lake and Superior,
Wisconsin.................
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
SECTION 1602 OF THE TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
SEC. 1602. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.
Subject to section 117 of title 23, United States Code, the
amount listed for each high priority project in the following
table shall be available (from amounts made available by
section 1101(a)(13) of the Transportation Equity Act for the
21st Century) for fiscal years 1998 through 2003 to carry out
each such project:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Dollars
No. State Project description in
millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Georgia I-75 advanced 1.7
transportation
management system in
Cobb County.........
* * * * * * *
414. Massachusetts [Environmental 1.5
studies, preliminary
engineering and
design of North-
South Connector in
Pittsfield to
improve access to I-
90] Engineering,
design and
construction of the
North Street,
Pittsfield,
streetscaping
project.............
* * * * * * *
815. Minnesota [Construct grade 0.75
separated
interchange at south
junction of TH 371/
Brainerd bypass]
Highway 10
relocation, City of
Wadena..............
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
NATIONAL HOUSING ACT
* * * * * * *
TITLE II--MORTGAGE INSURANCE
* * * * * * *
insurance of mortgages
Sec. 203. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c)(1) * * *
(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section,
each mortgage secured by a 1- to 4-family dwelling that is an
obligation of the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund shall be
subject to the following requirements:
(A) * * *
[(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:
[(i) For any mortgage involving an original
principal obligation (excluding any premium
collected under subparagraph (A)) that is less
than 90 percent of the appraised value of the
property (as of the date the mortgage is
accepted for insurance), for the first 11 years
of the mortgage term.
[(ii) For any mortage involving an original
principal obligation (excluding any premium
collected under subparagraph (A)) that is
greater than or equal to 90 percent of such
value, for the first 30 years of the mortgage
term; except that notwithstanding the matter
preceding clause (i), for any mortgage
involving an original principal obligation
(excluding any premium collected under
subparagraph (A)) that is greater than 95
percent of such value, the annual premium
collected during the 30-year period under this
clause shall be in an amount not exceeding 0.55
percent of the remaining insured principal
balance (excluding the portion of the remaining
balance attributable to the premium collected
under subparagraph (A) and without taking into
account delinquent payments or prepayments).]
(B) In addition to the premium under subparagraph
(A), the Secretary may establish and collect annual
premium payments in an amount not exceeding 1.50
percent of the remaining insured principal balance
(excluding the portion of the remaining balance
attributable to the premium collected under
subparagraph (A) and without taking into account
delinquent payments or prepayments). The Secretary, by
publication of a notice in the Federal Register, may
establish or change the amount of the premium under
subparagraph (A) or the annual premium, and the period
of the mortgage term for which an annual premium amount
shall apply.
* * * * * * *
INSURANCE OF HOME EQUITY CONVERSION MORTGAGES FOR ELDERLY HOMEOWNERS
Sec. 255. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(g) Limitation on Insurance Authority.--[The aggregate number
of mortgages insured under this section may not exceed
275,000.] In no case may the benefits of insurance under this
section exceed the maximum dollar amount limitation established
under section 305(a)(2) of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation Act for a 1-family residence.
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 24 OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSING ACT OF 1937
SEC. 24. DEMOLITION, SITE REVITALIZATION, REPLACEMENT HOUSING, AND
TENANT-BASED ASSISTANCE GRANTS FOR PROJECTS.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(m) Funding.--
(1) Authorization of appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated for grants under this
section $574,000,000 for [fiscal year 2010.] fiscal
year 2011.
* * * * * * *
(o) Sunset.--No assistance may be provided under this section
after [September 30, 2010.] September 30, 2011.
----------
DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005
(division I of Public Law 108-447)
DIVISION I--DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005
* * * * * * *
Housing Programs
* * * * * * *
FLEXIBLE SUBSIDY FUND
(TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
[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.]
* * * * * * *
----------
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006
(title III of division A of Public Law 109-115)
DIVISION A--TRANSPORTATION, TREASURY, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
THE JUDICIARY, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006
That the following sums are appropriated, out of any money in
the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Departments of
Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the
Judiciary, and independent agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2006, and for other purposes, namely:
* * * * * * *
TITLE III
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
* * * * * * *
Housing Programs
* * * * * * *
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.]
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 209 OF THE MCKINNEY-VENTO HOMELESS ASSISTANCE ACT
SEC. 209. TERMINATION.
The Council shall cease to exist, and the requirements of
this title shall terminate, on [October 1, 2006] October 1,
2012.
Congressional Earmarks
The following table is submitted in compliance with clause
9 of rule XXI, and lists the congressional earmarks (as defined
in paragraph (e) of clause 9) contained in the bill or in this
report. Neither the bill nor the report contain any limited tax
benefits or limited tariff benefits as defined in paragraphs
(f) or (g) of clause 9 of rule XXI.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
[Presidentially Directed Spending Items]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requester(s)
Agency Account Project Amount ---------------------------------------------------------------
Administration House
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA CIG Access to the Region's Core, NJ $200,000,000 The President Holt; Pallone; Pascrell; Sires; Rothman
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA CIG BRT Project, CO $24,163,000 The President Polis; Salazar
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA CIG Central Corridor LRT, MN $45,000,000 The President Ellison; McCollum
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA CIG Central Florida Commuter Rail Transit--Initial Operating Segment, FL $40,000,000 The President
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA CIG Central Subway LRT, CA $20,000,000 The President
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA CIG Dulles Corridor Metrorail Project Ext. to Wiehle Ave., DC $96,000,000 The President Connolly (VA); Moran (VA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA CIG E Street Corridor sbX BRT, CA $42,630,000 The President Baca
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA CIG East Bay BRT, CA $15,000,000 The President Lee (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA CIG East Corridor, CO $40,000,000 The President DeGette; Perlmutter
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA CIG Gold Line, CO $40,000,000 The President DeGette; Perlmutter
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA CIG King County BRT, WA $21,274,000 The President
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA CIG Long Island Rail Road East Side Access, NY $215,000,000 The President
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA CIG Mason Corridor BRT, CO $5,450,573 The President
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA CIG MetroRapid BRT, TX $24,229,796 The President
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA CIG Mid Jordan LRT, UT $100,000,000 The President
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA CIG New Britain-Hartford Busway, CT $45,000,000 The President Larson (CT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA CIG North Corridor LRT, TX $75,000,000 The President Green, Al; Green, Gene; Jackson Lee (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA CIG Northwest/Southeast LRT MOS, TX $86,249,717 The President Johnson, Eddie Bernice
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA CIG Nostrand Ave BRT, NY $28,398,554 The President
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA CIG Perris Valley Line, CA $23,490,000 The President
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA CIG Rail Transit Project--East Kapolei to Ala Moana Center, HI $55,000,000 The President Hirono
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA CIG Second Avenue Subway Phase I, NY $197,182,000 The President Maloney
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA CIG Southeast Corridor LRT, TX $75,000,000 The President Green, Al; Green, Gene; Jackson Lee (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA CIG University Link LRT Extension, WA $110,000,000 The President
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA CIG Van Ness Avenue BRT, CA $15,000,000 The President
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA CIG Weber County to Salt Lake City Commuter Rail, UT $80,000,000 The President
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA CIG West Corridor LRT, CO $40,179,000 The President DeGette
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
[Congressionally Directed Spending Items]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DoT, OST TPR&D Chicago Aviation Education Initiative, IL $250,000 Rush
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DoT, OST TPR&D Great Lakes Maritime Research Institute, MN/WI $1,000,000 Obey
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DoT, OST TPR&D New England Freight Rail Infrastructure Study, MA $300,000 Olver
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA AIP Auburn-Lewiston Municipal Airport Phase 1 Runway 4/22 Safety Area Improvements/Extension, $750,000 Michaud
ME
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA AIP Augusta Airport Runway Reconstruction and Safety Area Improvements, ME $500,000 Pingree (ME)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA AIP Charlotte Monroe Executive Airport Ramp, Taxiway and Related Improvements, NC $1,000,000 Kissell
