Senate Report 111-69 - TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2010

[Senate Report 111-69]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

Calendar No. 153
111th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 111-69

======================================================================

TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2010
_______

August 5, 2009.--Ordered to be printed

_______

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

REPORT

[To accompany H.R. 3288]

The Committee on Appropriations, to which was referred the
bill (H.R. 3288) making appropriations for the Departments of
Transportation and Housing and Urban Development, and Related
Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for
other purposes, reports the same with an amendment and
recommends that the bill as amended do pass.

Amounts of new budget (obligational) authority for fiscal year 2010

Total of bill as reported to the Senate................. $67,786,573,000
Amount of 2009 appropriations........................... 117,100,120,000
Amount of 2010 budget estimate.......................... 108,406,040,000
Amount of 2010 House bill............................... 68,899,275,000
Bill as recommended to Senate compared to--
2009 appropriations................................. -49,313,547,000
2010 budget estimate................................ -40,619,467,000
2010 House bill..................................... -1,112,702,000

C O N T E N T S

----------
Page

Program, Project, and Activity................................... 3
Reprogramming Guidelines......................................... 3
Congressional Budget Justifications.............................. 4
Title I: Department of Transportation:
Office of the Secretary...................................... 8
Federal Aviation Administration.............................. 22
Federal Highway Administration............................... 42
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.................. 56
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration............... 65
Federal Railroad Administration.............................. 71
Federal Transit Administration............................... 79
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation................ 92
Maritime Administration...................................... 94
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration....... 100
Research and Innovative Technology Administration............ 103
Bureau of Transportation Statistics.......................... 105
Office of Inspector General.................................. 106
Surface Transportation Board................................. 107
General Provisions--Department of Transportation............. 109
Title II: Department of Housing and Urban Development:
Executive Direction.......................................... 112
Administration, Operations and Management.................... 113
Personnel Compensation and Benefits.......................... 114
Public and Indian Housing.................................... 119
Community Planning and Development........................... 131
Housing Programs............................................. 152
Federal Housing Administration............................... 159
Government National Mortgage Association..................... 161
Policy Development and Research.............................. 161
Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity........................... 163
Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control.............. 164
Management and Administration:
Working Capital Fund..................................... 165
Office of Inspector General.............................. 165
Transformation Initiative................................ 166
Administrative Provisions.................................... 169
Title III: Independent Agencies:
Access Board................................................. 172
Federal Maritime Commission.................................. 173
National Railroad Passenger Corporation...................... 174
National Transportation Safety Board......................... 175
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation........................ 177
United States Interagency Council on Homelessness............ 179
Title IV: General Provisions--This Act........................... 181
Compliance With Paragraph 7, Rule XVI, of the Standing Rules of
the Sen-
ate............................................................ 182
Compliance With Paragraph 7(c), Rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules
of the Senate.................................................. 183
Compliance With Paragraph 12, Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of
the Senate..................................................... 184
Budgetary Impact of Bill......................................... 188
Disclosure of Congressionally Directed Spending Items............ 188
Comparative Statement of Budget Authority........................ 219

PROGRAM, PROJECT, AND ACTIVITY

During fiscal year 2010, for the purposes of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law
99-177), as amended, with respect to appropriations contained
in the accompanying bill, the terms ``program, project, and
activity'' [PPA] shall mean any item for which a dollar amount
is contained in appropriations acts (including joint
resolutions providing continuing appropriations) or
accompanying reports of the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations, or accompanying conference reports and joint
explanatory statements of the committee of conference. This
definition shall apply to all programs for which new budget
(obligational) authority is provided, as well as to
discretionary grants and discretionary grant allocations made
through either bill or report language. In addition, the
percentage reductions made pursuant to a sequestration order to
funds appropriated for facilities and equipment, Federal
Aviation Administration, shall be applied equally to each
budget item that is listed under said account in the budget
justifications submitted to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations as modified by subsequent appropriations acts
and accompanying committee reports, conference reports, or
joint explanatory statements of the committee of conference.

REPROGRAMMING GUIDELINES

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

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET JUSTIFICATIONS

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

TITLE I

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Extension of Transportation Programs and the Solvency of
the Highway Trust Fund.--Last year, the Committee noted that it
was in the position of recommending funding levels for the
highway program without any assurances that sufficient balances
would have been available from the Highway Trust Fund to
support the program even at the funding level enacted for the
previous year. The Committee also noted that it would have been
required to cut resources for the Federal-aid highway program
by more than one-third unless Congress acted to replenish the
balances of the trust fund. To address this issue, last year
the Committee included language in its bill that would restore
the necessary balances to the Highway Trust Fund. That
provision was eventually enacted as a separate piece of
legislation.
This year, the Committee developed its recommended funding
levels for fiscal year 2010 as many of the programs at the
Department of Transportation as well as the Highway Trust Fund
are again in a precarious situation. The Committee is now in
the position of recommending funding levels for the highway
program, transit programs, and highway and motor carrier safety
programs without any certainty that the necessary contract
authority will be available for the whole of fiscal year 2010.
Furthermore, the balances of the Highway Trust Fund must be
replenished in less than 1 month.
Congress has begun its work on these important issues, and
the Committee has been supporting the development of
legislation that would extend transportation programs and bring
solvency to the Highway Trust Fund.
The importance of providing stability to the transportation
programs and to the trust funds that finance those programs
cannot be overstated. State departments of transportation rely
on the balances of the Highway Trust Fund for the reimbursement
of funds spent out of their own budgets on projects that are
eligible for Federal grant dollars. In addition, the funding of
most surface transportation programs relies on the availability
of contract authority. Enacting legislation to extend these
programs and to address the solvency of the Highway Trust Fund
is an opportunity to provide stability to the States and local
governments as the Congress crafts a full reauthorization
package that can address essential questions about how the
transportation programs should work, and how they should be
financed.
In the meantime, the Committee must fulfill its
responsibility to recommend appropriate funding levels for
offices and programs at the Department of Transportation. In
order to put forward realistic funding recommendations, the
Committee is assuming that the transportation programs will be
extended through fiscal year 2010 at the levels authorized for
fiscal year 2009. This assumption is based on examples of
previous extensions of the transportation programs. This
assumption is especially relevant for those programs that rely
on contract authority provided in the authorization acts,
including the Federal-aid highway program, the formula and bus
transit programs, the programs of the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration, and most funding for the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Investments in our Nation's Transportation
Infrastructure.--The Committee is pleased that the President's
budget has included significant investments in our Nation's
transportation infrastructure. The President's budget requested
$1,000,000,000 to build intercity and high speed rail and
another $5,000,000,000 to begin a program called the National
Infrastructure Bank. This new program would award grants to
transportation projects across a wide variety of modes, and
base the grant awards on a set of merit-based criteria.
The Committee supports the President's request to fund
intercity and high-speed rail, and has recommended a funding
level of $1,200,000,000 for this program. The Committee also
recommends $1,100,000,000 for a grant program that will support
significant transportation projects across many modes of
transportation.
The Committee also recommends providing increases for
ongoing transportation programs that otherwise would not have
been funded under the President's budget request or would have
been funded with only modest increases to provide adjustments
for inflation. The Committee believes that these investments
are necessary to improve the condition of our national
infrastructure. The recommended funding levels include an
additional $1,400,000,000 above the President's request for
highway programs that support infrastructure investments in
every State and in communities across the country. It also
includes an increase of $480,000,000 above the President's
request for the transit New Starts program, which supports
investments in new or expanded transit service. The Committee
also recommends $100,000,000 for a grant program that will help
transit agencies reduce their energy consumption and greenhouse
gas emissions, and $75,000,000 for programs that support
improvements to rail safety and railroad infrastructure.
Livable Communities Initiative.--The Committee commends the
Secretary of Transportation for collaborating with the
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency on an
initiative to improve community livability. With this
initiative, the administration recognizes that our communities
are not cleanly divided between housing concerns and
transportation issues, and so our Government cannot work on
housing policy and transportation policy independently of one
another.
Although the administration has made a good start with this
collaboration, the Committee is concerned that the Department
of Transportation and the Department of Housing and Urban
Development are not coming forward with greater details about
their proposals and what they hope to accomplish. The
Department of Transportation has promised, for example, to
provide an analysis on the barriers in Federal regulations to
coordinating housing and transportation policy at the local
level. The Department has also promised to identify areas in
Federal law that prevent local governments from coordinating
their housing and transportation planning activities. The
Committee urges the Department to complete these reviews and
provide this information to Congress as promised.

Office of the Secretary

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

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2009.................................... $98,248,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 103,184,000
House allowance......................................... 102,306,000
Committee recommendation................................ 100,975,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total of $100,975,000 for
salaries and expenses of the Office of the Secretary of
Transportation, including $60,000 for reception and
representation expenses. The recommendation is $2,209,000 less
than the budget request and $2,727,000 more than the fiscal
year 2009 enacted level. The accompanying bill stipulates that
none of the funding provided may be used for the position of
Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs.
The accompanying bill authorizes the Secretary to transfer
up to 5 percent of the funds from any Office of the Secretary
to another. The Committee recommendation continues language
that permits up to $2,500,000 of fees to be credited to the
Office of the Secretary for salaries and expenses.
The following table summarizes the Committee's
recommendation in comparison to the fiscal year 2009 enacted
level and the budget estimate:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
2009 enacted 2010 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immediate Office of the Secretary............................ $2,400,000 $2,631,000 $2,631,000
Office of the Deputy Secretary............................... 759,000 986,000 986,000
Office of the General Counsel................................ 19,838,000 20,359,000 20,359,000
Office of the Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy... 10,107,000 11,100,000 10,107,000
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs.... 10,200,000 10,559,000 10,559,000
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs... 2,400,000 2,504,000 2,400,000
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration......... 26,000,000 25,520,000 26,265,000
Office of Public Affairs..................................... 2,020,000 2,123,000 2,123,000
Executive Secretariat........................................ 1,595,000 1,711,000 1,711,000
Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization....... 1,369,000 1,499,000 1,499,000
Office of Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response..... 8,675,000 10,929,000 9,072,000
Office of the Chief Information Officer...................... 12,885,000 13,263,000 13,263,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total, Salaries and Expenses........................... 98,248,000 103,184,000 100,975,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IMMEDIATE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $2,631,000 for fiscal year 2010
for the Immediate Office of the Secretary. The recommendation
is the same as the budget request and $231,000 greater than the
fiscal year 2009 enacted level.

IMMEDIATE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SECRETARY

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $986,000 for the Immediate Office
of the Deputy Secretary, which is identical to the budget
request and $227,000 greater than the fiscal year 2009 enacted
level.

OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $20,359,000 for expenses of the
Office of the General Counsel for fiscal year 2010. The
recommended funding level is the same as the budget request and
$521,000 more than the fiscal year 2009 enacted level.
Efforts to Project the Rights of Airline Passengers.--For
the past 3 years, the Committee has provided an additional
$2,500,000 in the budget for the Office of General Counsel in
order to improve enforcement activities and the protection of
air travel consumers. This additional funding has enabled the
office to fill eight additional positions, and cover travel
expenses so that lawyers and investigators can now conduct on
site reviews of airline operations. As a result of these
efforts, this month the Department has issued significant
consent orders against airlines that violated rules on over-
sale procedures and code-sharing disclosure. In addition, the
Department is pursuing enforcement action against other
airlines based on recent investigative work.
The Committee is pleased to note that the Department has
included this increased funding in its budget request for
fiscal year 2010. The Committee expects the Office of General
Counsel to continue using its resources for activities that
will most effectively improve the protection of air travel
consumers. In order to allow the office to continue building a
strong staff focused on the protection of airline passengers,
the Committee directs the Office of General Counsel to use a
portion of the $2,500,000 on an additional 7 FTE, leading to a
total of 113 FTE of the Office of General Counsel.
As noted in previous reports, the Committee does not
believe that organizing forums to discuss general consumer
issues is the most effective means of improving the impact of
this office. Therefore, the Committee repeats its direction
that none of the funding provided for the Office of General
Counsel shall be used for organizing such forums in fiscal year
2010.
ADA Rulemaking.--On February 27, 2006, the Department
published a notice of proposed rulemaking [NPRM] to address the
issue of whether commuter and intercity rail systems should be
required to provide level boarding between rail cars and
station platforms in order to fully comply with the Americans
with Disabilities Act. This NPRM represented a significant
proposal by the Department. Setting a standard for level
boarding would require extensive investments from rail systems,
and it would affect systems regulated by both the Federal
Railroad Administration and the Federal Transit Administration.
Since the publication of the NPRM 3 years ago, no final
regulations have been issued. The Committee acknowledges that
the proposed rule involves a number of complex issues. However,
without greater certainty on this matter, the Committee is
concerned that Amtrak and other rail systems may hesitate to
make necessary investments in ADA compliance. Although the
Committee expects all rail systems to fully comply with the
requirements of ADA, it urges the Department to reach a
resolution on level boarding so that it can publish a final
regulation in a timely manner.

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION FOR POLICY

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

For fiscal year 2009, the Committee recommends $10,107,000
for the Office of the Under Secretary for Policy. The
recommended funding level is $993,000 less than the budget
request and equal to the fiscal year 2009 enacted level.

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR BUDGET AND PROGRAMS

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $10,559,000 for the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs. The recommended
level is equal to the budget request and $359,000 over the
fiscal year 2009 enacted level.

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total of $2,400,000 for the
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs. The
recommended level is $104,000 less than the budget request
equal to the fiscal year 2009 enacted level.

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $26,265,000 for the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Administration. The recommended funding
level is $745,000 more than the budget request and $265,000
more than the fiscal year 2009 enacted level.

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $2,123,000 for the Office of
Public Affairs, which is equal to the budget request and
$103,000 more than the fiscal year 2009 enacted level.

EXECUTIVE SECRETARIAT

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,711,000 for the Executive
Secretariat. The recommendation is identical to the budget
request and $116,000 more than the fiscal year 2009 enacted
level.

OFFICE OF SMALL AND DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS UTILIZATION

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,499,000, an amount equal to the
budget request and $130,000 more than the fiscal year 2009
enacted level.

OFFICE OF INTELLIGENCE, SECURITY, AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Intelligence, Security and Emergency Response
keeps the Secretary and his advisors informed on intelligence
and security issues pertaining to transportation. The office
also provides support to the Secretary for her statutory and
administrative responsibilities in the areas of emergency
preparedness, response, and recovery functions. Further, the
Office ensures that transportation policy and programs support
the national objectives of general welfare, economic growth and
stability, and the security of the Unites States.
The Office of Intelligence, Security, and Emergency
Response is at the forefront of the Department's response to
transportation-related emergencies. To prepare for such events,
the Office coordinates and conducts the Department's
participation in national and regional exercise and training
for emergency personnel; administers the Department's
Continuity of Government and Continuity of Operations programs;
and coordinates DOT's role in select international contingency
plan and response initiatives. Additionally, the Office
provides direct emergency response and recovery support through
the National Response Plan [NRP] and operates the Department's
Crisis Management Center [CMC], a facility that monitors the
Nation's transportation system 24 hours a day, 7 days a week
and is the Department's focal point during emergencies.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $9,072,000 for the Office of
Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response. The
recommendation is $1,857,000 less than the request and $397,000
more than the fiscal year 2009 enacted level.

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $13,263,000, which is equal to
request and $378,000 more than the fiscal year 2009 enacted
level.

NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS

Appropriations, 2009...................................\1\$1,500,000,000
Budget estimate, 2010...................................................
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 1,100,000,000

\1\The funds provided for this program for fiscal year 2009 were
provided as emergency spending as part of the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (Public Law 111-5).

The Committee recommendation includes $1,100,000,000 for
grants to State and local governments to make investments in
the Nation's surface transportation infrastructure. The
Secretary of Transportation must award these grants solely on a
competitive basis, and select projects that will make a
significant impact on the Nation, a metropolitan area, or a
region.
The Committee notes that there has been a tremendous
interest in the discretionary grants for surface transportation
projects that were provided as a part of the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act of 2009 [ARRA]. Although grant
applications are not due to the Department until September 15,
2009, the Committee expects that demand for grants will far
exceed the amount of available funding. For this reason, the
Committee has included additional funding for such significant
surface transportation investments in fiscal year 2010.
For the grants funded in the bill, the Committee continues
to require the Secretary to award grants so that he ensures an
equitable geographic distribution of funds and an appropriate
balance in addressing the needs of urban and rural communities.
The Committee also 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. In
addition, the bill language 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.
However, there are important differences between the
funding provided in the current bill and the funding that the
Committee provided as a part of ARRA. The grants awarded under
ARRA are expected to support economic recovery as well as build
a legacy of transportation improvements, but the Committee
expects that the projects funded under the current bill to be
judged solely on their ability to provide important
transportation improvements. For this reason, the Committee has
not included language requiring the projects to be completed by
a specific deadline. In addition, the funding provided under
the bill must include a local match to the Federal grant
dollars.
Furthermore, the Committee has included language to require
the Secretary to spend no less than $250,000,000 on projects
located in rural areas. Because the Committee recognizes that a
smaller investment may still constitute a significant
improvement for rural communities, the bill language allows the
Secretary to provide a waiver for the local match requirement
for such projects, and the language lowers the minimum grant
size to $1,000,000.
The bill allows the Secretary to use $25,000,000 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 his own Department.
As with all of the funds that may be awarded as grants at
the Secretary's discretion, the Committee expects the Secretary
to maintain a grant application process that is transparent,
fair, and accessible to all interested parties. The Secretary
must publish a set of criteria on which project selections will
be based no sooner than 60 days after enactment of the bill.
The Committee expects the Secretary to publicize these criteria
to all possible grant applicants, and to adhere rigorously and
consistently to the published criteria, measuring all
applications against those criteria. The Secretary must require
applications to be submitted no sooner than 120 days after the
criteria are published, and award grants no sooner than
September 15, 2010.

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT CAPITAL

Appropriations, 2009.................................... $5,000,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 5,000,000
House allowance......................................... 2,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee is recommending $5,000,000 to support the
Secretary's Financial Management Capital initiative, which is
equal to the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and the budget
request.
This new initiative has the potential to improve the
financial systems and processes of the Department and provide
important benefits to all of the modes. However, the Committee
remains concerned that modes will be asked to reimburse OST for
additional activities beyond which they have planned and
budgeted, and from which they may not benefit. As a result, the
Committee reminds the Secretary of language that continues to
be included in the bill that limits OST's ability to approve
new assessments or reimbursable agreements appropriated to the
modal administrations for new activities, unless a
reprogramming of funds is requested and approved by the
Committees.
The Committee also continues to direct OST to provide more
detailed justifications for this program in its fiscal year
2011 budget request. These detailed justifications should
clearly display the amount requested for OST as well as the
amount included in the budget request from each modal
administration. For clarity, the justifications should list the
amount from each modal administration individually and not as a
lump sum.

OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS

Appropriations, 2009.................................... $9,384,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 9,667,000
House allowance......................................... 9,667,000
Committee recommendation................................ 9,667,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a funding level of $9,667,000 for
the Office of Civil Rights for fiscal year 2010. The
recommendation is identical to the budget request and is
$283,000 more than the fiscal year 2009 enacted level.

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2009.................................... $18,300,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 10,233,000
House allowance......................................... 14,733,000
Committee recommendation................................ 10,233,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $10,233,000 for transportation
planning, research, and development, which is equal to the
budget request and $8,067,000 less than the fiscal year 2009
enacted level. The Committee directs funding to be allocated to
the following projects that are listed below:

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND DEVELOPMENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
Project name recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle Research Institute--Advanced Materials Transit $750,000
Vehicle Design, WA.....................................
Whatcom Smart Trips, WA................................. 750,000
Freight Policy Transportation Institute, WA............. 750,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

WORKING CAPITAL FUND

Limitation, 2009........................................ $128,094,000
Budget estimate, 2010\1\................................................
House allowance......................................... 147,500,000
Committee recommendation................................ 147,500,000

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

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation of $147,500,000 on
activities financed through the Working Capital Fund. The
budget request proposes to remove the obligation limitation on
the Working Capital Fund for services to the operating
administrations of the Department. Although the Committee
recommendation will allow additional activities to be covered
through the Working Capital Fund, the Committee continues to
insist that the discipline of an annual limitation is necessary
to keep assessments and services of the Working Capital Fund in
line with costs. As in past years, the bill specifies that the
limitation shall apply only to the Department and not to
services provided by other entities. The Committee directs that
services shall be provided on a competitive basis to the
maximum extent possible.
The Committee notes that the ``transparency paper''
included in the justifications for fiscal year 2010 provides
essential information on total budgetary resources for the
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and the
Office of the Chief Information Officer, including the balance
of resources provided through the Working Capital Fund and
direct appropriations. Therefore, the Committee directs the
Department to update this ``transparency paper'' and include it
in the budget justifications for fiscal year 2011.

MINORITY BUSINESS RESOURCE CENTER PROGRAM

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation on
Appropriations guaranteed loans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2009................. $912,000 $18,367,000
Budget estimate, 2010................ 912,000 18,367,000
House allowance...................... 912,000 18,367,000
Committee recommendation............. 923,000 18,367,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $353,000 to
cover the subsidy costs for guaranteed loans and $570,000 for
administrative expenses to carry out the guaranteed loan
program. The recommendation is $11,000 more than the budget
estimate and the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. The Committee
also recommends a limitation on guaranteed loans of $18,367,000
the same amount as the budget request and the fiscal year 2009
enacted level.

MINORITY BUSINESS OUTREACH

Appropriations, 2009.................................... $3,056,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 3,074,000
House allowance......................................... 3,074,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,074,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $3,074,000 for grants and
contractual support provided under this program for fiscal year
2010. The recommendation is the same as the budget request and
$18,000 more than the fiscal year 2009 enacted level.

PAYMENTS TO AIR CARRIERS

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations Mandatory\1\ Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2009............................................ $86,213,000 $50,000,000 $136,213,000
Budget estimate, 2010........................................... 125,000,000 50,000,000 175,000,000
House allowance................................................. 125,000,000 50,000,000 175,000,000
Committee recommendation........................................ 125,000,000 50,000,000 175,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\From overflight fees provided to the Federal Aviation Administration pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 41742.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends the appropriation of $125,000,000
for the EAS program. This appropriation would be in addition to
$50,000,000 of overflight fees collected by the Federal
Aviation Administration, resulting in a total program level for
EAS of $175,000,000. The recommendation is the same as the
budget request, and $38,787,000 more than the fiscal year 2009
enacted level.
Ongoing Challenges to EAS Service.--The Department
continues to face significant challenges in delivering air
service to all of the communities guaranteed such service under
the regulations governing the EAS program. Market forces have
resulted in the loss of air service to small- and medium-sized
communities that are not eligible for EAS subsidies, and those
very same forces have made it difficult to entice air carriers
to serve such communities utilizing Federal EAS subsidies. Over
the past several years, the major passenger air carriers have
effectively abandoned the EAS program, leaving smaller, less-
capitalized carriers to serve the subsidized communities. Many
of these smaller carriers have struggled to stay afloat.
The program has also been challenged by a growing shortage
of aircraft that are the appropriate size to serve EAS
communities. These aircraft are either being retired from the
fleet, or they are being used for more profitable services
elsewhere in the United States or overseas.
Three carriers that have served EAS communities--Air
Midwest, Big Sky Airways, and Skyways Airlines--have all
shuttered their operations. As a result, 36 eligible
communities have temporarily lost their EAS-subsidized service.
These communities are expected to be without air service for an
estimated cumulative period of at least 246 months as a result
of the shutdowns. The Department has secured alternative
carriers for all but six of these communities. In addition, the
Department has awarded contracts for service to the remaining
six communities, although the service itself has not yet begun.
This month, however, Mesaba Airlines filed a 90-day notice
of service termination for eight communities that had been
receiving unsubsidized service. The Committee expects the
Department will soon issue a request for proposals for
subsidized service.
In the current fiscal year, the EAS program faced a
significant shortfall and did not have adequate resources to
meet the program's costs. In order to protect communities
dependent on the EAS program for its continued air service, the
Committee provided $13,200,000 in supplemental appropriations
in order to fill this shortfall.
The Committee continues to recognize that the EAS program
is undergoing a period of unprecedented uncertainty that makes
it extremely difficult to predict what the true program costs
will be during fiscal year 2010. For this reason, the Committee
continues to include bill language that directs the Secretary
to transfer to the EAS program such sums as may be necessary to
continue service to all eligible EAS points in fiscal year
2010. These funds may come from other funds directly
administered by, or appropriated to, the Office of the
Secretary.
The following table reflects the points currently receiving
service and the annual rates as of June 1, 2009, in the
continental United States and Hawaii.

ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE SUBSIDY PER PASSENGER
[Data is based on June 1, 2009 rates and CY 2008 passengers]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Est. Miles Avg. Daily
to Nearest Enplnmnts Subsidy
State EAS/communities Hub (S, M, at EAS Rates at Subsidy per YE Pax
or Point (YE June 1, Passenger Total
L) 12/31/08) 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALMuscle Shoals 60 14.9 $1,782,928 $191.75 9,298
AREl Dorado/Camden 107 ........... 2,311,637 ........... ...........
ARHarrison 244 6.0 1,587,067 423.78 3,745
ARHot Springs 51 4.1 1,991,307 778.16 2,559
ARJonesboro 82 4.0 1,607,385 645.28 2,491
AZPage 282 16.7 1,497,556 143.02 10,471
AZShow Low 154 16.4 988,181 96.07 10,286
AZKingman 121 4.0 1,275,771 514.01 2,482
AZPrescott 102 17.7 1,622,719 146.24 11,096
CACrescent City 314 38.9 1,136,896 46.69 24,352
CAMerced 60 4.4 1,541,365 558.26 2,761
CAVisalia 47 5.5 1,494,319 430.39 3,472
CADel Centro 101 22.7 662,551 46.67 14,198
COPueblo 36 11.2 1,057,128 150.42 7,028
COAlamosa 164 22.6 1,853,475 130.76 14,175
COCortez 255 27.1 1,297,562 76.37 16,990
GAAthens 72 8.2 1,051,386 204.07 5,152
GAMacon 82 30.6 1,386,306 72.44 19,138
IABurlington 74 8.1 943,793 186.15 5,070
IAFort Dodge 91 19.2 1,112,607 92.62 12,012
IAMason City 131 36.9 1,112,607 48.20 23,082
ILMarion/Herrin 123 7.7 1,126,810 233.05 4,835
ILDecatur 126 3.3 1,350,256 661.57 2,041
ILQuincy 111 6.1 1,532,891 402.97 3,804
KSDodge City 150 12.6 1,378,036 174.50 7,897
KSGarden City 202 32.7 2,373,320 115.82 20,492
KSGreat Bend 114 3.2 749,435 369.73 2,027
KSHays 175 26.0 1,757,154 108.03 16,266
KSLiberal/Guymon 138 11.6 995,284 137.32 7,248
KSManhattan 122 37.7 1,198,342 50.82 23,581
KSSalina 97 11.5 798,895 111.20 7,184
KYOwensboro 105 ........... 1,448,625 ........... ...........
MDHagerstown 78 ........... 1,570,417 ........... ...........
MEPresque Isle 262 42.3 2,643,588 99.84 26,479
MERockland 81 17.7 1,522,770 137.08 11,109
MEAugusta/Waterville 67 10.5 2,086,251 318.07 6,559
MEBar Harbor 144 31.8 2,086,251 104.81 19,905
MIIronwood/Ashland 213 3.8 1,492,865 622.29 2,399
MIManistee 110 6.5 1,799,395 445.06 4,043
MIEscanaba 112 17.3 1,435,118 132.75 10,811
MIIron Mountain/Kingsford 105 12.3 1,435,118 186.89 7,679
MNChisholm/Hibbing 199 27.4 1,261,841 73.50 17,168
MNThief River Falls 305 9.9 1,230,322 198.70 6,192
MOCape Girardeau 127 1.2 1,497,542 1,967.86 761
MOKirksville 137 2.2 806,169 583.76 1,381
MOColumbia/Jefferson City 116 34.2 2,186,590 102.27 21,380
MOFort Leonard Wood 85 16.7 519,858 49.69 10,463
MOJoplin 70 15.5 997,680 103.11 9,676
MSMeridian 88 61.2 686,489 17.91 38,325
MSLaurel/Hattiesburg 89 38.1 1,191,435 50.00 23,830
MSGreenville 118 18.8 1,355,693 115.48 11,740
MTWest Yellowstone 332 12.8 431,996 53.80 8,030
MTGlasgow 285 1.0 928,433 1,499.89 619
MTGlendive 197 .7 1,056,152 2,526.68 418
MTHavre 230 .6 1,036,616 2,887.51 359
MTLewistown 103 1.8 1,036,616 905.34 1,145
MTMiles City 145 .8 1,056,152 1,996.51 529
MTSidney 272 4.2 2,159,591 820.83 2,631
MTWolf Point 293 .8 928,433 1,761.73 527
NDDevils Lake 402 10.0 1,331,664 212.73 6,260
NDJamestown, ND 333 9.0 1,355,011 240.08 5,644
NDDickinson 319 28.4 2,274,177 127.86 17,787
NEMcCook 256 5.4 1,583,277 467.73 3,385
NEKearney 181 38.0 1,978,386 83.26 23,762
NENorth Platte 255 29.2 1,860,229 101.65 18,300
NEScottsbluff 192 30.3 1,535,085 80.95 18,964
NEGrand Island 138 6.2 2,271,640 583.67 3,892
NEAlliance 233 5.6 977,609 276.94 3,530
NEChadron 290 7.0 977,609 224.07 4,363
NHLebanon 72 26.2 2,245,669 136.73 16,424
NMAlamogordo/Holloman 89 .7 994,623 2,270.83 438
NMClovis 102 7.7 1,517,277 315.38 4,811
NMSilver City/Hurley/Deming 134 8.2 1,442,174 280.96 5,133
NMCarlsbad 149 5.8 1,046,284 286.26 3,655
NVEly 234 .7 1,864,717 4,504.15 414
NYPlattsburgh 82 ........... 1,379,257 ........... ...........
NYSaranac Lake/Lake Placid 132 ........... 1,431,875 ........... ...........
NYMassena 138 ........... 1,297,613 ........... ...........
NYOgdensburg 105 ........... 1,353,916 ........... ...........
NYWatertown 54 ........... 1,228,334 ........... ...........
NYJamestown, NY 76 12.7 1,350,803 170.41 7,927
ORPendleton 185 23.1 1,566,729 108.42 14,451
PALancaster 28 ........... 1,831,504 ........... ...........
PAAltoona 112 27.5 1,394,423 81.04 17,206
PAJohnstown 84 20.9 1,394,423 106.74 13,064
PABradford 77 12.9 1,350,803 166.85 8,096
PADuBois 112 9.3 2,020,095 348.41 5,798
PAOil City/Franklin 85 3.8 1,226,773 511.58 2,398
PRMayaguez 105 14.0 980,980 111.67 8,785
PRPonce 77 14.3 740,416 83.00 8,921
SDWatertown, SD 207 15.4 1,189,606 123.25 9,652
SDBrookings 58 ........... 1,887,110 ........... ...........
SDHuron 121 7.6 1,781,159 374.04 4,762
TNJackson 86 ........... 1,598,291 ........... ...........
TXVictoria 93 26.5 610,049 36.83 16,565
UTMoab 256 9.3 1,607,903 275.70 5,832
UTVernal 150 16.8 1,147,786 109.17 10,514
UTCedar City 179 23.2 1,242,256 85.46 14,536
VAStaunton, VA 113 23.9 1,911,466 128.01 14,932
VTRutland 69 15.3 839,746 87.50 9,597
WVClarksburg 96 19.9 1,058,325 85.14 12,431
WVMorgantown 75 29.0 1,058,325 58.23 18,174
WVParkersburg 110 16.8 2,190,281 208.82 10,489
WVBeckley 168 10.2 2,092,844 328.03 6,380
WVLewisburg 166 20.5 2,330,725 181.86 12,816
WYLaramie 145 29.9 1,215,603 64.97 18,711
WYWorland 161 9.6 1,735,814 289.11 6,004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: No passengers means that the community suffered a service hiatus during CY 2008.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION