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA AIP Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport (CHO) Extension of Runway 21, VA $500,000 Perriello
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA AIP Denver International Airport F7 Taxiway Construction, CO $700,000 DeGette
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA AIP Grand Forks Regional Airport (GFK) Passenger Terminal--Phase III, ND $750,000 Pomeroy
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA AIP Montrose Regional Airport Taxiway Bravo Extension, CO $500,000 Salazar
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA AIP Outagamie County Regional Airport Taxiway, Apron, and Signage Improvements, WI $750,000 Kagen
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA AIP Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport Taxiway Alpha, AZ $1,000,000 Pastor (AZ); Mitchell
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA AIP Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport Papa (P) and Related Improvements, AZ $1,000,000 Mitchell
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA AIP Sawyer County Airport Land Acquisition and Landing System Improvements, WI $1,750,000 Obey
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA AIP Southwest Georgia Regional Airport Apron and Various Improvements, GA $500,000 Bishop (GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA AIP Stinson Municipal Airport Taxilane Extension, TX $1,000,000 Rodriguez
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA AIP Virginia Highlands Airport Design and Land Acquisition, VA $750,000 Boucher
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA F&E Kingston Regional Airport ILS Upgrades, NC $500,000 Butterfield
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA Delta Arkansas River Trail, AR $500,000 Snyder
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA Delta Blytheville Overpass, AR $1,000,000 Berry
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA Delta Higdon Ferry Road Widening, Hot Springs, AR $1,000,000 Ross
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA Delta Holly Springs Road Project, DeSoto County, MS $1,250,000 Childers
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA Delta I-555 Floodway Access Road, Poinsett County, AR $1,500,000 Berry
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA Delta Northwest Tennessee Regional Port Authority, TN $500,000 Tanner
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA Delta Old Taylor Road Roundabouts, MS $500,000 Childers
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA Delta Reconstruction and Widening of U.S. 627 Bridge over Interstate 75, Madison County, KY $750,000 Chandler
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA Delta Ridge Road Extension, Pearl River County, MS $750,000 Taylor
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA Delta South Three Notch Street Improvement Project, AL $750,000 Bright
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA Delta Washington Street Bridge Replacement, Vicksburg, MS $1,500,000 Thompson (MS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA FB Berkeley Ferry Service, CA $500,000 Pelosi; Lee (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA FB Commuter Ferry, MA $1,000,000 Capuano
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA FB Ferry Landing in Pt. Mackenzie, AK $1,000,000 Young (AK)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA FB Ferry Terminal Dock for Statue of Liberty/Ellis Island, NY $600,000 Nadler (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA FB Friday Harbor Ferry Terminal Pedestrian Access and Safety Improvements, WA $230,000 Larsen (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA FB Golden Gate Ferry-Sausalito Ferry Facility Ramps and Gangways, CA $500,000 Woolsey
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA FB Long Branch Pier and Ferry Terminal Design, Engineering, and Project Management, NJ $1,000,000 Pallone
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA FB Port of Port Angeles Ferry Terminal Repairs, WA $1,000,000 Dicks
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA FB Refurbishing, Enhancing, and Improving the Safety of the North and South Lynchburg Ferry $700,000 Green, Gene
Landings, TX
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA FB Salem Wharf Pier Project, MA $1,000,000 Tierney
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA FB Vallejo Ferry Maintenance Facility, Vallejo, CA $750,000 Miller, George
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA FB Vessel and Terminal Sewage Pump-out Systems Installation, Cape Cod, MA $1,000,000 Delahunt
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA FL Blackstone River Bikeway, RI $1,000,000 Kennedy
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA FL BRAC-Related Improvements for Harford County, MD $1,500,000 Ruppersberger; Kratovil
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA FL BRAC-Related Improvements, Anne Arundel County, MD $1,500,000 Kratovil; Ruppersberger; Sarbanes
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA FL BRAC-Related Improvements, Montgomery County, MD $500,000 Van Hollen
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA FL Diaz Ordaz International Border Crossing, TX $500,000 Cuellar
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA FL Frederick Douglass Bridge Engineering, DC $500,000 Norton; Hoyer
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA FL Gila County Control Road Improvements, AZ $1,000,000 Kirkpatrick (AZ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA FL Golden Gate National Parks-Park Access, Transit and Trails, CA $1,000,000 Pelosi
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA FL Great Highway Long-Term Solution Planning, CA $500,000 Speier
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA FL Hoover Dam Bypass Bridge-Repayment of Debt Service Owed to Arizona, AZ $1,000,000 Pastor (AZ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA FL Low Divide and Rowdy Creek Road Improvement Project, County of Del Norte, CA $750,000 Thompson (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA FL Miccosukee Road Resurfacing Project, FL $1,100,000 Meek (FL); Hastings (FL); Wasserman Schultz
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA FL New Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge Design and Construction Project, DC $2,000,000 Hoyer; Norton
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA FL Pedestrian Access Bridge Over Dulles Airport Access and Toll Road, VA $1,000,000 Moran (VA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA FL Road Improvements, Wrangell Borough, AK $250,000 Young (AK)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA FL Saddle Road Improvements, Island of Hawaii, HI $750,000 Hirono
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA FL SH 125: Michigan River Bridge, Jackson, CO $750,000 Salazar
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA FL Southern Nevada Beltway Interchanges, NV $1,000,000 Titus; Berkley
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA FL State Route 347 Grade Separation, Maricopa, AZ $1,000,000 Grijalva; Pastor (AZ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA FL Stones River National Battlefield Auto Tour Road Expansion and Rehabilitation, $500,000 Gordon (TN)
Murfreesboro, TN
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA FL Swan Mountain Shared Use Pathway, Breckenridge, CO $750,000 Polis
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA FL Travis Air Force Base North Gate Access Improvements, CA $750,000 Garamendi
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA FL U.S. 199 Safety Improvements, Cave Junction, OR $300,000 DeFazio
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA IMD Augusta North Connections-Exit 113, ME $1,000,000 Pingree (ME); Michaud
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA IMD Avalon Boulevard Interchange Modification at the I-405, Carson, CA $1,000,000 Richardson
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA IMD City of Moline I-74 Bridge Preconstruction and Construction, IL $1,000,000 Hare
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA IMD Harrison County I-64 Interchange, IN $1,000,000 Hill
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA IMD I-294 at I-57 Interchange, IL $1,000,000 Rush
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA IMD I-390 Interchange, NY $1,250,000 Slaughter
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA IMD I-5 North Stockton Lane Widening and Improvements Project, CA $1,250,000 McNerney; Cardoza
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA IMD I-5 Widening from I-605 North to I-710 Environmental Phase, CA $1,000,000 Roybal-Allard; Napolitano
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA IMD I-5/Kuebler Boulevard Interchange Improvements, OR $1,000,000 Schrader
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA IMD I-64/22nd Street Interchange Reconfiguration, MO $1,000,000 Clay
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA IMD I-71 Corridor Access, Cincinnati, OH $1,000,000 Driehaus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA IMD I-80/Gilman Street Interchange Improvement Project, Berkeley, CA $1,000,000 Lee (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA IMD I-805/La Jolla Village Drive Interchange Project, San Diego, CA $1,000,000 Davis (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA IMD I-85 in Davidson and Rowan Counties, NC $1,000,000 Watt
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA IMD I-94 from East Dickinson Interchange, East-Westbound Lanes Reconstruction, Dickinson, ND $1,000,000 Pomeroy
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA IMD I-95 Interchange at Yamato Road and Spanish River Boulevard Project, City of Boca Raton, $500,000 Klein (FL)
FL
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA IMD I-95 Upgrades in Robeson County, NC $1,000,000 McIntyre
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA IMD I-95/301 Interchange, SC $2,000,000 Clyburn
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA IMD Interstate 225 and Colfax Avenue Reconfiguration, Aurora, CO $1,250,000 Perlmutter
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA IMD Interstate 79/Mt. Morris Interchange Improvements, Greene County, PA $1,000,000 Critz
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA IMD North Stockton I-5 Interchanges and French Camp Interchange/Arch Sperry Road Extension, $1,000,000 Cardoza; McNerney
Stockton, CA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA IMD Raton South I-25 Interchange Reconstruction, Raton, Colfax County, NM $750,000 Lujan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA IMD Rehabilitate I-84 Bridges over Delaware and Neversink Rivers, NY $1,000,000 Hall (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA IMD Widening of I-35, Waco, TX $2,000,000 Edwards (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP 2nd Avenue Bridge Reconstruction, City of Cambridge, MN $750,000 Oberstar