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

Federal Aviation Administration

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The total recommended program level for the FAA for fiscal
year 2009 amounts to $15,991,483,000, including both new budget
authority and a limitation on the obligation of contract
authority. This funding level is $40,478,000 more than the
budget request and $779,079,000 less than the fiscal year 2009
enacted level. However, the level enacted for fiscal year 2009
includes $1,300,000,000 in emergency spending provided as part
of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Excluding such
funding, the Committee recommendation is $521,421,000 more than
the fiscal year 2009 enacted level.
The following table summarizes the Committee's
recommendations for fiscal year 2009 excluding rescissions and
funding provided as part of the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act:

OPERATIONS

Appropriations, 2009.................................... $9,042,467,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 9,335,798,000
House allowance......................................... 9,347,168,000
Committee recommendation................................ 9,359,131,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total of $9,359,131,000 for FAA
operations. This funding level is $23,333,000 more than the
budget request, and $316,664,000 more than the fiscal year 2009
enacted level. The Committee recommendation derives
$5,277,648,000 of the appropriation from the airport and airway
trust fund. The balance of the appropriation will be drawn from
the general fund of the Treasury.
As in past years, FAA is directed to report immediately to
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations in the event
resources are insufficient to operate a safe and effective air
traffic control system.
The Committee continues three provisions enacted in prior
years relating to premium pay, aeronautical charting and
cartography, and Government-issued credit cards.
The following table summarizes the Committee's
recommendation in comparison to the budget estimate and fiscal
year 2009 enacted level:

FAA OPERATIONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-------------------------------------- Committee
2009 enacted 2010 estimate recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Traffic Organization............................... $7,099,019,000 $7,302,739,000 $7,305,902,000
Aviation Safety........................................ 1,164,597,000 1,216,395,000 1,236,565,000
Commercial Space Transportation........................ 14,094,000 14,737,000 14,737,000
Financial Services..................................... 111,004,000 113,681,000 113,681,000
Human Resource Management.............................. 96,091,000 100,428,000 100,428,000
Region and Center Operations........................... 331,000,000 341,977,000 341,977,000
Staff Offices.......................................... 180,859,000 196,063,000 196,063,000
Information Services................................... 46,500,000 49,778,000 49,778,000
--------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................ 9,042,467,000 9,335,798,000 9,359,131,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AIR TRAFFIC ORGANIZATION

Supporting the Controller Workforce.--The Committee
continues to be concerned about the ability of the FAA to
maintain a fully staffed and trained controller workforce while
record numbers of air traffic controllers reach their
eligibility for retirement. For this reason, the Committee
recommendation includes $7,048,000 to increase the air traffic
controller workforce by 157 full-time positions in fiscal year
2010. The Committee recommendation is $2,500,000 more than the
increase requested by the administration, and would accommodate
50 more air traffic controller positions than requested under
the President's budget.
The Committee continues its direction that the FAA include
in its forthcoming controller workforce plan facility-by-
facility information on the number of certified controllers,
controllers in training, and developmental controllers. The
Committee also directs the FAA include in its next workforce
plan a goal for each facility for the proportion of certified
controllers to controllers in training and developmental
controllers, as well as a year by which the agency expects to
meet this goal. Last year, the Committee requested a benchmark
on the percentage of air traffic controllers who were fully
certified at each facility, and the FAA did not comply. The
Committee continues to believe in the importance of maintaining
adequate experience levels at each FAA facility, and therefore
reiterates its interest in having facility-by-facility targets
against which actual experience levels can be measured.
Investments in NextGen Staff.--The FAA contracted with the
National Academy of Public Administration [NAPA] for a study
that would identify the skills and the workforce improvements
that will be necessary to develop the next generation air
transportation system. This past fall, NAPA published a two-
volume report that details its findings. Following the
publication of this report, the FAA is requesting an increase
of $7,000,000 for fiscal year 2010 in order to increase the
staff of the Air Traffic Organization by 104 full-time
positions.
The Committee recommendation includes the full $7,000,000
for NextGen staffing needs, and encourages the FAA to continue
taking advantage of the NAPA recommendations.
In addition, the Committee notes that the report published
by NAPA addresses a number of concerns that cannot be solved
merely by increasing the size of the FAA workforce. For
example, NAPA provided recommendations on how the FAA should
increase its workforce strategically over time, track and
assess its workforce development, hire professionals with the
relevant set of skills and competencies, and retain its new
employees by providing them with foreseeable career paths.
In order to get an independent assessment of the FAA's
first steps in developing a NextGen workforce, the Committee
directs the DOT Inspector General to review how the FAA places
these first 104 full-time positions in the agency, and to
evaluate how well the FAA begins to address each of the
recommendations included in the NAPA report. Such an evaluation
should include a review of the specific actions that the FAA is
taking or is planning to take to implement each recommendation,
or a review of the justification that the FAA provides as to
why the recommendation would not be in the best interest of the
agency. This report shall be submitted no later than one year
after the enactment of the bill.
Performance-based Navigation.--The Committee recommends
$35,130,000 for activities related to the development of area
navigation [RNAV] and required navigation performance [RNP]
procedures. This funding level represents an increase of
$2,830,000 over the budget request.
The Committee remains concerned that another year has
passed and the Performance Based Navigation program is tangled
in a bureaucracy that allows the competing interests of
different offices to muddle the program. The end result is that
the effort to develop performance based navigation is left with
no clear direction or coherent set of priorities.
This Committee has provided additional funding for the
program in previous years, and is sorely disappointed to learn
that these funding increases have been used to create
procedures that would actually add significantly to travel
times and distances into and out of airports. Some of these
procedures have not achieved any ascertainable throughput
gains, provided environmental benefits, fixed airspace
complexity issues, or offered any benefit to end users.
Furthermore, the FAA does not conduct thorough pre-development
and post-development analyses for each procedure it develops in
order to determine if the limited resources of the office are
being used appropriately.
The Committee directs the FAA to provide a report to the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by February 15,
2010, that describes in detail every procedure that will be
developed with funds appropriated in fiscal year 2010 and
quantifiable data comparing the new procedure to the closest
applicable existing procedure in terms of reduced flight time,
reduced distance flown, and emissions and environmental
benefits. In measuring the benefits that the new procedure
offers in terms of flight time, distance flown, and
environmental impact, the FAA must take into account a
realistic estimation of the procedures' use. That is, a new
procedures offers no benefits if nobody ever flies along its
path. The report should also indicate which office, region, or
individual requested the procedure and the anticipated amount
of time the procedure will take to develop.
The FAA has informed the Committee that internal efforts to
reform the process have been delayed in anticipation of the
forthcoming recommendations from the Radio Technical Commission
of Aeronautics' [RTCA] Task Force Five. The Committee directs
the FAA to report back immediately to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriation upon any change in organizational
structure, processes, or priorities within the program after
the Task Force's final report.
ATO Finance.--The Committee recommendation includes
$189,623,000 for the offices within the financial services
function of the Air Traffic Organization. This funding level is
$2,167,000 less than the budget request and equal to fiscal
year 2009 enacted level.
Alien Species Action Plan [ASAP].--The Committee
recommendation includes $900,000 to continue the implementation
of the Alien Species Action Plan which was adopted by the FAA
as part of its record of decision approving certain
improvements at Kahului Airport on the Island of Maui. These
funds will be used to execute capital projects and continue the
operational requirements imposed by the ASAP.
Flight Plans for General Aviation Aircraft.--The Committee
is aware that in certain situations pilots of float planes who
have filed a return flight plan with the Federal Aviation
Administration and informed Customs and Border Patrol using the
Electronic Advance Passenger Information System, have had
difficulty re-entering the United States when emergencies have
resulted in changes to their filed return time. The
difficulties have primarily been attributed to an inability to
access the Electronic Advance Passenger Information System from
remote locations and therefore inform Customs and Border Patrol
of the changes in return times. The committee encourages the
Federal Aviation Administration to inform Custom and Border
Patrol when an aircraft makes emergency changes to its flight
plan and thereby its Electronic Advance Passenger Information
System filing, provided that the aircraft operator is unable to
refile using the Electronic Advance Passenger Information
System, and the aircraft is not equipped to land at a
conventional airport for refiling.
Staffing at the Southern California TRACON.--The Committee
is concerned that the Department of Transportation Inspector
General concluded in a 2009 report that the staffing levels at
the Southern California TRACON, the busiest air traffic control
facility in the world, are at a critical level. The Inspector
General stated: ``A significant issue is that SCT (Southern
California TRACON) expects to have over 100 controllers in
training later this year--which is more than 40 percent of its
workforce and could overwhelm SCT's training capacity.''
The Committee recommends that the Administrator work to
staff Southern California TRACON with very experienced
controllers. In addition to implementing the recommendations of
the Inspector General, the Administrator shall transmit to the
Senate Committee on Appropriations, within 60 days of
enactment, a clear strategic plan to increase the number of
experienced controllers at Southern California TRACON. The plan
should include clear interim benchmarks, and it should
establish a goal of reducing the number of controllers in
training at Southern California TRACON to no more than the
national average as soon as possible.

AVIATION SAFETY

Improving the FAA's One Level of Safety.--This past
February, Colgan Air flight 3407 crashed just outside of
Buffalo, New York, killing a total of 50 people. In the wake of
this tragic accident, many questions were raised regarding the
FAA's safety oversight, including questions about the
relationship between regional and legacy airlines, pilot
fatigue and certification requirements, airlines'
responsibility to check pilot backgrounds, and the use of check
flights.
The Secretary and the FAA Administrator appear to have
taken these issues seriously, promising to work aggressively on
improving aviation safety. In April, the Department and the FAA
gathered representatives from air carriers and other industry
groups to participate in a ``Call to Action'' summit on airline
safety. Earlier this month, The FAA held the first of 12 forums
across the country aimed at reducing safety risk at regional
airlines.
The FAA has also asked the aviation industry and unions to
make commitments by July 31 on specific actions that were
discussed at the first ``Call to Action'' session. These
commitments would include the expansion of record checks on
pilots applying for a job, a review of pilot training programs,
and the development of pilot mentoring programs to support a
culture of professionalism and safety among pilots.
The FAA has committed itself to two rulemaking actions in
order to bolster its safety regulations. The FAA has promised
to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking that would reform
pilot rest and duty times, taking into account recent
scientific findings, by December 31 this year. The agency has
also promised to rewrite its rules on pilot training.
The Committee is pleased to see these first intentions of
the Department and the FAA to acknowledge weaknesses in their
protection of aviation safety, and to take a more active role
in improving Federal safety oversight. The FAA, however, has a
long history of denying any problems with its safety oversight
and program management. The fact that the FAA has now taken a
stance that its oversight regime is not infallible only makes
it more critical that the agency follow through on its best
laid plans. To falter at this point would not only undermine
the FAA's credibility, it would also give credence to those who
would say that the FAA can never improve.
To support the FAA's aggressive rulemaking plans, the
Committee recommendation includes an additional $300,000 to
support three additional staff with the legal expertise
necessary to complete the process of drafting Federal
regulations.
Supporting the Safety Inspector Workforce.--The President's
budget request proposes to increase funding for aviation safety
by $3,084,000 in order to increase the safety inspector
workforce by 36 full-time positions. The Committee appreciates
the administration's proposal to strengthen the staffing levels
for aviation safety, and fully funds the requested full-time
positions. In addition, the Committee recommendation includes
$18,500,000 to increase the safety inspector workforce by
another 200 full-time positions. With these additional
resources, the Committee directs the FAA to increase the flight
standards staff by 145 full-time positions, and to increase the
aircraft certification staff by 55 full-time positions. With
this additional funding, the Committee recommendation includes
a total increase for aviation safety inspectors of $21,583,000
and 236 full-time positions.
The Committee also repeats its direction to the FAA that
the next inspector workforce plan shall include a benchmark for
the amount of time that aviation inspectors spend in the field
directly observing industry operations. In recent years, the
FAA has started to use a risk-based oversight regime in order
to make the best use of its limited resources. This new
approach to safety oversight requires the agency--and its
safety inspectors--to monitor many details of industry
operations, and to analyze all of the data collected in order
to identify areas of risk. Questions have been raised about the
role of safety inspectors, and whether they are spending too
much time at their desk inputting and analyzing data, and not
enough time in the field observing the facts with their own
eyes. The Committee believes that the FAA must develop a
benchmark for how its safety inspectors use their time, and the
Committee expects the agency to monitor the time that safety
inspectors spend in the field, and use this information to
evaluate inspector workload.
Human Intervention and Motivation Study.--The Human
Intervention and Motivation Study is a substance abuse program
that provides help to airline pilots in a way that protects
their careers as well as air safety. The HIMS program is an
industry-wide effort that involves airlines, pilot unions, and
the FAA in the identification of impaired pilots, their
treatment, and their return to the cockpit.
Traditional programs to address substance abuse have relied
on workplace supervisors. However, airline pilots perform most
of their duties among their peers, without direct supervision.
The HIMS program works because it uses on peer identification
and intervention. The HIMS program provides educational
materials, holds seminars, and conducts outreach to the pilot
community.
The Committee recognizes the success of the HIMS programs.
The Committee also recognizes that flight attendants are safety
professionals who, like pilots, perform their duties with
little management oversight. With its emphasis on peer
identification and intervention, the HIMS program offers an
appropriate way to provide help to flight attendants who may be
abusing alcohol or drugs.
The Committee recommendation includes $1,370,000 to
continue funding for the HIMS program and to extend the program
to flight attendants.
St. Louis University Center for Aviation Safety Research.--
The Committee recommendation includes $2,000,000 for the St.
Louis University Center for Aviation Safety Research to
continue funding for researchers to conduct comprehensive job
task analysis in collaboration with aircraft manufacturers and
aviation maintenance organizations in order to build an
appropriate curriculum to create a properly trained aerospace
technician workforce.

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2009.................................... $2,742,095,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 2,925,202,000
House allowance......................................... 2,925,202,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,942,352,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,942,352,000
for the Facilities and Equipment account of the Federal
Aviation Administration. The Committee recommendation is
$17,150,000 more than the budget estimate and $200,257,000 more
than the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. The bill provides that
$2,472,352,000 shall be available for obligation until
September 30, 2012, and $470,000,000 shall be available until
September 30, 2010.
Budget Activities Format.--The Committee directs that the
fiscal year 2011 budget request for the Facilities and
Equipment account conform to the same organizational structure
of budget activities as displayed below.
The Committee's recommended distribution of funds for each
of the budget activities funded by the appropriation follows:

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Committee
2009 enacted 2010 estimate recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Activity 1, Engineering, Development, Test and Evaluation:
Advanced Technology Development and Prototyping............. $44,900,000 $41,800,000 $41,800,000
Traffic Management Advisor [TMA]............................ 3,700,000 .............. ..............
NAS Improvement of System Support Laboratory................ 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000
William J. Hughes Technical Center Facilities............... 12,000,000 12,000,000 12,000,000
William J. Hughes Technical Center Infrastructure 5,400,000 5,500,000 5,500,000
Sustainment................................................
Next Generation Network Enabled Weather [NNEW].............. 20,000,000 20,000,000 20,000,000
Data Communications in support of Next Generation Air 28,800,000 51,700,000 51,700,000
Transportation System......................................
Next Generation Transportation System Demonstration and 28,000,000 33,773,730 33,773,730
Infrastructure Development.................................
Next Generation Transportation System--System Development... 41,400,000 66,100,000 66,100,000
Next Generation Transportation System--Trajectory-Based 39,500,000 63,500,000 63,500,000
Operations.................................................
Next Generation Transportation System--Weather Reduction 14,400,000 35,600,000 35,600,000
Impact.....................................................
Next Generation Transportation System--High Density Arrivals/ 18,200,000 51,800,000 51,800,000
Departures.................................................
Next Generation Transportation System--Collaborative ATM.... 27,700,000 44,640,770 44,640,770
Next Generation Transportation System--Flexible Terminals 37,100,000 64,300,000 64,300,000
and Airports...............................................
Next Generation Transportation System--Safety Security and 8,000,000 8,200,000 8,200,000
Environment................................................
Next Generation Transportation System--Networked Facilities. 15,000,000 24,000,000 24,000,000
ADS-B Three Nautical Mile Separation........................ 6,765,000 .............. ..............
NextGen Integrated Airport.................................. .............. .............. 850,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Activity 1......................................... 351,865,000 523,914,500 524,764,500
===============================================
Activity 2, Air Traffic Control Facilities and Equipment:
En Route Programs:
En Route Automation Modernization [eRAM]................ 203,050,000 171,750,000 171,750,000
En Route Communications Gateway [ECG]................... 7,400,000 3,600,000 3,600,000
Next Generation Weather Radar [NEXRAD]--Provide......... 3,000,000 6,900,000 6,900,000
Air Traffic Control System Command Center [ATCSCC]-- 28,600,000 10,300,000 10,300,000
Relocation.............................................
ARTCC Building Improvements/Plant Improvements.......... 56,500,000 51,300,000 50,000,000
Air Traffic Management [ATM]............................ 90,200,000 31,400,000 31,400,000
Air/Ground Communications Infrastructure................ 7,500,000 8,600,000 8,600,000
ATC Beacon Interrogator [ATCBI]--Replacement............ 13,000,000 4,700,000 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]............... 23,300,000 16,700,000 16,700,000
Oceanic Automation System............................... 20,700,000 7,700,000 7,700,000
Corrider Weather Integrated System [CWIS]............... 5,900,000 2,300,000 2,300,000
San Juan Radar Approach Control [CERAP]................. 6,000,000 .............. ..............
Next Generation Very High Frequency Air/Ground 46,400,000 70,200,000 70,200,000
Communications System [NEXCOM].........................
System-Wide Information Management...................... 43,042,500 54,600,000 56,600,000
ADS-B NAS Wide Implementation........................... 300,000,000 201,350,000 201,350,000
Wind Hazard Detection Equipment......................... 807,500 .............. ..............
Windshear Detection Services............................ .............. 1,000,000 1,000,000
Weather and Radar Processor [WARP]...................... .............. 17,600,000 17,600,000
Collaborative Air Traffic Management Technologies....... .............. 18,100,000 18,100,000
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal En Route Programs............................ 860,700,000 683,400,000 684,100,000
===============================================
Terminal Programs:
Airport Surface Detection Equipment--Model X [ASDE-X]... 33,700,000 17,302,000 25,302,000
Terminal Doppler Weather Radar [TDWR]--Provide.......... 6,100,000 9,900,000 9,900,000
Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System [STARS] 28,200,000 28,000,000 28,000,000
(TAMR Phase 1).........................................
Terminal Automation Modernization/Replacement Program 3,000,000 3,000,000 23,000,000
(TAMR Phase 3).........................................
Terminal Automation Program............................. 4,300,000 9,600,000 9,600,000
Terminal Air Traffic Control Facilities--Replace........ 136,545,476 176,000,000 179,250,000
ATCT/Terminal Radar Approach Control [TRACON] 37,900,000 38,900,000 38,900,000
Facilities--Improve....................................
Terminal Voice Switch Replacement [TVSR]................ 8,400,000 10,500,000 10,500,000
NAS Facilities OSHA and Environmental Standards 26,000,000 26,000,000 26,000,000
Compliance.............................................
Airport Surveillance Radar [ASR-9]...................... 8,800,000 3,500,000 3,500,000
Terminal Digital Radar [ASR-11]......................... 17,100,000 12,600,000 12,600,000
DOD/FAA Facilities Transfer............................. 1,400,000 .............. ..............
Precision Runway Monitors............................... 1,000,000 .............. ..............
Runway Status Lights.................................... 26,960,000 117,300,000 117,300,000
National Airspace System Voice Switch [NVS]............. 10,000,000 26,600,000 26,600,000
Weather System Processor................................ 700,000 .............. ..............
Next Generation Voice Recorder Replacement Progaram..... 10,800,000 11,900,000 11,900,000
Houston Area Air Traffic Systems [HAATS]................ 3,600,000 .............. ..............
Integrated Display System [IDS]......................... 7,000,000 7,000,000 7,000,000
ASR-8 Service Life Extension Program.................... 3,000,000 .............. ..............
Integrated Terminal Weather System [ITWS]............... 4,500,000 1,900,000 1,900,000
Remote Maintenance Monitoring........................... .............. 1,000,000 1,000,000
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Terminal Programs........................... 379,005,476 501,002,000 532,252,000
===============================================
Flight Service Programs:
Automated Surface Observing System [ASOS]............... 8,500,000 5,500,000 5,500,000
Flight Service Station [FSS] Modernization.............. 14,600,000 20,100,000 20,100,000
Weather Camera Program (moved from Safeflight).......... 2,000,000 3,800,000 3,800,000
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Flight Service Programs..................... 25,100,000 29,400,000 29,400,000
===============================================
Landing and Navigational Aids Program:
VHF Omnidirectional Radio Range [VOR] with Distance 7,500,000 5,000,000 5,000,000
Measuring Equipment [DME]..............................
Instrument Landing System [ILS]--Establish.............. 9,050,000 8,600,000 10,100,000
Wide Area Augmentation System [WAAS] for GPS............ 91,656,000 97,400,000 91,000,000
Runway Visual Range [RVR]............................... 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000
Approach Lighting System Improvement Program [ALSIP].... 13,614,000 8,700,000 9,700,000
Distance Measuring Equipment [DME]...................... 6,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000
Visual NAVAIDS--Establish/Expand........................ 1,700,000 3,700,000 3,700,000
Instrument Flight Procudures Automation [IFPA].......... 10,900,000 7,900,000 7,900,000
Navigation and Landing Aids--Service Life Extension 1,000,000 6,000,000 7,000,000
Program [SLEP].........................................
VASI Replacement--Replace with Precision Approach Path 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,500,000
Indicator..............................................
GPS Civil Requirements.................................. 20,700,000 43,400,000 43,400,000
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Landing and Navigational Aids Programs...... 171,120,000 195,700,000 193,300,000
===============================================
Other ATC Facilities Programs:
Fuel Storage Tank Replacement and Monitoring............ 6,100,000 6,200,000 6,200,000
Unstaffed Infrastructure Sustainment.................... 15,300,000 18,200,000 18,200,000
Air Navigational Aids and ATC Facilities (Local 1,500,000 .............. ..............
Projects)..............................................
Aircraft Related Equipment Program...................... 7,400,000 9,000,000 9,000,000
Aircraft Related Equipment Simulator Replacement........ 400,000 1,000,000 1,000,000
Airport Cable Loop Systems--Sustained Support........... 7,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000
Alaskan NAS Interfacility Communications System [ANICS]. 5,000,000 9,000,000 9,000,000
Facilities Decommissioning.............................. 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000
Electrical Power Systems--Sustain/Support............... 50,000,000 101,000,000 87,750,000
Aircraft Fleet Modernization--International Aircraft.... 24,900,000 .............. ..............
Aircraft Fleet Modernization............................ 3,000,000 5,969,000 5,969,000
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Other ATC Facilities Programs............... 125,600,000 161,369,000 148,119,000
===============================================
Total, Activity 2..................................... 1,561,525,476 1,570,871,000 1,587,171,000
===============================================
Activity 3, Non-Air Traffic Control Facilities and Equipment:
Support Equipment:
Hazardous Materials Management.......................... 18,000,000 20,000,000 20,000,000
Aviation Safety Analysis System [ASAS].................. 18,900,000 10,500,000 10,500,000
Logistics Support System and Facilities [LSSF].......... 9,300,000 9,300,000 9,300,000
National Air Space Recovery Communications [RCOM]....... 10,000,000 10,230,000 10,230,000
Facility Security Risk Management....................... 15,000,000 18,000,000 18,000,000
Information Security.................................... 12,000,000 12,276,000 12,276,000
System Approach for Safety Oversight.................... 14,300,000 20,000,000 20,000,000
Aviation Safety Knowledge Management Environment [ASKME] 7,900,000 8,100,000 8,100,000
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Support Equipment......................... 105,400,000 108,406,000 108,406,000
===============================================
Training, Equipment and Facilities:
Aeronautical Center Infrastructure Modernization........ 13,500,000 13,810,500 13,810,500
National Airspace System [NAS] Training Facilities...... 1,400,000 .............. ..............
Distance Learning....................................... 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000
National Airspace System [NAS] Training--Simulator...... 20,000,000 6,700,000 6,700,000
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Training, Equipment, and Facilities......... 36,400,000 22,010,500 22,010,500
===============================================
Total, Activity 3..................................... 141,800,000 130,416,500 130,416,500
===============================================
Activity 4, Facilities and Equipment Mission Support:
System Support and Services:
System Engineering and Development Support.............. 31,000,000 31,700,000 31,700,000
Program Support Leases.................................. 43,504,524 37,500,000 37,500,000
Logistics Support Services [LSS]........................ 7,900,000 11,000,000 11,000,000
Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center Leases................ 15,800,000 16,200,000 16,200,000
Transition Engineering Support.......................... 10,700,000 15,000,000 15,000,000
Frequency and Spectrum Engineering...................... 3,500,000 3,600,000 3,600,000
Technical Support Services Contract [TSSC].............. 22,000,000 22,000,000 22,000,000
Resource Tracking Program [RTP]......................... 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000
Center for Advanced Aviation System Development [CAASD] 78,000,000 79,000,000 79,000,000
Aeronautical Information Management Program............. 10,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Activity 4..................................... 226,404,524 230,000,000 230,000,000
===============================================
Activity 5, Personnel and Related Expenses:
Personnel and Related Expenses--ATO......................... 460,500,000 470,000,000 470,000,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total, All Activities..................................... 2,742,095,000 2,925,202,000 2,942,352,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ENGINEERING, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION

Next Generation Transportation System.--The Committee
recommendation includes a total of $358,140,770 for research
and demonstration projects to build new capabilities necessary
for the FAA to develop the next generation air transportation
system [NextGen]. The recommended funding level for these
activities equals the budget request, and it is $156,840,770
more than the fiscal year 2009 enacted level.
These research and demonstration projects are meant to help
the FAA move away from an air transportation system that relies
on radar technology and a collection of incompatible software
systems, and towards a system that takes advantage of satellite
technology and network-enabled operations. The FAA has
identified six different areas in which it will conduct these
projects: system development; trajectory-based operations;
weather reduction impact; high density arrivals and departures;
collaborative air traffic management; flexible terminals and
airports; safety, security, and the environment; and networked
facilities.
The FAA intends to use these funds to determine how new
approaches to air transportation can be translated into actual
technologies, programs, and practices at the FAA. The Committee
recognizes that the results of this work will be, by their
nature, less predictable than most other projects funded in the
Facilities and Equipment account. The FAA may at times
determine that some of the ideas tested with this funding may
not offer enough benefits to justify further investment.
The Committee, however, expects the FAA to track the
following: research and demonstration activities conducted with
fiscal year 2010 funding, the contribution of each project to
the overall architecture developed for the NextGen program, the
results or lessons learned from each project, what these
lessons mean for the next step that the FAA must take in moving
toward the completion of NextGen, and how those next steps fit
into the program's architecture. The Committee directs the FAA
to report on each of these topics no later than 18 months after
the enactment of this bill.
NextGen Integrated Airport.--The Committee recommends
$850,000 for the NextGen Integrated Airport project at Daytona
Beach International Airport. Embry-Riddle and a consortium of
private businesses have been working jointly with the Federal
Aviation Administration to undertake a technology project that
successfully integrates convective weather into the Traffic
Management Advisory system using a system-wide information
management platform. The funding provided for this project will
continue and expand on efforts to demonstrate that current and
predictive weather information can be made available to
critical air traffic control personnel utilizing systems that
are already in place.

AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

En Route Automation Modernization.--Under the En Route
Automation Modernization [ERAM] program, the FAA is replacing
the computer network for the air traffic control facilities
that manage high-altitude traffic. Modernizing this network is
critical to allowing the FAA to continue managing air traffic
effectively. It is also an essential component of moving the
FAA into the next generation of air traffic control. The
Committee recommendation includes $171,750,000 for the ERAM
program. This funding level is equal to the budget request, and
$31,300,000 less than the fiscal year 2009 enacted level.
The FAA established an aggressive schedule for the ERAM
program, and until recently, its managers have been able to
keep the program on budget and ahead of schedule. This past
year, the FAA has had to delay some of the accelerated ERAM
milestones. For example, the initial operating capability was
delayed from fall of 2008 to early spring this year so that the
FAA could address software problems. Because some of these
software solutions were complex in nature, the delivery of the
software itself was then delayed by 3 weeks. However, the
program remains within the budget and schedule that the agency
established in the program's formal baseline. The FAA still
expects to run the new ERAM software at two key sites--Salt
Lake City and Seattle--before the end of this calendar year,
and to have the remaining sites to be running on ERAM software
before the end of calendar year 2010.
The Committee continues to monitor the ERAM program because
of its importance to the ability of the FAA to manage the
national airspace safely and efficiently. While pleased that
the program remains on time and on budget, the Committee is
concerned by reports that the software may not have been
functioning as it should have by the time the FAA was ready to
test its use. After the initial testing of ERAM at the key
sites, there were allegations that the number of software
problems and the significance of those problems indicated that
ERAM was not ready to be relied on for managing air traffic.
The FAA maintained that the program was developing well, but a
completely different story was being told by air traffic
controllers who worked at the facilities and tested the
software.
The Committee is frustrated to hear two completely
different stories about ERAM's reliability. The FAA understands
that program managers do not regularly meet with air traffic
controllers or their representatives during important site
visits. Rather, program managers often meet with site managers
and rely on those site managers to convey essential information
to the air traffic controllers who work at the facility. The
Committee questions whether the conflicting stories about ERAM
are due, in part, because of this indirect form of
communication. The Committee therefore urges program managers
at the FAA to provide direct communication with the air traffic
controllers and their representatives who will be working with
developing software packages.
ARTCC Building Improvements/Plant Improvements.--The
Committee recommendation includes $50,000,000 for improvements
to air route traffic control center buildings and plants. This
funding level is $1,300,000 less than the budget request, and
$6,500,000 less than the fiscal year 2009 enacted level.
System-wide Information Management [SWIM].--The FAA has
identified the SWIM program as one of the foundations for
building the next generation air transportation system. Under
this program, the FAA is developing a new architecture that
will enable all of the individual FAA systems to communicate
and share data efficiently.
The Committee recommendation includes $56,600,000 for
System-wide Information Management, an increase of $2,000,000
more than the budget request. The Committee directs the FAA to
use these additional funds to continue to test, evaluate, and
develop mobile object technology, and to demonstrate the
benefits this technology can bring to the SWIM program,
Network-enabled Operations [NEO], and a 4D-trajectory National
Airspace System.

TERMINAL PROGRAMS

Airport Surface Detection Equipment, Model X.--The
Committee recommendation provides $25,302,000 for the Airport
Surface Detection Equipment, Model X [ASDE-X] program, an
increase of $8,000,000 over the budget request. The Committee
notes that while the ASDE-X program is ahead of schedule and
currently within its revised baseline, no funds were requested
in the budget to continue the acceleration of the program.
While the Committee acknowledges that the ASDE-X program
has had a troubled past in terms of having a clear, concise set
of requirements and a well defined schedule, the program has
met its accelerated schedule and is the technological
centerpiece for many future safety technologies, such as Runway
Status Lights. Given the important nature of the program, it is
unclear as to why the program's request does not include
funding to complete the accelerated schedule. The Committee
directs the FAA to use the additional resources to keep the
program on the accelerated schedule, and directs the FAA to
notify the Committee of any unanticipated change in the
program's schedule.
Terminal Automation Modernization/Replacement Program (TAMR
Phase 3).--Under the Terminal Automation Modernization/
Replacement Program (TAMR Phase 3), the FAA is replacing
outdated automation equipment at air traffic control towers and
at terminal facilities with more current systems. Automation
systems process data and display the information for air
traffic controllers. The older equipment is limited in its
capacity, and it is not immediately compatible with the
Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast [ADS-B] program, an
essential part of the FAA's efforts to modernize the Nation's
air transportation system. The FAA therefore set a goal for
upgrading automation equipment at all sites by 2013 in order to
continue meeting the milestones set for the ADS-B program.
The FAA's original estimates on the number of equipment
replacements that would be necessary under TAMR Phase 3 by 2013
was based on the assumption that the agency would be reducing
the number of its air traffic control facilities through
collocations and consolidations. However, the number of sites
has not actually been reduced, and the FAA will not be able to
meet its goal for 2013 if it continues under its current
schedule and budget. In fact, the FAA will need to replace
equipment at an additional 107 sites in order to avoid putting
the ADS-B schedule and budget at risk.
The Committee is therefore providing additional funding for
TAMR Phase 3 in order to accelerate the schedule of replacing
the automation technology at these 107 sites. The Committee
expects that the additional $20,000,000 provided for fiscal
year 2010 will support replacement of processors and displays
at 30 sites. The Committee provides this funding in recognition
of the fact that successfully building the next generation air
transportation system will require the FAA to coordinate a
great number of technology programs, including the agency's
legacy programs.
Terminal Air Traffic Control Facilities.--The Committee
recommendation includes $179,000,000 for new and replacement
air traffic control towers, and projects that consolidate air
traffic control tower with terminal radar approach control
facilities. This funding level is $3,000,000 more than the
budget request. The Committee directs the FAA to allocate these
additional funds as presented in the following table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Palm Springs International Airport, California.......... $2,000,000
Nantucket Memorial Airport, Massachusetts............... 1,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

LANDING AND NAVIGATIONAL AIDS PROGRAM

Instrument Landing System [ILS]--Establish.--The Committee
recommendation includes $8,850,000 for the establishment of
instrument landing systems, an increase of $250,000 more than
the budget request. The Committee directs the FAA to allocate
these additional funds as presented in the following table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Piedmont Triad International Airport, North Carolina.... $1,250,000
Rutland-Southern Vermont Regional Airport, Vermont...... 250,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wide Area Augmentation System [WAAS] for GPS.--The Wide
Area Augmentation System [WAAS] is a satellite-based technology
that supplements the Global Positioning System [GPS] in order
to improve the accuracy and integrity of GPS information. WAAS
technology allows aircraft to rely on GPS to conduct en route
operations as well as precision approach operations to
qualifying airports. The Committee recommendation includes
$91,000,000 for the Wide Area Augmentation System. This funding
level is $6,400,000 less than the budget request, and $656,000
less than the fiscal year 2009 enacted level.
Approach Lighting System Improvement Program [ALSIP].--The
Committee recommendation includes $9,700,000 for the
procurement and installation of frangible approach lighting
equipment. This funding level is $1,000,000 more than the
budget request. The Committee directs the FAA to allocate these
additional funds as presented in the following table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Juneau International Airport MALSR Lighting, Alaska..... $1,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Navigation and Landing Aids--Service Life Extension Program
[SLEP].--The Committee notes that Runway End Identifier Lights
[REILs] improve airport safety by clearly indicating to pilots
the approach end of the runway. The Committee notes that the
administration has requested no funds for REILs for fiscal year
2010. The Committee recommendation includes $7,000,000 for
navigation and landing aids. This funding level is an increase
of $1,000,000 more than the budget request, and $6,000,000 more
than the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. The Committee directs
the FAA to use these additional funds for the procurement and
installation of additional REIL systems.
VASI Replacement--Replace with Precision Approach Path
Indicator.--The FAA began to deploy Visual Approach Slope
Indicator [VASI] systems in the 1960s in order to provide
visual descent guidance to pilots as they approached an airport
runway. Since that time, the international standard for these
lighting systems has been raised, and the FAA must now replace
its VASI systems with Precision Approach Path Indicator [PAPI]
systems in order to come into compliance with the new
standards.
The Committee supports bringing FAA equipment into
compliance with international standards, and so the Committee
recommendation includes $4,500,000 for the replacement of VASI
lighting systems with PAPI lighting systems. This funding level
is $500,000 more than the budget request and the fiscal year
2009 enacted level. The Committee directs the FAA to use the
additional funding to procure additional PAPI systems.

OTHER ATC FACILITIES PROGRAMS

Electrical Power Systems--Sustain/Support.--The Committee
recommendation includes $90,000,000 for improvements to the
power systems infrastructure of the national airspace system.
This funding level is $11,000,000 less than the budget request,
and $40,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2009 enacted level.

RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, AND DEVELOPMENT

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2009.................................... $171,000,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 180,000,000
House allowance......................................... 195,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 175,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $175,000,000 for the FAA's
research, engineering, and development activities. The
recommended level of funding is $5,000,000 less than the budget
request and $4,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2009 enacted
level.
A table showing the fiscal year 2009 enacted level, the
fiscal year 2010 budget estimate, and the Committee
recommendation follows:

RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, AND DEVELOPMENT
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-------------------------------- Committee
2009 enacted 2010 estimate recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improve Aviation Safety:
Fire Research and Safety.................................... $6,650 $7,799 $7,299
Propulsion and Fuel System.................................. 3,669 3,105 3,105
Advance Material/Structural Safety.......................... 2,920 2,448 2,448
Atmospheric Hazards/Digital System Safety................... 4,838 4,482 4,482
Aging Aircraft.............................................. 14,589 10,944 10,944
Aircraft Catastrophic Failure Prevention Research........... 436 1,545 1,545
Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors..... 7,465 7,128 7,128
Aviation Safety Risk Analysis/System Safety Management...... 12,488 12,698 12,698
Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human Factors...... 10,469 10,302 10,302
Aeromedical Research........................................ 8,395 10,378 9,878
Weather Program............................................. 16,968 16,789 15,789
Unmanned Aircraft System.................................... 1,876 3,467 3,467
Improve Efficiency:
Joint Program and Development Office........................ 14,466 14,407 13,407
Wake Turbulence............................................. 10,132 10,631 10,631
NextGen--Air-Ground Integration............................. 2,554 5,688 5,688
NextGen--Self Separation.................................... 8,025 8,247 8,247
NextGen--Weather Technology................................. 8,049 9,570 9,070
Reduce Environmental Impacts:
Environment and Energy...................................... 15,608 15,522 15,022
NextGen Environmental Research.............................. 16,050 19,470 18,470
Mission Support:
System Planning and Resource Management..................... 1,817 1,766 1,766
William J. Hughes Technical Center Laboratory Facility...... 3,536 3,614 3,614
-----------------------------------------------
RE&D Total................................................ 171,000 180,000 175,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Center for Commercial Space Transportation Safety.--The
Committee recommends $1,000,000 for the creation of a Center
for Excellence for Space Transportation dedicated to research
and development activities at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical
University in Daytona Beach, Florida, that will help to ensure
that commercial space flight is a safe and secure enterprise.
Advanced Materials Research.--The Committee recommendation
includes $1,500,000 for the National Institute for Aviation
Research at Wichita State University in Wichita, Kansas, to
enhance ongoing aviation safety research in the areas of
metallic and nonmetallic structures, crashworthiness, and aging
aircraft effects. The funding will be used to purchase new
equipment, hire technical personnel, and conduct research in
advanced materials.
Nondestructive Inspection Training for Composite Airframe
Structures.--The Committee recommendation includes $250,000 for
research that will lead to a systematic approach to providing
for the safe use of composite and other advanced materials. The
funding will be used for technical personnel, facilities, and
equipment for the National Institute of Aviation Research to
provide a comprehensive education and training initiative for
composite airframe maintenance and airworthiness.
Advance Materials in Transport Aircraft Structures.--The
Committee recommendation includes $500,000 for research and
development of composite materials in transport aircraft
structures at the Advance Materials in Transport Aircraft
Structures Center in Seattle, Washington.

GRANTS-IN-AID FOR AIRPORTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liquidation of
contract Limitation on
authorization obligations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation, 2009...................... $3,600,000,000 $3,514,500,000
Budget estimate, 2010................. 3,000,000,000 3,515,000,000
House allowance....................... 3,000,000,000 3,515,000,000
Committee recommendation.............. 3,000,000,000 3,515,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of
$3,515,000,000 for grants-in-aid to airports for fiscal year
2010, which is equal to the budget estimate and $500,000 more
than the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. The Committee
recommendation is sufficient to continue the important tasks of
enhancing airport and airway safety, ensuring that airport
standards continue to be met, maintaining existing airport
capacity, and developing additional capacity.
In addition, the Committee recommends a liquidating cash
appropriation of $3,000,000,000 for grants-in-aid to airports.
The recommended level is equal to the budget estimate and
$600,000,000 less than the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. This
appropriation is sufficient to cover the liquidation of all
obligations incurred pursuant to the limitation on obligations
set forward in the bill.
Specifications and Standards for Airfield Pavement
Markings.--Retro-reflectivity and pilot visibility of airfield
pavement markings is a critical component of runway and
airfield safety, especially during operations at night and in
inclement weather. The Committee is concerned that information
included in the current Federal specification for high-index,
retro-reflective glass beads, and thus adopted within airport
construction and airport marking standards by the FAA, relies
on outdated test data. Product reformulation, color
enhancements and industry advancements over the past decade and
one-half have improved the performance and durability of high-
index, retro-reflective glass beads since this test data
referenced in the current Federal specification was compiled.
In addition, several technical evaluations of such high-index,
retro-reflective glass beads since 2003, including tests
conducted by the FAA, reflect conflicting data when compared to
tests conducted prior to 1996. The Committee therefore
encourages the FAA to serve as the primary Federal agency to
issue a revised specification and update any standards
referencing high-index, retro-reflective glass beads by
incorporating data and findings of federally funded research
conducted in this subject area, including any research
completed within fiscal year 2010. Not later than 120 days
after the date of enactment of this act, the Administrator of
the FAA shall submit a detailed report to the Senate Committee
on Appropriations explaining what actions will be taken to
clarify the issue concerning a revised Federal specification
and updated standards referencing high-index, retro-reflective
glass beads.
Wind Turbines.--The Committee notes that there are
sometimes considerable delays in determining if the location of
wind turbines will cause difficulties for airports and radar.
The Committee directs that the FAA address this issue in order
to respond more quickly to determine if particular wind
turbines will be a hazard to aviation.
Airport Discretionary Grants.--Of the funds covered by the
obligation limitation in this bill, the Committee directs FAA
to provide funding, out of available resources, for those
projects listed in the table below in the corresponding
amounts. The Committee agrees that State apportionment funds
may be construed as discretionary funds for the purposes of
implementing this provision. To the maximum extent possible,
the Administrator should work to ensure that airport sponsors
for these projects first use available entitlement funds to
finance the projects. However, the FAA should not require
sponsors to apply carryover entitlement to discretionary
projects funded in the coming year, but only those entitlements
applicable to the fiscal year 2010 obligation limitation. The
Committee further directs that the specific funding allocated
in the table below shall not diminish or prejudice the
application of a specific airport or geographic region to
receive other AIP discretionary grants or multi-year letters of
intent.

AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
State Airport name Project purpose recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AL.................................... Lanett Municipal........... For environmental $5,000,000
assessments, land
acquisition, and runway
construction.
IL.................................... Southern Illinois.......... For aircraft rescue 800,000
firefighting building
construction.
IL.................................... Quad City International.... For reconstruction and 500,000
extension and runway.
KY.................................... Louisville International... For airfield capacity 750,000
improvements.
KY.................................... Cincinnati/Northern For apron rehabilitation.. 1,500,000
Kentucky International.
MI.................................... Oakland County For replacement of Oakland 750,000
International. County International
Airport's obsolete
terminal building.
MO.................................... Lamar Municipal............ For construction of a new 2,750,000
runway.
MO.................................... Sikeston Memorial Municipal For relocation and 1,700,000
construction of a taxi-
way.
MS.................................... Gulfport-Biloxi For design and 2,500,000
International. construction of taxiway.
MS.................................... Jackson-Evers International For airfield improvements. 2,000,000
MS.................................... Mid Delta Regional......... For various runway 1,000,000
improvements.
MS.................................... Golden Triangle Regional... For a runway extension.... 2,000,000
ND.................................... Devils Lake Regional....... For runway improvements... 500,000
ND.................................... Grand Forks International.. For replacement of 2,500,000
terminal.
NY.................................... Buffalo Niagara For construction of a 400,000
International. Remain Overnight Apron.
TN.................................... Nashville International.... For reconstruction of a 1,500,000
portion of 2L-20R runway.
TX.................................... San Marcos Municipal....... For apron construction.... 1,000,000
VT.................................... Burlington International... For taxiway and apron 1,000,000
improvements.
WI.................................... Sheboygan County Memorial.. For reconstruction of 950,000
Runway 13/31 and Taxiways
F1 and F2.
WI.................................... Eagle River Union.......... For reconstruction and 850,000
expansion of ramp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Administrative Expenses.--The Committee recommends
$93,422,000 to cover administrative expenses. This funding
level is equal to the budget estimate, and $5,968,000 more than
the fiscal year 2009 enacted level.
Airport Cooperative Research.--The Committee recommends
$15,000,000 for the airport cooperative research program. This
funding level is equal to the budget estimate and the fiscal
year 2009 enacted level.
Airport Technology.--The Committee recommends $22,472,000
for airport technology research. This funding level is the same
as the budget request, and $3,142,000 more than the fiscal year
2009 level.
Small Community Air Service Development Program [SCASDP].--
The Committee recommends $8,000,000 for the Small Community Air
Service Development Program. This funding level is equal to the
fiscal year 2009 enacted level. The administration requested no
funds for this program for fiscal year 2010.

GRANTS-IN-AID FOR AIRPORTS

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

(RESCISSION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

Rescission, 2009........................................ -$80,000,000
Budget estimate, 2010...................................................
House allocation........................................................
Committee recommendation................................ -393,000,000

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a rescission of contract
authorization of $393,000,000 of unobligated balances of
contract authority.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

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

Federal Highway Administration

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

Under the Committee recommendations, a total program level
of $43,411,000,000 would be provided for the activities of the
Federal Highway Administration in fiscal year 2010. The
recommendation is $1,565,000,000 more than the budget request.
The recommendation is also $25,704,527,000 less than the fiscal
year 2009 enacted level, including funding provided as part of
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act [ARRA], and it is
$1,795,473,000 more than the fiscal year 2009 enacted level,
excluding such funding. The following table summarizes the
Committee's recommendations (excluding rescissions and funding
provided as part of ARRA):

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-------------------------------------- Committee
2009 enacted 2010 estimate recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-aid highway program obligation limitation...... $40,700,000,000 $5,000,000,000 $41,107,000,000
Federal-aid highway program budget authority........... ................. 36,107,000,000 .................
Additional investments in highway infrastructure....... ................. ................. 1,400,000,000
Surface transportation priorities...................... 161,327,000 ................. 165,000,000
Emergency relief program............................... 739,000,000 739,000,000 739,000,000
Appalachian development highway system................. 9,500,000 ................. .................
Denali access system program........................... 5,700,000 ................. .................
--------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................ 41,615,527,000 41,846,000,000 43,411,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Limitation, 2009........................................ $390,000,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 415,396,000
House allowance......................................... 413,533,000
Committee recommendation................................ 415,396,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of
$415,396,000 for administrative expenses of the agency. This
limitation is equal to the budget request and $25,396,000 more
than the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. The bill includes
language to make $3,809,000 of the limitation on administrative
expenses available to the Office of Inspector General to
conduct audits and investigations related to the FHWA.
In addition, $3,124,000 in contract authority above this
limitation is made available for the administrative expenses of
the Appalachian Regional Commission in accordance with section
104 of title 23, United States Code.
Ensuring the Success of Mass Evacuations.--The Committee
recognizes that the success of all-hazards mass evacuations
from major metropolitan areas is dependent on safe and high-
capacity highways and bridges. The Committee directs the
Department of Transportation [DOT], in cooperation with the
Department of Homeland Security [DHS], to assess the mass
evacuation plans for the country's most high-threat, high-
density areas and identify and prioritize current deficiencies
on the recommended evacuation routes that could impede
evacuations if not addressed. Further, for the National Capital
Region [NCR], the Committee directs the DOT, in cooperation
with DHS including the Office of the National Capital Region
Coordination, to conduct an analysis of how national highway
system projects currently under construction to the west of the
NCR could increase the NCR's evacuation capacity and provide a
detailed plan to accelerate such highway projects. The
Department shall submit its report to the Committee on
Appropriations no later than 120 days after the enactment of
this act.
Improving Bridge Safety.--Almost 2 years ago, the tragic
collapse of the Interstate 35W bridge in Minneapolis,
Minnesota, called attention to the deteriorating condition of
our Nation's bridges. There are almost 600,000 bridges across
the country. Although the likelihood of another collapse is
low, the consequences of such an event would again be a
catastrophe. In addition, bringing our bridges into good
condition would mean that travelers and freight would be able
to move across them efficiently and without unnecessary delay.
In the wake of the Minneapolis bridge collapse, the Federal
Highway Administration promised to improve the Federal
oversight of bridge maintenance. The Federal Highway
Administration started to make revisions to its Bridge Program
Manual in order to provide better guidance to its division
offices. Following a recommendation by the Inspector General,
the Federal Highway Administration began implementing a more
data-driven, risk-based method of overseeing bridge safety so
that the agencies limited resources could be targeted to the
areas of the greatest need. The agency also required its
division offices to conduct comprehensive reviews of States'
compliance with Federal standards and to assess bridge load
rating and posting practices.
While the Federal Highway Administration has taken a step
in the right direction, the Committee is disappointed in the
amount of progress that the agency has been able to accomplish
over the past couple of years. Too much time has passed without
enough progress to show for it.
The Committee notes that the final bridge manual still has
not been published. The manual was under review 1 year ago, and
it is still under review at the current time. The Committee
acknowledges that some of the issues that the agency must
address in revising its manual are complex in nature, but the
Committee remains unconvinced that the Federal Highway
Administration is taking an aggressive enough approach in
completing its work.
Earlier this year, the Inspector General issued a report
evaluating the Federal Highway Administration's implementation
of its new data-driven, risk-based oversight. The Inspector
General found significant holes in the new oversight regime.
When the Federal Highway Administration conducted its
compliance reviews and assessments, the Inspector General found
that the division offices made limited use of the agency's data
and conducted their work inconsistently from office to office.
The Inspector General attributed these shortcomings to the fact
that managers at Federal Highway Administration headquarters
provided no minimum requirements for the division offices to
follow. The Inspector General also found that headquarters
staff themselves did not routinely use data in order to focus
agency resources on the highest risk areas. Finally, the
Inspector General reported that the Federal Highway
Administration does not take an active approach in helping
States to improve the quality of data collected on bridges, a
shortcoming that could undermine any effort to base agency
efforts on high risk areas based on the results of data
analysis.
The Inspector General acknowledged that the efforts of the
Federal Highway Administration are limited in part by a lack of
resources. The agency lacks the manpower at the division
offices and at headquarters to devote significantly more
resources on bridge oversight. However, most of the
shortcomings identified by the Inspector General do not rely
solely on the presence of additional staff. The Federal Highway
Administration must take on the responsibility of setting clear
standards for its division offices.
The Committee expects the Federal Highway Administration to
make more significant progress in improving its oversight of
bridge conditions and safety over the course of fiscal year
2010. In order to ensure that the agency has the staff
necessary to conduct more rigorous oversight of bridges, the
Committee directs the Federal Highway Administration to use
$6,000,000 of the funds for hiring additional personnel at the
agency headquarters and in each of the division offices.
In addition, the Committee directs the Inspector General to
evaluate the Federal Highway Administration's progress in
fulfilling each of the recommendations given in his report on
the national bridge inspection program (Report Number MH-2009-
013), and to submit a report to the House and Senate Committees
on Appropriations with his findings no later than April 30,
2010.

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obligation
limitation (trust Budget authority
fund) (general fund)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation, 2009.................. $40,700,000,000 \1\$27,500,000,00
0
Budget estimate, 2010............. 5,000,000,000 36,107,000,000
House allowance................... 41,107,000,000 .................
Committee recommendation.......... 41,107,000,000 .................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The budget authority provided for this program for fiscal year 2009
was provided as emergency spending as part of the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act (Public Law 111-5).

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends limiting fiscal year 2010 Federal-
aid highways obligations to $41,107,000,000, which is equal to
the total level of funding requested by the President, and
$407,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2009 enacted level for
the Federal-aid highway program, excluding funding provided as
a part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
Within the overall limitation on fiscal year 2010 Federal-
aid highway obligations, the Committee recommends limiting
fiscal year 2010 obligations on transportation research to
$429,800,000. The recommendation for transportation research is
equal to the budget request. This specific limitation controls
spending for the transportation research and technology
programs of the FHWA, and it includes the intelligent
transportation systems; surface transportation research;
technology deployment, training and education; university
transportation research; and the Bureau of Transportation
Statistics.
In addition, the bill includes a provision that allows the
FHWA to collect and spend fees in order to pay for the services
of expert firms in the field of municipal and project finance
to assist the agency in the provision of TIFIA credit
instruments.
The following table shows the obligation limitation
provided to each State under the Committee's recommended
funding level:

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY PROGRAM OBLIGATION LIMITATION
[Fiscal year 2009 and President's request and Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2010]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Fiscal year 2009 budget request Committee
2010 recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Formula Programs

ALABAMA................................................ $664,181,764 $687,313,588 $687,313,588
ALASKA................................................. 290,717,063 306,492,208 306,492,208
ARIZONA................................................ 672,374,585 694,554,043 694,554,043
ARKANSAS............................................... 410,847,021 426,183,825 426,183,825
CALIFORNIA............................................. 3,002,777,749 3,106,055,097 3,106,055,097
COLORADO............................................... 451,065,359 467,363,776 467,363,776
CONNECTICUT............................................ 422,828,746 439,265,057 439,265,057
DELAWARE............................................... 129,898,054 135,165,109 135,165,109
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA................................... 126,772,019 131,310,650 131,310,650
FLORIDA................................................ 1,690,108,775 1,748,776,951 1,748,776,951
GEORGIA................................................ 1,143,842,745 1,183,320,551 1,183,320,551
HAWAII................................................. 136,011,037 141,936,283 141,936,283
IDAHO.................................................. 244,839,686 253,924,652 253,924,652
ILLINOIS............................................... 1,121,712,771 1,162,573,951 1,162,573,951
INDIANA................................................ 852,499,523 881,834,801 881,834,801
IOWA................................................... 384,432,661 398,755,189 398,755,189
KANSAS................................................. 327,579,516 340,408,612 340,408,612
KENTUCKY............................................... 568,095,523 588,546,800 588,546,800
LOUISIANA.............................................. 555,575,744 575,403,159 575,403,159
MAINE.................................................. 141,822,084 141,076,962 141,076,962
MARYLAND............................................... 518,543,985 537,202,618 537,202,618
MASSACHUSETTS.......................................... 531,894,794 552,271,464 552,271,464
MICHIGAN............................................... 926,977,662 961,766,642 961,766,642
MINNESOTA.............................................. 523,448,534 542,902,295 542,902,295
MISSISSIPPI............................................ 389,213,117 403,718,563 403,718,563
MISSOURI............................................... 762,024,021 789,274,386 789,274,386
MONTANA................................................ 315,817,904 327,444,124 327,444,124
NEBRASKA............................................... 244,575,447 253,657,642 253,657,642
NEVADA................................................. 256,097,971 266,309,073 266,309,073
NEW HAMPSHIRE.......................................... 146,151,389 151,802,205 151,802,205
NEW JERSEY............................................. 859,742,154 889,849,589 889,849,589
NEW MEXICO............................................. 310,184,441 321,314,740 321,314,740
NEW YORK............................................... 1,450,156,103 1,506,611,094 1,506,611,094
NORTH CAROLINA......................................... 930,622,868 962,552,246 962,552,246
NORTH DAKOTA........................................... 207,347,401 214,979,405 214,979,405
OHIO................................................... 1,147,361,001 1,187,464,703 1,187,464,703
OKLAHOMA............................................... 504,786,983 522,428,172 522,428,172
OREGON................................................. 372,563,076 387,051,148 387,051,148
PENNSYLVANIA........................................... 1,443,922,086 1,498,371,512 1,498,371,512
RHODE ISLAND........................................... 163,809,919 158,723,923 158,723,923
SOUTH CAROLINA......................................... 548,969,028 568,254,257 568,254,257
SOUTH DAKOTA........................................... 217,374,734 225,943,186 225,943,186
TENNESSEE.............................................. 704,208,483 729,516,981 729,516,981
TEXAS.................................................. 2,868,608,137 2,965,284,870 2,965,284,870
UTAH................................................... 259,427,213 269,661,219 269,661,219
VERMONT................................................ 134,115,890 139,559,125 139,559,125
VIRGINIA............................................... 859,531,139 888,826,389 888,826,389
WASHINGTON............................................. 556,453,022 576,047,950 576,047,950
WEST VIRGINIA.......................................... 350,067,330 363,159,189 363,159,189
WISCONSIN.............................................. 642,654,090 665,698,229 665,698,229
WYOMING................................................ 215,495,030 223,076,582 223,076,582
--------------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL......................................... 32,700,127,377 33,860,984,785 33,860,984,785
========================================================
Non-Formula Programs................................... 7,999,872,623 7,246,015,215 7,246,015,215
========================================================
TOTAL............................................ 40,700,000,000 41,107,000,000 41,107,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS PROGRAMS