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP 705 Connector, Morgantown, WV $450,000 Mollohan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP 7th (a) Road Project, IN $650,000 Donnelly (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Alabama 210/Ross Clark Circle Safety Lighting Project, AL $450,000 Bright
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Ansonia Riverwalk, CT $400,000 DeLauro
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Barre Commons Road Reconstruction and Drainage Improvements, MA $1,050,000 Olver
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Bayamon Circulation Arteries, PR $450,000 Pierluisi
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Berry Hill Road Connector Road Engineering and Right of Way Acquisitions, Pittsylvania $400,000 Perriello
County, VA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Bethany Road Reconstruction and Improvements, Sycamore, IL $650,000 Foster
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Boulder Bikes to Business Project, Boulder, CO $250,000 Polis
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Branford Street and Laurel Canyon Boulevard Flood Improvements, CA $250,000 Berman
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Broad/Main/Front/Hellertown Transportation Enhancements, Phase II, Quakertown, PA $450,000 Murphy, Patrick
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Brooklyn Waterfront Transportation Study, Brooklyn, NY $450,000 Nadler (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Byberry Road and Bustleton Avenue Intersection Improvements, Philadelphia, PA $700,000 Schwartz
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Capitol Expressway Pedestrian Improvements, CA $240,000 Lofgren, Zoe
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Carbon County Covered Bridge Repair Project, PA $250,000 Kanjorski
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Carlton Avenue Bridge, Brooklyn, NY $900,000 Towns; Clarke
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Chippewa Falls Downtown Reconstruction, WI $730,000 Obey
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Columbus Bicentennial Bikeways-West Side Improvement, Columbus, OH $450,000 Kilroy
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Construct Roadway and Bridges at the Intersection of Coalfields Expressway and King Coal $900,000 Rahall
Highway and from Dock Creek to Cedar Run, WV
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Conway Village Main Street Streetscape and Pedestrian Improvements, NH $450,000 Shea-Porter
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Cooley Landing/San Francisco Bay Trail Construction, CA $600,000 Eshoo
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Coolidge Highway Resurfacing Project, MI $750,000 Levin
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP CSAH 12 Extension/TH 14 Interchange, MN $650,000 Walz
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Design and Implementation of Transit Improvements at 83rd Street and Roosevelt Avenue, $700,000 Crowley
Jackson Heights, Queens, NY
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Downtown Tacoma Streetscapes Improvement Project, WA $1,000,000 Dicks
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP E. Stadium Bridges Replacement Project, City of Ann Arbor, MI $450,000 Dingell
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Eastern Gateway, MA $900,000 Neal
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Edison Road Extension, CT $1,000,000 DeLauro
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Emergency Road Access and Improvement Project, PA $650,000 Carney
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Empire Corridor West High Speed Rail Improvements, Town of Tonawanda, Erie County, NY $270,000 Slaughter; Higgins; Owens
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP First Avenue Bridge Replacement, NJ $360,000 Payne
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Glenwood Road Pedestrian Safety Improvements, GA $450,000 Johnson (GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Harbor Brook Flood Control, CT $650,000 Murphy (CT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Hays-Travis Trail System, TX $650,000 Doggett
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Holbrook--Traffic Safety Signalization--Kings Road and S. Franklin, MA $300,000 Lynch
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP I-75 Walking Bridge, St. Ignace, MI $450,000 Stupak
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Improvements to U.S. Route 15, State Route 45, and St. Mary's Street in E. Buffalo $450,000 Carney
Township, PA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Intersection Improvements around State Center, Baltimore, MD $650,000 Cummings
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Jefferson Avenue Improvements, City of Detroit, MI $650,000 Kilpatrick (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Lake Champlain Bridge, NY $400,000 Owens
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Leesburg North Bypass, GA $450,000 Bishop (GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Legacy Farm Roadway and Main Street Improvements, Hopkinton, MA $1,000,000 McGovern
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Locust Avenue Bridge Replacement, City of Rye, NY $600,000 Lowey
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Los Banos Bypass Segment One, Los Banos, Merced County, CA $400,000 Cardoza
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Lowry Avenue Bridge Replacement Phase II, Minneapolis, MN $900,000 Ellison
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Lyons Road Improvements Section IV, Coconut Creek, FL $650,000 Deutch
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Marin-Sonoma Narrows, CA $450,000 Woolsey
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP MD5/MD373/Brandywine Interchange Project, Prince George, MD $1,400,000 Hoyer
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Phase 2B, CA $650,000 Chu; Schiff
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail Project, CA $450,000 Farr
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Nassau County Street and Sidewalk Improvements, NY $450,000 Israel
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Nelson Hill Bridge Replacement, NY $100,000 Murphy (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP New York Avenue Improvement Project-32nd Street to 48th Street, Union City, NJ $450,000 Sires
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Nogales Highway Railroad Bridge Overpass, AZ $900,000 Giffords
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP North Main Street Reconstruction, Columbia, SC $900,000 Clyburn
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP North Rhett Extension Project, SC $500,000 Brown (SC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Norwood Drive Reconstruction, PA $700,000 Altmire
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP NW 66th Avenue Reconstruction and Kempton Bridge Replacement, Polk County, IA $450,000 Boswell
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Ogdensburg-Prescott International Bridge Rehabilitation Project, Ogdensburg, NY $700,000 Owens
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Pratt Trail in Salt Lake City, UT $650,000 Matheson
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Raleigh Outer Loop, Wake County, NC $1,500,000 Price (NC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Rand Avenue Reconstruction, IL $600,000 Costello
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Reconstruction of Congress Street Bridge, Bridgeport, CT $450,000 Himes
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Rehabilitation of Beacham Street, MA $550,000 Markey (MA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Repair and Resurfacing of Critical Streets, Belle Glade, Palm Beach County, FL $900,000 Hastings (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Roadway Improvements-Route 70, Medford, NJ $450,000 Adler (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Roadway Restoration, Village of Ardsley, NY $500,000 Lowey
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Rosemead Boulevard Underpass Repair Project, Pico Rivera, CA $450,000 Napolitano
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Route 1 Corridor Improvements Capital Project, MD $650,000 Sarbanes; Cummings
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Route 1/Route 123 Interchange (Phase I), VA $500,000 Connolly (VA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Route 29/250 Bypass Interchange Improvements, Engineering, Design, and Construction, $500,000 Perriello
Albemarle County, VA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Route 35/202 at Pine Grove Court and Stony Street, NY $250,000 Hall (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Route 6 and Silver Cross Boulevard Intersection Widening and Roadway Improvement, New $450,000 Halvorson
Lenox, IL
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Route 82 Reconstruction and Widening, North Royalton, OH $650,000 Sutton
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Rutland Creek Path, VT $650,000 Welch
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Sacramento Intermodal Transportation Facility, CA $500,000 Matsui
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Safety Improvements on South Meadow Road, Clinton, MA $250,000 McGovern
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Scott Ranch Road Extension, AZ $250,000 Kirkpatrick (AZ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP SE Main Avenue, 20th, 21st Street Underpass and Ancillary Improvements, City of Moorhead, $450,000 Peterson
MN
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Seiberling Way Bridge Replacement, OH $450,000 Ryan (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Sellwood Bridge Replacement Project, Multnomah County, OR $650,000 Blumenauer; Schrader; Wu
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Sharpes Ferry Bridge, FL $900,000 Grayson
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Shot Pouch Creek Trail, SC $650,000 Spratt
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Sidewalk Construction in Ashland, Cherryland and Castro Valley Communities, Alameda $200,000 Lee (CA)
County, CA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Southeast Connector Final Design, Des Moines, IA $650,000 Boswell
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP SR 510 Yelm Loop Project, WA $250,000 Smith (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP SR 54, McDonough Road to U.S. 19/41 in Clayton County, GA $650,000 Scott (GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Stansbury Transportation Improvements, KY $650,000 Yarmuth
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Structural Bridge Repairs, Fort Lauderdale, FL $250,000 Klein (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Telegraph Road Realignment, CA $450,000 Sanchez, Linda
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Transportation Corridor Study, Greencastle/Putnam County, IN $450,000 Ellsworth
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP U.S. 34 Akron East Chip Seal, CO $1,000,000 Markey (CO)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP U.S. 50/Watt Avenue Interchange Modification, CA $400,000 Matsui
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP U.S. Highway 101 High Occupancy Vehicle Widening Project, Carpinteria Creek Bridge, $650,000 Capps
Carpinteria, Santa Barbara County, CA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Unser Boulevard Extension, NM $1,000,000 Heinrich
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP U.S. 401 in Cumberland, Harnett and Wake Counties, NC $650,000 Etheridge
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP U.S. 281/FM493 Overpass, Hidalgo County, TX $450,000 Hinojosa
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Vesta Street Overpass, San Diego, CA $450,000 Davis (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Veterans Medical City Connector, FL $650,000 Kosmas
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Village of Barrington Route 14 Underpass, IL $550,000 Bean
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Walk Winthrop and the HarborWalk, MA $750,000 Markey (MA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Warrensville/Van Aken Transit Oriented, OH $450,000 Fudge
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Washington Boulevard Traffic Signal Modernization, Commerce, CA $650,000 Roybal-Allard
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Westchase District Intermodal Transit and Pedestrian Access Improvements, TX $450,000 Green, Al
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA TCSP Widening of Route 50 in Chillicothe, Ross County, OH $450,000 Space
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRA Grade Crossings Empire Corridor West High Speed Rail Improvements, Cayuga County, NY $360,000 Arcuri; Murphy (NY); Owens; Tonko
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRA Grade Crossings Empire Corridor West High Speed Rail Improvements, Oneida County, NY $625,000 Murphy (NY); Arcuri; Tonko
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRA Grade Crossings Improvement to Safety Devices at Highway/Railway Grade Crossings, WI $750,000 Baldwin
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRA Grade Crossings Traffic Separation Studies in Durham and Wake County, NC $500,000 Price (NC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRA Research Northern Lights Express Intercity Passenger Rail Study, MN $500,000 Oberstar
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA AA Atlanta BeltLine, Inc. Tier 2 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/Preliminary $700,000 Lewis (GA)
Engineering, GA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA AA Glassboro Camden Line EIS Project, NJ $750,000 Andrews
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA AA Interstate 94 Transit Corridor, Ramsey and Washington Counties, MN $750,000 McCollum
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA AA LYNX Bus Rapid Transit Alternative Analysis, FL $500,000 Brown, Corrine
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA AA Naval Station Norfolk Light Rail Study, VA $250,000 Nye
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA AA OCTA Santa Ana-Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Construction, Santa Ana, CA $250,000 Sanchez, Loretta
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA AA Orange Line Extension Preliminary Engineering, IL $475,000 Lipinski
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA AA Phoenix West (Formerly I-10 West) Light Rail Extension, Phoenix, AZ $1,000,000 Pastor (AZ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA AA Red Line Extension, IL $1,500,000 Jackson (IL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA AA South Central Avenue Light Rail Feasibility Study, Phoenix, AZ $750,000 Pastor (AZ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Bus Chicago Union Station Improvements, IL $500,000 Davis (IL); Gutierrez
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Bus PVTA Regional Transit Traveler Information Systems Project, MA $1,000,000 Olver
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Bus Aberdeen Intermodal Transit Center, MD $750,000 Ruppersberger
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Bus ACE Boulder Highway Rapid Transit Project, NV $2,000,000 Titus; Berkley
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Bus Bay Town Trolley Multi-Modal Facility, FL $500,000 Boyd
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Bus Bergen Intermodal Improvements, NJ $2,000,000 Rothman (NJ); Pascrell
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Bus Berkshire Regional Transit Authority, MA $1,000,000 Olver
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Bus Bloomington Hybrid Buses, IN $250,000 Hill
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Bus Brownsville Multi-Modal Terminal Facility, TX $500,000 Ortiz
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Bus Bus and Bus Facilities, VI $1,000,000 Christensen
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Bus Bus Replacement, Westchester County, NY $2,000,000 Lowey; Engel
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Bus Capital Area Transit Bus and Bus Facilities, PA $700,000 Holden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Bus Chatham Area Transit Bus Replacement, GA $1,000,000 Barrow
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Bus Chicago Ridge Metra Station Improvements, IL $190,000 Lipinski
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Bus City of Rialto Metrolink Parking Lot Improvement, CA $700,000 Baca
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Bus City of San Bernardino Intermodal Transit Center, CA $500,000 Baca
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Bus City of Sante Fe Transit Department Bus Purchase, NM $250,000 Lujan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Bus Colorado Transit Coalition Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities, CO $5,000,000 Polis; DeGette; Markey (CO); Perlmutter;
Salazar
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Bus Coralville Intermodal Center, IA $700,000 Loebsack
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Bus Corpus Christi Regional Transportation Authority, TX $500,000 Ortiz
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Bus COTA Electronic Fare Payment System, Columbus, OH $1,300,000 Kilroy
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Bus Cypress Park Transit Bus and Bus Facilities, Los Angeles, CA $400,000 Becerra
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Bus Dallas Area Rapid Transit Bus CNG Procurement, TX $800,000 Johnson, Eddie Bernice
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Bus DAV Vehicles, Northport, NY $500,000 Bishop (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Bus Dutchess County Mass Transit Facility Project, NY $500,000 Hinchey
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Bus El Paso New Operations/Maintenance Facility, TX $1,500,000 Reyes
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Bus Fair Lawn Community Shuttle Bus Program, NJ $315,000 Rothman (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Bus Falls Church Bus and Bus Facilities, VA $725,000 Moran (VA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Bus Flint MTA Conversion of Paratransit Facilities to CNG, MI $750,000 Kildee
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Bus Goldsboro Union Station, NC $500,000 Butterfield
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Bus Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority Clifton Boulevard Transit Enhancements, OH $750,000 Kucinich
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Bus Greater Cleveland Warrensville/Van Aken Multi-Modal Facility, OH $550,000 Fudge
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Bus Greater Southeast Transit Terminal, Houston, TX $500,000 Jackson Lee (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Bus GRTC Downtown Multimodal Center, Richmond, VA $500,000 Scott (VA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Bus IndyGo Transit Bus Replacement Project, IN $1,000,000 Carson (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Bus Joliet Multimodal Transportation Center, IL $550,000 Halvorson
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Bus JTA Regional Transit Authority Multi-Modal Facility, FL $500,000 Brown, Corrine
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Bus LexTran Vehicle Maintenance Facility Improvements, KY $600,000 Chandler
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Bus Littleton Intermodal Parking Facility, MA $1,200,000 Tsongas
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Bus Los Angeles Boyle Heights DASH Bus, CA $420,000 Roybal-Allard
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Bus Los Angeles Florence-Firestone/Walnut Park Transit Vehicles, CA $300,000 Sanchez, Linda; Roybal-Allard
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Bus Los Angeles Midtown DASH Community Circulator Bus Expansion Project, CA $1,000,000 Watson
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Bus Los Lunas Intermodal Transportation Center, NM $1,000,000 Teague
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Bus MARTA Bus, Bus Facilities and Security Improvements, GA $3,000,000 Johnson (GA); Lewis (GA); Scott (GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Bus METRO Bus and Bus Facilities, Houston, TX $1,000,000 Jackson Lee (TX); Green, Gene; Green, Al
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Bus Milwaukee County Buses, WI $1,000,000 Moore (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Bus Montebello Bus Lines and Norwalk Transit Agency Bus Replacement Project, CA $500,000 Napolitano
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Bus Monterey-Salinas Transit Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Security Systems $800,000 Farr
Upgrade, CA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Bus Municipal Transit Operators Coalition Clean Fuel Bus Purchase, CA $2,000,000 Waters; Harman; Watson
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Bus Mustang Park and Ride Structure, Scottsdale, AZ $500,000 Mitchell
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Bus New Center Intermodal Transportation Facility, Wayne, MI $1,350,000 Kilpatrick (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Bus Newburyport Intermodal Parking Facility, MA $500,000 Tierney
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Bus Pace Paratransit Vehicles, IL $1,400,000 Foster; Bean; Davis (IL); Gutierrez; Jackson
(IL); Quigley; Schakowsky
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Bus Port Authority Allegheny County Hybrid Buses, PA $600,000 Doyle
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Bus Port of Galveston Transit Terminal Parking, TX $1,250,000 Paul
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Bus Potomac Yard-Crystal City Transit Way, VA $1,250,000 Moran (VA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Bus Replacement Buses for Urban Transit Systems in the Triangle, NC $2,500,000 Price (NC); Etheridge; Miller (NC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Bus Riverview Corridor Bus Acquisition and Facilities, MN $750,000 McCollum
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Bus Rochester Intermodal Transportation Center, NY $2,500,000 Slaughter
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Bus SEPTA 69th Street Terminal, PA $500,000 Sestak
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Bus SEPTA Levittown Station Intermodal Improvements, PA $600,000 Murphy, Patrick
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Bus South Hampton Roads Satellite Transit Operating Facility, VA $1,500,000 Nye
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Bus Southern Maryland Commuter Bus Initiative, MD $1,500,000 Hoyer
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Bus Stark Area Buses Regional Transit Authority, OH $800,000 Boccieri
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Bus Suffolk County Bus and Bus Facilities, NY $750,000 Bishop (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Bus Tennessee Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities, TN $1,000,000 Davis (TN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Bus Transit Center, California State University, Northridge, CA $500,000 Sherman
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Bus Unified Government Transit Buses and Bus Facilities, KS $800,000 Moore (KS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Bus Union Passenger Terminal, LA $1,250,000 Cao
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Bus Union Station Intermodal Center, DC $500,000 Norton
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Bus Vacaville Intermodal Station-Phase 2, Vacaville, CA $750,000 Miller, George
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Bus VIA Bus Fleet Modernization, TX $2,400,000 Rodriguez; Gonzalez
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Bus VIA Fredericksburg Road Bus Rapid Transit Corridor, TX $1,000,000 Gonzalez
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Bus Washington Avenue Port Plaza and Intermodal Center, WA $1,000,000 Dicks
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Bus Watts DASH Community Circulator Bus Project, CA $200,000 Richardson
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA CIG Baltimore Red Line, MD $1,500,000 Cummings; Sarbanes
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA CIG BART Silicon Valley Project, CA $2,000,000 Honda; Lofgren, Zoe
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA CIG Crenshaw/LAX Transit Project, CA $750,000 Harman; Schiff; Waters; Watson
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA CIG Downtown Transit Corridor Program, Downtown Circulator -- The Wave, FL $1,750,000 Wasserman Schultz; Hastings (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA CIG Green Line Extension to Route 16 from Tufts, MA $500,000 Capuano
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA CIG Houston Commuter Rail Service in Harris and Fort Bend County (US 90A), TX $1,000,000 Green, Al; Green, Gene; Jackson Lee (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA CIG Purple Line, MD $1,500,000 Edwards (MD); Van Hollen
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA CIG Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART), CA $1,000,000 Woolsey
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA CIG South Shore Commuter Rail Capital Reinvestment Plan, NICTD, IN $1,000,000 Visclosky
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA CIG Stamford Urban Transitway, CT $1,000,000 Himes
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA CIG West Eugene EmX, OR $1,000,000 DeFazio
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Research City of College Station Public Transportation Initiative, TX $150,000 Edwards (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Research CTAA Job links, DC $2,400,000 Olver
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Research Project Transit, Philadelphia, PA $1,000,000 Fattah
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA Research Queens College Barriers to Public Transportation Survey, NY $250,000 Weiner
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
[Congressionally Directed Spending Items]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency Account Recipient Project Amount Requester(s)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI American Legion Post 139, CA Rehabilitation and Renovation of an American Legion Hall $95,000 Schiff
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI American Red Cross, Cincinnati Area Chapter, OH Construction and Build Out of a Regional Red Cross Hub $750,000 Driehaus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Appalachia Service Project, TN Home Repair Program for Low-Income Families $350,000 Davis (TN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI ARC Community Services, MA Renovate a Building that Provides Services for Individuals with $300,000 Olver
Developmental Disabilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Ashunti Residential Management Systems Inc., IL Renovation of Existing Facilities $600,000 Davis (IL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Atlanta Center for Civil and Human Rights, GA Construction of a Civil Rights Museum and Visitor Center in Downtown $500,000 Lewis (GA)
Atlanta
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Black Economic Union of Greater Kansas City, MO Planning, Design, Renovation and Revitalization of a Historic Building $1,000,000 Cleaver
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Blue Springs Hoke County CDC, NC Acquisition of Land for an Affordable Housing Initiative $500,000 Kissell
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Boys Town of Chicago, IL Construction of Housing for Low-Income Youth $500,000 Gutierrez
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Bristol Boys and Girls Club Association, CT Planning, Design and Construction of a Boys and Girls Club $1,000,000 Larson (CT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Brooke County Commission, WV Development and Construction of a Park and Memorial $400,000 Mollohan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Brooklyn Navy Yard Development Corporation, NY Design and Construction of a Facility $500,000 Velazquez; Towns
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Bucks County Housing Development Corporation, Construction of Affordable Housing for Disabled Veterans $500,000 Murphy, Patrick
PA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI CAMBA, Inc., NY Construction of Supportive Housing $1,000,000 Clarke
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Chabad of the Valley, CA Renovation of a Facility $250,000 Sherman
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Charles City County, VA Construction of a Library Facility $500,000 Scott (VA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Charles County, Department of Community Renovation of Low-Income Housing $300,000 Hoyer
Services, MD
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc., AZ Building Rehabilitation for a Workforce Readiness Center $400,000 Pastor (AZ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Children's Museum of Tampa, FL Construction of a Facility $750,000 Castor (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI City of Albany, NY Construction and Renovation of a Facility $750,000 Tonko
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI City of Astoria, OR Construction of a Park $800,000 Wu
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI City of Burbank, CA Planning, Design and Construction of a Library $100,000 Schiff
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI City of Canton, OH Infrastructure Improvement and Streetscaping for Mahoning Road Economic $500,000 Boccieri
Development Project
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI City of Chicago, IL Construction of Veterans Housing $750,000 Quigley
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI City of Cleburne, TX Construction of the Lake Pat Cleburne Trail System $250,000 Edwards (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI City of Cortland, NY Engineering, Preparation and Construction of a Community Center $400,000 Arcuri
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI City of Creedmoor, NC Planning and Design for a Community Center $500,000 Miller (NC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI City of Dubuque, IA Renovation of Buildings to Create Affordable Workforce Housing $750,000 Braley (IA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI City of Durham, NC Streetscaping of Fayetteville Street Corridor Project $500,000 Price (NC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI City of Ecorse, MI Demolition of Blighted Buildings $1,000,000 Kilpatrick (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI City of Enterprise, AL Demolition, Planning, Construction, and Renovation of Downtown Business $500,000 Bright
District
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI City of Fort Lauderdale, FL Streetscaping in Underserved Communities $500,000 Hastings (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI City of Fullerton, CA Demolition, Planning, Design and Construction of a Community Center $500,000 Sanchez, Loretta
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI City of Gary, IN Demolition of Buildings and Neighborhood Redevelopment $500,000 Visclosky
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI City of Glens Falls, NY Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation of a Community Service Center $500,000 Murphy (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI City of Gonzales, LA Park Improvements $250,000 Melancon
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI City of Grants, NM Planning, Design, Construction and Build Out of a Library $750,000 Teague
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI City of Green Bay, WI Demolition of a Blighted Building $1,000,000 Kagen
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI City of Inkster, MI Construction of a Senior Center $550,000 Dingell
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI City of La Joya, TX Construction of Youth Facilities $500,000 Cuellar
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI City of Lawndale, CA Design and Construction of a Community Center $500,000 Waters
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI City of Mount Rainier, MD Planning and Design of a Library $350,000 Van Hollen
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI City of New Bedford, MA Demolition and Construction of an ADA-Compliant Pedestrian Bridge $750,000 Frank (MA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI City of Port Orchard, WA Parcel Acquisition and Project Design $500,000 Dicks
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI City of River Rouge, MI Demolition of Blighted Buildings $500,000 Kilpatrick (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI City of Salem, OR Construct Waterline Improvements $500,000 Schrader
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI City of Stevens Point, WI Environmental Remediation and Development within the City of Stevens $750,000 Obey
Point
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI City of Toledo, OH Ohio Broadway Street Corridor Enhancement $1,000,000 Kaptur
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI City of Tucson, AZ Stabilization and Renovation of the Historic Marist College Building $500,000 Grijalva
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI City of Warren, MI Facility and Security Improvements to Senior Apartments $750,000 Levin
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI City of Winter Park, FL Acquisition of Land for Expansion of a Park $250,000 Kosmas
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI City of Worcester, MA Gardner-Kilby-Hammond Neighborhood Revitalization $450,000 McGovern
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Community Advocates, Inc., WI Acquisition and Remodeling of a Facility $250,000 Moore (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Community Development Corporation of South Redevelopment of the Former Searles Bryant School Complex in Great $600,000 Olver
Berkshire, MA Barrington
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Community Food Bank, Inc., AZ Installation of Solar Panels $200,000 Giffords
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Community Hospitals of Central California Design, Construction, Engineering, Furnishings and Equipment $750,000 Costa
Foundation, dba Community Medical Foundation,
CA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Comprehensive Community Action, Inc., RI Renovations including Energy Efficient Upgrades $250,000 Langevin
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Concourse House, HDFC, NY Renovation of a Facility $150,000 Serrano
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Connecticut Food Bank, Inc., CT Renovation of a Facility $1,000,000 DeLauro
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Coos County Historical Society, OR Planning, Development and Construction of a Facility $500,000 DeFazio
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Covenant House, LA Acquisition of Land for a Low-Income Youth Initiative $250,000 Cao
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Davis Street Community Center, Inc., CA Building Acquisition $500,000 Stark
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Domestic Abuse Intervention Services, Inc., WI Construction of a Domestic Violence Shelter $300,000 Baldwin
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI East Hartford Housing Authority, CT ADA Upgrades to and Renovation of a Community Center $500,000 Larson (CT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Emlenton Borough, PA Redevelopment of a Former Industrial Site $150,000 Dahlkemper
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Essex County Family Justice Center, NJ Renovations of Essex County Family Justice Center $700,000 Payne; Pascrell;
Sires
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Family Service Association of San Antonio, TX Renovation and Upgrades of a Roof, HVAC and Other Facilities $500,000 Gonzalez
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Friends of the Waterboro Public Library, ME Construction of a Community Center $500,000 Pingree (ME)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Glenridge Senior Citizen Multi-Service & Construction of a Community Center $230,000 Velazquez
Advisory Center, Inc, NY
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Hilltown Community Development Corporation, MA Development of Energy-Efficient Affordable Senior Housing $300,000 Olver
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Historic Seattle, WA Restoration and Preservation of Washington Hall $475,000 McDermott
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Island Municipality of Rota, MP Design and Renovation of a Facility $500,000 Sablan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Isles, Inc., NJ Construction of a Green Job Training Center $300,000 Holt
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Josephine Solomon Ellis Foundation--CDC, PA Construction of Low-Income Housing $500,000 Brady (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Joseph's Home, Inc., NY Rehabilitation of a Community Room for Veterans $350,000 Engel
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Kips Bay Boys & Girls Club, NY Construction, Renovations and Equipment $75,000 Crowley
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Kittay House, Jewish Home Lifecare, Inc, NY Building Renovation and Repairs $200,000 Serrano
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Lake Eufaula Association, OK Construction of a Facility $400,000 Boren
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Lawrence Economic Development Corporation, OH Redevelopment of a Park $700,000 Wilson (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Liberty House Shelter Inc, NH Building Acquisition for Housing for Homeless Veterans $250,000 Shea-Porter
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Construction of a Park $300,000 Schiff
Recreation, CA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Lutheran Social Service of Minnesota, MN Renovation of Homes for the Disabled $225,000 Oberstar; Ellison
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Luzerne County Commissioners, PA Infrastructure Improvements at the Crestwood and Hanover Industrial $750,000 Kanjorski
Parks
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Martin House Restoration Corporation, NY Restoration and Improvements to the Historic Darwin Martin House Home $1,000,000 Higgins; Slaughter
and Complex
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Middlesex Community College, MA Planning, Design and Renovation of a Historic Building $300,000 Tsongas
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Morehouse College, GA Construction of a Facility to Display the Papers of Martin Luther King, $500,000 Lewis (GA)
Jr.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Mount Washington Community Development Planning and Construction of a Trail $100,000 Doyle
Corporation, PA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Municipality of Yauco, PR Construction of a Children's Playground $150,000 Pierluisi
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Museum for African Art, NY Streetscaping $500,000 Rangel
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI My Sister's House, CA Renovation of Asian and Pacific Islander Domestic Violence Survivor Home $250,000 Matsui
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI National Civil Rights Museum, TN Renovation of a Facility $750,000 Cohen
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Nepperhan Community Center, Inc., NY Renovation of a Community Center $200,000 Engel
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI New River Community and Technical College, WV Acquisition and Renovation of a Building to be Used as Technical $600,000 Rahall
Training Center
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Niles Township Government, IL Renovation of a Facility for the Niles Township Food Pantry $250,000 Schakowsky
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Northern Illinois Food Bank, IL Construction of a Facility $300,000 Foster
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Old Sturbridge Village, MA Renovation of Historic Buildings $135,000 Neal
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Paul J. Cooper Center for Human Services, Inc., Building Acquisition, Renovation, Expansion and Build out of a Facility $300,000 Towns
NY
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI People in Progress, Inc., CA Acquisition of a Building for Homeless Veterans $380,000 Berman
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Porter County Government, IN Streetscaping $500,000 Visclosky
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Positive Workforce INC., NY Completion of a Job Training Facility $250,000 Rangel
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Project Angel Food, CA Installation of a Roof and Solar Energy Panels $150,000 Becerra
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI ProLiteracy, NY Planning, Design and Construction of a Building $1,000,000 Maffei
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Providence Community Action Program, RI Renovation and Rehabilitation of a Community Center $750,000 Langevin
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Rebuilding Together Broward County, Inc., FL Renovations to Low-Income Housing $250,000 Wasserman Schultz
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, MN Planning, Design and Construction of a Multi-Purpose Facility $1,000,000 Peterson
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Redevelopment Authority of the County of Redevelopment of a Brownfield Site $250,000 Critz
Westmoreland, PA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Rum River Health Services, Inc., MN Construction of Temporary and Permanent Supportive Housing Units $500,000 Oberstar
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Senior Services of Snohomish County, WA Construction and Equipment for a Service Delivery Facility $500,000 Larsen (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Southern Queens Park Association, Inc., NY Modernization and Improvements to Roy Wilkins Complex $800,000 Meeks (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI St. Louis Development Corporation, MO Development of Road and Stormwater Infrastructure for Carondelet Commons $750,000 Carnahan
Business Park Development
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Suwannee County Board of County Commissioners, Engineering, Design and Construction of a Library $500,000 Boyd
FL
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI The Children's Aid Society's Goodhue Center, NY Acquisition of Land for a Park $1,000,000 McMahon
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI The Children's Campus of Kansas City, Inc., KS Facility Upgrades $200,000 Moore (KS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI The Neighborhood House Charter School, MA Planning and Construction of a Facility $300,000 Lynch
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI The Resurrection Project, IL Planning, Design, and Construction of a Residence Hall for Low-Income $500,000 Gutierrez
Youth
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Three Square Food Bank, NV Construction of a Solar Power Array $750,000 Berkley; Titus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Tibbits Opera House, MI Renovation and Restoration of a Facility $150,000 Schauer
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Construction of a Facility $2,500,000 Kaptur
Governments, OH
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Town of Braintree, MA Restoration and Rehabilitation of the Original Thayer Library $500,000 Lynch
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Town of Hempstead, Department of Planning & Streetscaping $750,000 McCarthy (NY)
Economic Development, NY
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Town of Islip, NY Restoration and Renovation of Veteran Facilities $500,000 Israel
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Town of Madison, WI Construction of the Novation Technology Campus Redevelopment Project $500,000 Baldwin
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Town of North Castle, NY Streetscaping $200,000 Lowey
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Town of Seymour, CT Construction of a Community Center $100,000 DeLauro
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Town of South Boston, VA Renovations and Development of a Community Center $750,000 Perriello
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Town of Sprague, CT Renovation of a Senior Housing Complex $750,000 Courtney
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Town of Steilacoom, WA Construction and Expansion of a Community Center $500,000 Smith (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Township of Moorestown, NJ Reconstruction of a Library $750,000 Adler (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Tubman African American Museum, GA Construction of a Facility $500,000 Marshall
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Ulster County, NY Rehabilitation and Stabilization of a National Historic Landmark $350,000 Hinchey
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Union City Family Support Center, PA Renovation of a Facility $200,000 Dahlkemper
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Variety Boys and Girls Club, CA Demolition and Reconstruction of a Facility $200,000 Roybal-Allard
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Veterans Green Jobs, CO Planning, Design and Renovation of a Disabled Veterans Green Jobs $500,000 Salazar
Training Center
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Veterans Museum of Mid Ohio Valley, WV Acquisition, Construction and Renovation of a Veterans Museum $300,000 Mollohan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Veterans of Foreign Wars, William F. Taylor Renovation of a Veterans Facility $70,000 Bishop (NY)
Post 9486, NY
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Vienna Town Council, VA Streetscaping $500,000 Connolly (VA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Village of North Riverside, IL Construction and Build Out of a Park $135,000 Lipinski
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Village of Port Washington, NY Revitalization of Manhasset Bay Waterfront $750,000 Ackerman
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Whitman Walker Clinic, Inc., DC Planning, Design and Construction $400,000 Norton
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Williamsburg County, SC Construction of a Community Center $1,000,000 Clyburn
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Woodward Development Corporation, OH Renovation of a Building in Downtown Mount Vernon $750,000 Space
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Wynnefield Overbrook Revitalization Corporation Streetscaping and Infrastructure for WORC Commercial Center $500,000 Brady (PA); Fattah
(WORC), PA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI YMCA of San Diego County, CA Planning, Design and Construction of a Housing and Community Center $1,500,000 Filner
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI YMCA of San Francisco, Bayview Hunters Point Renovation Costs Associated with Expansion of a Community Center $600,000 Pelosi
branch, CA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI YMCA of San Francisco, Chinatown YMCA branch, Construction of Transitional Housing Units for Domestic Violence Victims $500,000 Pelosi
CA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI York County Community Development Corporation, Construction of a Neighborhood Community Center $700,000 Spratt
SC
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Youngstown Edison Incubator Corporation dba Renovation of a Facility $700,000 Ryan (OH)
Youngstown Business Incubator, OH
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI YWCA of Northwest Georgia, GA Construction and Renovation of a Domestic Violence Shelter and Outreach $250,000 Scott (GA)
Facility
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI YWCA of Silicon Valley, CA Renovation of a Domestic Violence Shelter $350,000 Honda
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI YWCA Southeastern Massachusetts, MA Building Expansion and Construction $475,000 Frank (MA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD EDI Zavala County, TX Construction and Renovation of Facilities for Senior Citizens $300,000 Rodriguez
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD NI City and County of San Francisco, Mayor's For Critical Infrastructure and Housing Development Work $1,250,000 Pelosi
Office of Housing, CA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD NI City of Jackson, MI Demolition of Buildings and Neighborhood Redevelopment $1,500,000 Schauer
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD NI City of Wausau Community Development Area, WI Acquisition and Remediation of Blighted Properties $2,000,000 Obey
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD NI Community Legal Services of Mid-Florida, FL Housing Counseling and Foreclosure Modification $500,000 Grayson
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD NI Greenfield Community College, MA Renovation of Buildings $1,000,000 Olver
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD NI Los Angeles Neighborhood Housing Services, Counsel and Assist Homeowners Facing Foreclosures $500,000 Becerra
Inc., CA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD NI National Council of La Raza, DC Capitalization of a Revolving Loan Fund to be Used for Nationwide $1,000,000 Gutierrez; Hinojosa
Community Development Activities
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD NI New Hampshire Food Bank, NH Expansion of Food Assistance Programs $1,000,000 Shea-Porter
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD NI Shelter Network of San Mateo County, CA Shelter Network's Maple Street Project $200,000 Speier
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD NI United Way for Southeastern Michigan, MI Foreclosure Prevention Program $1,500,000 Conyers
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD NI Wisconsin Indianhead Technical College, WI Construction of a Training Center $1,750,000 Obey
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND HUD
[Technical Corrections]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Project Requester(s)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I-80 Exits 298/299 Improvements, Monroe County, PA Kanjorski
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chetek-area Transportation System Improvements, Chetek, WI Obey
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Way Bridge, County of Marin, CA Woolsey
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Signal at Flamingo/Highway 1, County of Marin, CA Woolsey
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Design and construction of improvements to Route 28 corridor adjacent to the I-495/Route 28 interchange in Wareham, MA Frank
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cabot North Interchange, AR Berry
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction and upgrades at four grade crossings in Olmsted Falls, OH Kucinich
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reconstruction and reconfiguration of the northbound off-ramp from Interstate 95 to Bartow/Baychester Avenue, Bronx, NY Crowley
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newton County Eastside High School to County Library Trail, GA Marshall
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Road and bridge improvements and storm water mitigation in the Town of Southampton, NY Bishop, Timothy
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operational safety studies, final design and/or construction of intersection operational and safety improvements for USH 53 between Rice Lake and Superior, Obey
WI
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engineering, design and construction of the North Street, Pittsfield, streetscaping project, MA Olver
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway 10 relocation, City of Wadena, MN Oberstar
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Renovation of blighted structures to enhance downtown development in the City of Wilson, NC Butterfield
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation for planning and design of the Catskill Visitor Interpretative Center, NY Hinchey
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles County Department of Human Services for acquisition and rehabilitation of a facility, Port Tobacco, MD Hoyer
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparative Statement of New Budget (Obligational) Authority
The following table provides a detailed summary, for each
department and agency, comparing the amounts recommended in the
bill with fiscal year 2010 enacted amounts and budget estimates
presented for fiscal year 2010.
MINORITY VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVES LEWIS, LATHAM, WOLF, CARTER AND
LaTOURETTE
This year for the first time since the enactment of the
1974 Congressional Budget Act, the Democrat controlled U.S.
House of Representatives failed to consider and pass a budget.
According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service,
the House has passed a budget every year since the
Congressional Budget Act first took effect for fiscal year
1976. This represents a historic and unprecedented failure by
the Democrat controlled Congress to meet a basic responsibility
on fiscal issues: to annually adopt a spending plan that sets
priorities for spending, revenues, deficits and debt for at
least the next five years.
Instead, the Democrat majority resorted to a tortuous
procedural sleight-of-hand to evade a direct vote in order to
``deem'' the adoption of a one-year resolution that provided
the Appropriations Committee a top line discretionary amount
for FY 2011 while failing to provide a designation for overseas
military contingencies despite promising for years that they
would never fund the war in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere as
an emergency or outside the regular budget process. This
unwillingness to pass a real budget was only necessary because
of the explosion of debt and deficits unleashed by the reckless
spending of Congressional Democrats and the President.
The Fiscal Year 2011 Transportation and Housing and Urban
Development (THUD) bill is $500 million below the Fiscal Year
2010 spending level. However, before we all congratulate
ourselves on being below last year, we need to remember that
the increase from Fiscal Year 2009 to Fiscal Year 2010
represented a whopping 23% increase in real spending. The
relative ease with which the Chairman was able to plus up many
accounts over and above last year and even the President's
request shows how much ``extra'' money is floating around these
two agencies. This is no way to assure the American people that
we are good stewards of their tax dollars and are committed to
reducing the deficit. We need to take a good hard look at what
programs are appropriately funded and operated by the Federal
government and what activities should remain at a local or
state level. After that, we need to ask ourselves how much can
we afford to spend? In both subcommittee and full committee
consideration of the THUD bill, Republicans offered up a modest
cost reducing amendment which cut a mere 3 cents on the dollar.
How can the Democrats be serious about protecting our economy
and our nation's financial health if they can't even agree to
cut 3 cents on the dollar? Our amendment was defeated on a
party-line vote.
Republicans also supported an amendment to help ensure the
solvency of the Highway Trust Fund. As the majority so
eloquently and accurately noted on page 9 of the Committee's
report to accompany the Fiscal Year 2010 bill, the
unsustainable highway spending levels set by the 2005 SAFETEA-
LU law mandated new spending commitments from the Highway
Account of the Highway Trust Fund at levels that averaged $6.9
billion per year in excess of the actual tax receipts that were
expected to be deposited in the Account over fiscal years 2006-
2009 (based on the forecasts at the time SAFETEA-LU was
written). As the majority's report noted last year, ``The
resulting overspending has, not surprisingly, led the highway
account that serves as the sole funding source for the highway
program on a downward spiral to insolvency.'' These
unsustainable spending levels had an entirely predictable
result: Congress has voted to bail out the Highway Account
three times in the last two years--$8.0 billion transferred
from the General Fund in September 2008, $7.0 billion
transferred from the General Fund in August 2009, and $14.7
billion transferred just four months ago in the March 2010 HIRE
Act.
This year, new Highway Account obligations under the Fiscal
Year 2010 Appropriations Act are expected to exceed forecasted
Highway Account receipts by $11.5 billion. Under the
Congressional Budget Office's March 2010 baseline, total new
Fiscal Year 2011 spending commitments from the Highway Account
are expected to exceed Highway Account revenues by $10.9
billion. Regrettably, the Committee's proposed bill makes this
unsustainable trend even more unsustainable.
The Democrat Majority will increase this ``sustainability
gap'' by $4.1 billion to $15.0 billion. Chairman Obey touts
that this level of spending is warranted by the over $17
billion in contract authority that rests with the states.
Unfortunately, for the states, the Highway Trust Fund cannot
pay the bills and Chairman Obey has already tried to use that
contract authority to pay for his other spending priorities.
Instead of putting highway spending on a path that can come
closer to being supported by the federal taxes paid by highway
users, the majority's bill does exactly what the 2005 SAFETEA-
LU law did--it provides unsustainable highway spending
increases that are irresponsible in the absence of new revenues
to pay for the extra spending. Again, the Republican attempt to
keep the Highway Trust Fund solvent was defeated on a party-
line vote.
Another area of concern is the excessive level of
obligation limitation provided for the transit programs.
Contract authority for the Federal Transit Administration's
Formula and Bus Grants account has only been provided by the
HIRE Act through the first three months of fiscal 2011. The
Congressional Budget Office established the contract authority
baseline for this account at $8,360,565,000, or four times the
three-month spending level set in the HIRE Act. The proposed
appropriations bill provides an obligation limitation on the
account for Fiscal Year 2011 of $8,961,348,000, or $601,783,000
more than the contract authority authorized. The Committee's
obligation limitation assumes that the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee will provide almost $601 million in
contract authority above the baseline level in Fiscal Year
2011. However, the allocations made by the FY 2010
Congressional budget resolution (S. Con. Res. 13) are still
binding on all House committees (except Appropriations), and
the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has no room
under its allocation to create $601 million per year in
additional contract authority without repealing contract
authority for additional programs. Not only can the Transit
Account not afford this level of spending, but the legal
authority to engage in this level of spending simply doesn't
exist. It seems disingenuous for the majority to provide $601
million in ``budgetary resources'' that is completely dependent
on other committees of Congress enacting a law that either
violates their own budget allocation or else requires cuts in
other spending programs that have not been identified by this
Committee.
The Fiscal Year 2011 budget request was heavy with programs
aimed at ``livability'' and ``sustainability'', almost all of
which are funded in this proposed bill. We share a number of
concerns with these new and untested programs. First, the
initiatives funded by these programs as described by HUD and
DOT involve activities that are rightly part of the
jurisdiction of state and local governments and metropolitan
planning organizations. Activities such as local and regional
planning, zoning, data gathering, and public outreach have no
business in the Federal budget. Furthermore, the Federal
government should stand back and allow these locally-elected
officials to make the decisions that reflect the best practices
for their communities and the will of the residents. Second, we
are dismayed at the lack of a plan or solid definition of what
HUD and DOT are trying to achieve with these new programs. The
fact that this bill provides one office in DOT alone with $12
million for grants to help localities ``plan,'' $4 million to
``develop uniform benchmarks for assessing the effectiveness of
livable-oriented interventions, including performance measures
of livability outcomes,'' and $4 million to establish an Office
of Livable Communities in a cabinet-level department should
raise a red flag on the necessity of this program and the
benefits we as a nation will receive from this investment. The
millions of dollars already spent and proposed for spending are
too scarce and primarily borrowed from the taxpayers and
foreign governments. We should not be funding local activities,
or vague programs with borrowed money.
We remain concerned over the viability of the Home Equity
Mortgage Conversion Program (HECM). This program began in 1987
under assumptions that house values would continually increase
and offset risk to the program. As more and more borrowers use
the program as a way to generate income or replace depleted
savings and retirement accounts, coupled with falling home
values, the program will continue to require increasingly large
taxpayer subsidies going forward. In order to continue this
program in a fiscally prudent manner that protects the
taxpayer, serious reforms are needed. Further, more program
participants are at risk for foreclosure as housing prices
fall. We are hopeful that we can work with the Administration
and the Majority to ensure that reforms can be made that will
sustain the program without the need of additional taxpayer
subsidy in the future.
There are a few areas where Chairman Olver should be
commended. We agree with his decision to decline funding for
the Choice Neighborhood proposals, the proposal to reform
rental assistance, the catalytic investment competition grants,
and the $4 billion proposal to create the National
Infrastructure Innovation and Finance Fund. Many of these ideas
are still in the development stage and require authorization
and in the case of the infrastructure fund, the Administration
has not even put forth a legislative proposal.
In the end, based on the dire financial and deficit
situation our nation is in, and our commitment to our
constituents and taxpayers, we must oppose this THUD bill as
written. We sincerely hope that Chairman Obey and the House
Leadership will see fit to consider this bill under a
traditional open rule so that all members, not just
Republicans, will have a chance to improve upon the Committee's
proposed bill.
Jerry Lewis.
Tom Latham.
Frank R. Wolf.
John R. Carter.
Steven C. LaTourette.