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

INTERSTATE MAINTENANCE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
Project name recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
24th Street/I-15 Interchange, UT....................... $2,000,000
24th Street/I-15 Interchange, UT....................... 2,000,000
I-10 Interchange at Pecue Lane, LA..................... 1,100,000
I-12 Interchange at LA-16, Denham Springs, LA.......... 650,000
I-15 Corridor of the Future, NV........................ 1,000,000
I-15 Custer Avenue Interchange, MT..................... 3,000,000
I-235/US 54 and Central Avenue Interchange, KS......... 100,000
I-29 Fargo North to Sheyenne River, ND................. 1,000,000
I-5 Columbia River Crossing, WA........................ 2,000,000
I-70 Viaduct Realignment, KS........................... 500,000
I-75 at South Dixie Drive/Central Avenue Interchange, 500,000
OH....................................................
I-85 Widening in Davidson and Rowan Counties, NC....... 1,700,000
I-90 Belgrade East Interchange, MT..................... 1,500,000
I-95 Interchange with SR 202 (Butler Boulevard), FL.... 1,000,000
I-95 Pawtucket River Bridge Replacement, RI............ 1,800,000
IH-35W Congestion Relief, Fort Worth, TX............... 1,000,000
Interstate 280: Interchange Improvements, Harrison, NJ. 2,000,000
Interstate 29: Reconstruction and Utility Relocation 1,000,000
Project, IA...........................................
Interstate 40: New Conway South Interchange, AR........ 800,000
Interstate 430/630: Interchange Modification, AR....... 3,000,000
Interstate 540: Fayetteville-North, AR................. 3,000,000
Interstate 81: Exit 3 Interchange Improvements, PA..... 1,000,000
Interstate 95/Fairfax County Parkway Interchange at 1,000,000
Newington Road, VA....................................
Kapolei Interchange Complex, HI........................ 3,000,000
Marion Road Interchange, SD............................ 1,000,000
Meadowood Interchange, NV.............................. 1,000,000
Southern Nevada Beltway Interchanges, NV............... 1,000,000
Starr Road Interchange, NV............................. 3,000,000
Turnpike Improvement Project: SR-1 and I-95............ 1,500,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAYS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
Project name recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repairs to Waterville Road, TN.......................... $200,000
Navajo Route 42, Oljeto Road Resurfacing Project, UT.... 1,000,000
Choctaw Lake-Bluff Lake Route, MS....................... 1,500,000
SR-160 Blue Diamond Highway, NV......................... 1,000,000
Pyramid Highway, Sparks, NV............................. 500,000
South Access to the Golden Gate Bridge, Doyle Drive, 2,750,000
City and County of San Francisco, CA...................
CR 97, Nicolls Road Highway Improvements, NY............ 400,000
Federal Lands Improvement Project, HI................... 4,000,000
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, Community Streets Project, 600,000
Bear Soldier South, SD.................................
Hoover Dam Bypass Bridge, AZ............................ 4,250,000
BRAC-Related Improvements, Anne Arundel County, MD...... 2,300,000
BRAC-Related Improvements, Harford County, MD........... 2,300,000
BRAC-Related Improvements, Montgomery County, MD........ 2,300,000
BRAC-Related Improvements, Prince George's County, MD... 2,300,000
Kalispel Tribe Road Development from Sprague Avenue to 1,300,000
US 2, WA...............................................
Pyramid Highway Corridor, NV............................ 1,100,000
Boulder City Bypass, NV................................. 1,000,000
FH-24, Banks to Lowman, ID.............................. 2,000,000
Southern Nevada Beltway Interchanges, NV................ 2,250,000
SR-160 Nevada Expansion, NV............................. 2,250,000
West River Trail Bridge, VT............................. 170,000
Flight 93 National Memorial, PA......................... 1,400,000
SD Highway 63 Resurfacing, SD........................... 3,000,000
Forest Road Upgrade, MS................................. 500,000
Reconstruction of BIA Route 7 on the Turtle Mountain 1,200,000
Reservation, ND........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Equity Bonus.--The equity bonus program provides additional
funds to States to ensure that each State's total funding from
apportioned programs and for high priority projects meets
certain equity considerations. Each State is guaranteed a
minimum rate of return on its share of contributions to the
highway account of the Highway Trust Fund, and a minimum
increase relative to the average dollar amount of
apportionments under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century, or TEA-21. Certain States will maintain the share of
total apportionments they each received during TEA-21. An open-
ended authorization is provided, ensuring that there will be
sufficient funds to meet the objectives of the equity bonus. Of
the total amount of funds provided for this program, each year
$639,000,000 is exempt from the obligation limitation
recommended by the Committee.
Emergency Relief [ER].--Section 125 of title 23, United
States Code, provides $100,000,000 annually for the ER program.
This funding is not subject to the obligation limitation
recommended by the Committee. This program provides funds for
the repair or reconstruction of Federal-aid highways and
bridges and federally owned roads and bridges that have
suffered serious damage as the result of natural disasters or
catastrophic failures. The ER program supplements the
commitment of resources by States, their political
subdivisions, or Federal agencies to help pay for unusually
heavy expenses resulting from extraordinary conditions.
Highways for Life.--This program provides funding to
demonstrate and promote state-of-the-art technologies, elevated
performance standards, and new business practices in the
highway construction process that result in improved safety,
faster construction, reduced congestion from construction, and
improved quality and user satisfaction by inviting innovation,
new technologies, and new practices to be used in highway
construction and operations.
Ferry Boats and Ferry Terminal Facilities.--This program
provides funding for the construction of ferry boats and ferry
terminal facilities.
Within the funding available to the ferry boats and ferry
terminal facilities program, funds are to be made available to
the following projects and activities:

FERRY BOATS AND FERRY TERMINAL FACILITIES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
Project name recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Vessel Program--Propulsion System Acquisition, WA... $3,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

National Scenic Byways.--This program provides funding for
roads that are designated by the Secretary of Transportation as
All American Roads [AAR] or National Scenic Byways [NSB]. These
roads have outstanding scenic, historic, cultural, natural,
recreational, and archaeological qualities.
Transportation and Community and System Preservation
[TCSP].--The TCSP program provides grants to States and local
governments for planning, developing, and implementing
strategies to integrate transportation and community and system
preservation plans and practices. These grants may be used to
improve the efficiency of the transportation system; reduce the
impacts of transportation on the environment; reduce the need
for costly future investments in public infrastructure; and
provide efficient access to jobs, services, and centers of
trade.
Within the funding available to the transportation and
community and system preservation program, funds are to be made
available to the following projects and activities:

TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNITY AND SYSTEM PRESERVATION PROGRAM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
Project name recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5th and 6th Street Reconstruction, OR................... $800,000
7th Street Gateway Streetscape Enhancement Project, OR.. 500,000
Access Road to Melbourne International Airport, FL...... 800,000
Autumn Street Parkway, San Jose, CA..................... 1,000,000
Beaudry Road Crossing and Pathway Project, WA........... 600,000
Bossier Parish Congestion Relief, LA.................... 400,000
Camden Waterfront Neighborhood Development Initiative, 500,000
NJ.....................................................
Completion of Future I-99, US Route 15 in Steuben 1,000,000
County, NY.............................................
Downtown Development Authority Streetscape, Dahlonega, 392,000
GA.....................................................
El Camino East/West Corridor, AL........................ 1,500,000
Fish Lake Trail Completion, WA.......................... 2,000,000
Freeways and Arterial System of Transportation [FAST], 700,000
NV.....................................................
Hamilton Street Overpass Safety Project, WA............. 1,000,000
I-84, Broadway Avenue to Gowen Road Widening, ID........ 400,000
I-84, Caldwell to Nampa Widening, ID.................... 1,000,000
Interchange Design and Construction, Kansas Highway 10 500,000
and Lone Elm Interchange, Lenexa, KS...................
Interstate 579 ``Cap''--Urban Green Space & Park Plaza, 1,000,000
Pittsburgh, PA.........................................
Iowa Technology Corridor West Grand Avenue Extension, IA 600,000
Loop 82 Railroad Overpass, TX........................... 700,000
Midtown Transportation Infrastructure, NY............... 1,400,000
Monongalia Health Systems Access Road, WV............... 1,000,000
New Hanover Greenway System, NC......................... 250,000
New Orleans City Park Infrastructure Improvements, New 2,000,000
Orleans, LA............................................
Ninth Street Island Bridge Project, MT.................. 625,000
Pedestrian Safety Improvement Project, NY............... 300,000
Riggin Road at the Walnut Street Intersection, IN....... 1,000,000
Salters Road Expansion Along I-85, Greenville, SC....... 300,000
Scoping Study on Audubon and Natcher Parkways in Western 375,000
Kentucky, KY...........................................
South Lawrence Trafficway, KS........................... 1,250,000
State Road 133 from Albany to Moultrie, GA.............. 800,000
Town of Lexington Unified Traffic Plan--Phase I, SC..... 1,000,000
Union Crossing, MA...................................... 400,000
US 113 Improvements in Worcester County, MD............. 400,000
US 41/Cobb Parkway Expansion and Bridge Replacement, GA. 500,000
US 78 Upgrade to Interstate Standards, MS............... 1,000,000
US Highway 169 Widening Project, OK..................... 500,000
US-95, Thorncreek to Moscow, ID......................... 400,000
Wetzel Street Bridge Replacement, WV.................... 500,000
Widen Hwy 99W between SPRR Overpass and NW Circle 300,000
Boulevard, OR..........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation
[TIFIA].--The TIFIA credit program provides funds to assist in
the development of major infrastructure facilities through
greater non-Federal and private sector participation, building
on public willingness to dedicate future revenues or user fees
in order to receive transportation benefits earlier than would
be possible under traditional funding techniques. The TIFIA
program provides secured loans, loan guarantees, and standby
lines of credit that may be drawn upon to supplement project
revenues, if needed, during the first 10 years of project
operations.
As required by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, this
account records, for this program, the subsidy costs associated
with the direct loans, loan guarantees, and lines of credit
obligated in 1992 and beyond (including modifications of direct
loans or loan guarantees that resulted from obligations or
commitments in any year), as well as administrative expenses of
this program. The subsidy amounts are estimated on present
value basis; the administrative expenses are estimated on a
cash basis.
Appalachian Development Highway System.--This program makes
funds available to construct highways and access roads under
section 201 of the Appalachian Regional Development Act of
1965. Under SAFETEA-LU, funding is authorized for each of
fiscal years 2005 through 2009, 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.
High-priority Projects.--Funds are provided for specific
projects identified in SAFETEA-LU. Over 5,000 projects are
identified, each with a specified amount of funding over the 5
years of SAFETEA-LU.
Projects of National and Regional Significance.--This
program provides funding for specific projects of national or
regional importance listed in SAFETEA-LU.
Delta Region Transportation Development Program.--This
program encourages multistate transportation planning and
supports the development of transportation infrastructure in
the eight States that comprise the region of the Mississippi
Delta: Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee.
Within the funding available to the Delta Region
Transportation Development Program, funds are to be made
available to the following projects and activities:

DELTA REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
Project name recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Poplar Bluff Industrial Park Bypass, MO................. $2,000,000
Interstate 55 Interchange, MO........................... 1,000,000
Capitol Street Renaissance Project--Transportation 1,150,000
Improvements, MS.......................................
Statesman Boulevard and Trail, MS....................... 1,500,000
Jonestown Bypass, MS.................................... 1,250,000
Interstate 55 Interchange Lighting, MS.................. 600,000
Route 34, MO............................................ 1,150,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Railway-Highway Crossing Hazard Elimination in High-speed
Rail Corridors.--This program provides grants for safety
improvements at grade crossings between railways and highways
on designated high-speed rail corridors.
Within the funding available for this program, funds are to
be made available to the following projects and activities:

ELIMINATION OF RAIL-HIGHWAY GRADE CROSSING HAZARDS IN HIGH-SPEED RAIL
CORRIDORS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
Project name recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
55th Street East Grade Separation, ND................... $1,900,000
Alameda Corridor East Grade Separations, CA............. 2,000,000
Livingston Railroad Grade Separation Undercrossing, MT.. 600,000
Railway-Highway Grade Crossing Mitigation, Northeastern 2,000,000
Illinois...............................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2009.................................... $41,439,000,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 33,000,000,000
House allowance......................................... 41,846,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 41,846,000,000

The Committee recommends a liquidating cash appropriation
of $41,846,000,000. The recommended level is $8,846,000,000
more than the budget request and is necessary to pay
outstanding obligations from various highway accounts pursuant
to this and prior appropriations acts.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

Section 120 distributes obligation authority among Federal-
aid highway programs.
Section 121 continues a provision that credits funds
received by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics to the
Federal-aid highways account.
Section 122 appropriates funds for the projects, programs,
and activities specified as follows:

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PRIORITIES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
Project name recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10th Avenue South Corridor Extension, Waverly, IA....... $500,000
4th Street Improvement Project, City of Moro, OR........ 126,076
53rd Avenue Bridge and Roadway Extension Project, OR.... 300,000
70th Avenue and Valley Avenue East Corridor Project, WA. 1,500,000
ADHS Corridor, H, WV.................................... 4,500,000
Airport Road Replacement, TN............................ 1,000,000
Anchor Lake Interchange and Service Road, MS............ 500,000
Arterial Road and Bridge Improvements, Matanuska-Susitna 1,000,000
Borough, AK............................................
Artesia Road Bypass, MS................................. 1,000,000
Bergen County Specialized Bus Transit, NJ............... 1,000,000
Blair Bypass--South Corridor, NE........................ 1,000,000
Bonneville Clark Couplet, NV............................ 500,000
Bossier Parish Congestion Relief Plan, Bossier Parish, 850,000
LA.....................................................
Brett Way Extension, OR................................. 300,000
Broad Street Parkway/Nashua River Bridge Enhancements, 500,000
NH.....................................................
Broadway Bridge Replacement Project, WA................. 3,200,000
Brush Creek-Troost Avenue Streetscape Improvements, MO.. 1,000,000
Byram-Clinton/Norrell Parkway, MS....................... 1,500,000
Cannon AFB BRAC County Road Improvements, NM............ 1,000,000
Cape Girardeau Riverwalk Trail, MO...................... 1,600,000
Carson City Freeway--Phase II, NV....................... 800,000
Central City, Trinity River Vision, Fort Worth, TX...... 500,000
Church Street Marketplace and Side Streets Improvements, 1,000,000
VT.....................................................
City of Hines Street Rehabilitation Project, OR......... 300,000
City of Providence Street Paving, RI.................... 800,000
City of Tuscaloosa Streetscape, AL...................... 2,000,000
Coalfields Expressway, WV............................... 2,000,000
Collins Road Improvements, Cedar Rapids, IA............. 1,000,000
Construction of Four Lane Highway on US 69 in Crawford, 1,500,000
Bourbon, and Cherokee Counties, KS.....................
Countywide Regional Loop Trail, Mount Clemens, MI....... 2,000,000
Defense Access Road, MS................................. 1,000,000
Denali Commission Transportation Program, AK............ 1,000,000
East Chester Street Improvement, TN..................... 785,000
East Loop, Brownsville, TX.............................. 500,000
East Metropolitan Corridor, MS.......................... 2,000,000
Emergency Access Ramp to Interstate 84, NY.............. 1,000,000
Fairfax County Parkway Interchange Improvements at Fair 600,000
Lakes Boulevard and Monument Drive, VA.................
FNSB Road and Bridge Improvements, AK................... 1,000,000
Gluckstadt Road and Interchange, MS..................... 1,500,000
Golden Gate Bridge Seismic Retrofit Construction 2,000,000
Project, CA............................................
Greensboro Greenway, NC................................. 500,000
Hardy County Complex Access Road, WV.................... 1,500,000
Hastings Bridge/Highway 61 Right-of-Way and 1,000,000
Construction, MN.......................................
Hattiesburg Longleaf Trace Rails to Trails, MS.......... 500,000
Henry Avenue Bridge Reconstruction, WI.................. 1,000,000
High Bridge Renovation, MT.............................. 300,000
Highway 167: Louisiana State Line to Sheridan, AR....... 1,400,000
Highway 226: Highway 67 to Highway 49, AR............... 1,000,000
Highway 63: Interchange Improvements, AR................ 2,000,000
Hogan Road Traffic Improvements, ME..................... 550,000
Holly Springs Road, MS.................................. 1,500,000
Hutchins Street Reconstruction, Berlin, NH.............. 800,000
Hybrid Composite-Concrete Bridges, ME................... 2,000,000
I-40 Boulevard Construction, OK......................... 1,000,000
I-44 Range Line Road Interchange, MO.................... 1,000,000
I-69, TX................................................ 500,000
Improvement of the South Connector Street, SD........... 1,250,000
Improvements to 159th Street, KS........................ 2,000,000
Indian River Inlet Bridge, DE........................... 800,000
Infrastructure Improvement at Height of Land, ME........ 2,900,000
International Railway Station/Intermodal Transportation 800,000
Center, NY.............................................
Interstate 69/Great River Bridge: Highway 65-MS Highway 2,000,000
1, AR..................................................
Iowa Highway 14-57 Complete Streets Corridor 2,000,000
Improvements in Parkersburg, IA........................
Jenny Barker Rd./K-156/Mary St Reconfiguration, KS...... 500,000
Kettering Gateway Project, Flint, MI.................... 1,200,000
King Coal Highway, WV................................... 2,000,000
Kittitas Highway Safety Improvements, WA................ 2,000,000
Knoxville Road Reconstruction, Mercer County, IL........ 500,000
LA 1 Goldenmeadow to Port Fourchon, Lafourche Parish, LA 1,000,000
Lafayette Interchange, MO............................... 1,000,000
Lake Harbour Drive, MS.................................. 1,500,000
Lake Merritt Improvement Project, CA.................... 850,000
Lesner Bridge Replacement, VA........................... 500,000
Lewis and Clark Legacy Trail, ND........................ 700,000
Longfellow Bridge Approach and Gateway, MA.............. 1,000,000
Lower Main Street Infrastructure Project, Claremont, NH. 500,000
Lowry Avenue Bridge Replacement, MN..................... 600,000
Mahoning Road Infrastructure and Economic Development 1,000,000
Project, OH............................................
MD 404 Improvements in Caroline, Talbot, and Queen 400,000
Anne's Counties, MD....................................
Missouri River Freight Corridor Development Study, MO... 900,000
MLK-Lincoln Avenue Railroad Grade Separation, WA........ 2,000,000
MO-13 and MO-82 Interchange, MO......................... 1,000,000
Naugatuck River Greenway, CT............................ 1,000,000
Nevada Pacific Parkway, NV.............................. 550,000
New York State Route 12, NY............................. 500,000
Newberg-Dundee Transportation Improvement Project, OR... 400,000
Newport Cliff Walk Restoration, RI...................... 500,000
North Broad Street Redevelopment Project, NJ............ 500,000
Northern Avenue Bridge Rehabilitation, MA............... 1,300,000
Northwest 66th Avenue Reconstruction, IA................ 600,000
Ohio Hub Plan, OH....................................... 700,000
Oktibbeha County Southern Bypass, MS.................... 500,000
Old Taylor Road Roundabouts, MS......................... 500,000
Ontario Oregon Railroad Underpass Rehabilitation and 300,000
Reconstruction, OR.....................................
Park Road Bridge Replacement and Dubuque Street 1,500,000
Elevation Project, Iowa City, IA.......................
Pioneer Street Rail Overpass Safety Improvement Project, 1,000,000
WA.....................................................
Pony Express Boulevard Extension, Herriman, UT.......... 1,000,000
Port of Everett Infrastructure Improvement Project, WA.. 1,200,000
R-170 Landslide Road Replacement, WA.................... 2,000,000
Reconstruction and Upgrade of 2300 West between 1900 1,500,000
South and the Interstate 15 West Frontage Road in Lehi,
UT.....................................................
Regional East-West Trail and Bikeway, Albuquerque, NM... 1,000,000
Remediation and Reuse of Reclaimed Port Land, DE........ 750,000
Replacement and Rehabilitation of Municipal Bridges and 500,000
Trestles, City of Ketchican, AK........................
Reunion Interchange, MS................................. 1,500,000
Rickenbacker Intermodal East-West Connector, OH......... 2,000,000
Road Improvements from 57th Street North to 1,000ft 1,500,000
South of 26th Street, Sioux Falls, SD..................
Route 1/Route 123 Interchange Improvements, VA.......... 600,000
Route 160 and Route 60 Interchange Improvements, MO..... 1,000,000
Route 27 Renaissance 2000 Project, NJ................... 1,000,000
Route 60/422 Interchange, PA............................ 500,000
Rutland Center Street Marketplace Improvements, VT...... 1,000,000
San Bernardo Avenue Restoration, Laredo, TX............. 500,000
San Jose Boulevard Improvements (Carlsbad), NM.......... 750,000
Sellwood Bridge Replacement Project, OR................. 1,300,000
Sitka Waterfront Development, AK........................ 500,000
South Street Reconstruction and Streetscape 1,000,000
Improvements, NY.......................................
Southeast Connector, IA................................. 2,000,000
Southwest Arterial Project, IA.......................... 400,000
St. John's Heritage Parkway Interchanges, Cities of 2,000,000
Melbourne and Palm Bay, Brevard County, FL.............
State Route 24/48, MS................................... 1,900,000
Sue Ann Big Crow and Oglala Trail and Bike Path 500,000
Enhancement, Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, SD.........
Thetford Village Pedestrian Improvements, VT............ 450,000
Tupelo Thoroughfare Northern Loop, MS................... 1,500,000
University of Kentucky Academy for Community 1,000,000
Transportation Innovation, KY..........................
Urban Collector Road, MS................................ 2,000,000
US 16B Improvements near US 16 to near SD 79, SD........ 500,000
US 195 Safety Improvements--Cheney-Spokane Road 2,000,000
Interchange, WA........................................
US 395 from Moana to Stead, NV.......................... 700,000
US 63, MO............................................... 1,000,000
US 70 Bridge Repairs, TN................................ 1,500,000
US 93 Corridor and Kalispell Bypass, MT................. 3,000,000
US Highway 97 and J Street Intersection Project, OR..... 700,000
US Route 17/Dominion Boulevard, VA...................... 500,000
US Route 35, WV......................................... 2,000,000
US Route 422 Westbound Off-Ramp Improvements at the Oaks 1,300,000
Interchange, PA........................................
Vidalia Port Access Road, Vidalia, LA................... 1,500,000
Wadhams Road Bridge over Black River, St. Clair, MI..... 3,000,000
Waterfront Redevelopment Access Project, WA............. 2,000,000
West County Line Road, MS............................... 1,500,000
West Haven Rail Passenger Station, CT................... 1,000,000
West Virginia Route 10, WV.............................. 2,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 123 appropriates an additional $1,400,000,000 for
highway infrastructure. Of this total additional funding,
$500,000,000 is provided for the Transportation Infrastructure
Finance and Innovation Act [TIFIA] program, which offers credit
assistance for significant transportation projects. This total
additional investment also includes $900,000,000 for a portion
of the Federal-Aid Highway program called the Surface
Transportation Program [STP]. Funding provided for STP would be
distributed to the States in the same proportion as the fiscal
year 2010 obligation limitation in order increase the
investment in essential transportation infrastructure
throughout the States. These targeted funding increases will
make possible the large-scale transportation projects that
address the bottlenecks, congestion, and deterioration that
riddle our transportation system, and it will also fund
transportation projects on a smaller scale to help maintain the
infrastructure that support our communities.
Section 124 provides requirements for any waiver of Buy
American requirements.
Section 125 continues a provision prohibiting tolling in
Texas, with exceptions.
Section 126 clarifies funding for a previously funded
project in Rhode Island.
Section 127 clarifies funding for a previously funded
project in Florida.
Section 128 clarifies funding for a previously funded
project in California.
Section 129 clarifies funding for a previously funded
project in Kansas.
Section 130 clarifies funding for a previously funded
project in Alabama.
Section 131 clarifies funding for a previously funded
project in Nevada.

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a level of $549,898,000 for the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. The language
provides the authority to obligate and liquidate $548,570,000
from the Highway Trust Fund, as well as an appropriation of
$1,328,000 from the General Fund. The Committee is assuming an
extension of SAFETEA-LU at the currently authorized levels. As
such it was necessary to provide budget authority in addition
to the contract authority made available under an extension to
meet the President's request for these safety programs. This
level is $8,898,000 more than the fiscal year 2009 enacted
level and equal to the budget request.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration [FMCSA] is
responsible for developing, implementing, and enforcing
regulations for the motor carrier industry that result in
qualified drivers and safe vehicles operating on our Nation's
highways. By effectively carrying out its responsibilities, the
agency provides the motor carrier industry with appropriate
guidance and sufficient oversight to ensure both the efficient
movement of goods and people and the safety of the Nation's
driving public.
In fiscal year 2009, this Committee voiced its
disappointment and frustration with the FMCSA's poor
performance in carrying out its mission. In particular, the
Committee cited inadequate regulations that had been struck
down by the courts, as well as weak oversight of the industry.
The Committee noted that the result of these actions, or
inaction, made it difficult for the industry to manage
operations in a compliant manner, and may in some instances
have actually undermined safety.
The Committee is pleased that since last year, some
progress has been made in improving motor carrier safety. The
most recent data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System
show a 12 percent reduction in the number of large truck
fatalities, from 4,822 in 2007 to 4,229 in 2008. The Committee
hopes that this is an indication that the agency's programs are
having a positive impact on motor carrier safety. However,
while these data point to improvements, the Committee remains
concerned other indicators, such as out of service rates--the
rate at which driver or vehicle violations are so severe as to
require a vehicle to be taken off the road--remain unchanged at
nearly 24 percent. The Committee is also troubled by the number
of safety recommendations that require action by the agency.
The recommendations that the FMCSA must address come from
audits and investigations conducted by the Department of
Transportation's Office of Inspector General [OIG], the
National Transportation Safety Board [NTSB], and the Government
Accountability Office [GAO]. For example, the OIG has made a
series of recommendations on the commercial driver's license
[CDL] program dating back to 2002, seven of which remain open.
FMCSA hopes to address these recommendations in a new rule that
will revise knowledge and skills testing standards, implement
fraud prevention efforts, and establish new minimum standards
for States to issue commercial drivers permits. However,
despite a legislative requirement that this rule be issued by
April 2008, the rule has yet to be issued.
In addition, in 2001, following an accident investigation,
the NTSB made several recommendations to the FMCSA in order to
prevent medically unqualified drivers from operating commercial
vehicles. This item was placed on the NTSB's Most Wanted List
in 2003, and FMCSA's response remains ``open unacceptable.'' In
updating its Most Wanted list in October 2008, the NTSB noted,
``. . . nearly a decade after the New Orleans, Louisiana,
accident that precipitated the issuance of these
recommendations, many issues in this area remain unaddressed,
and the overall system of driver medical certification is no
more effective this year than last.''
Finally, the GAO has done a series of assessments of the
FMCSA's programs, and one of their investigations recently
uncovered major flaws with the drug testing facilities used by
the agency. An important recommendation that the GAO made to
the FMCSA was to create a national drug testing database. The
FMCSA indicated that it was moving forward with the creation of
this database, however, the report requested by the Committee
which would detail a timeline for establishing this database
has not yet been submitted.
All of these recommendations speak to the serious and
necessary actions that the agency must take to improve and
strengthen its oversight of the industry. Importantly, the
agency must move with more urgency to address long-standing
recommendations that will result in fatality reductions. The
FMCSA will soon have the opportunity to request the additional
tools and authorities necessary to strengthen and enhance its
regulatory and oversight responsibilities during the
reauthorization of the bill that governs the FMCSA's funding
and programs. The current authorization expires at the end of
fiscal year 2009. As the administration considers its
reauthorization proposals for the FMCSA, the Committee expects
the administration to carefully consider the many serious
recommendations by the DOT OIG, the NTSB, and the GAO. These
recommendations provide the administration with a clear outline
of the weaknesses of the agency and the opportunities to have a
greater impact on safety.
However, while the reauthorization bill provides an
opportunity for the FMCSA to gain new authorities, the
Committee notes that the agency and the administration must not
wait for the passage of this new law. This administration must
address some outstanding issues left by the previous
administration. Several rules, including the CDL rule, need to
be issued. In addition, the administration also has the
opportunity to revisit existing rules, such as the
controversial hours-of-service regulations and the use of
electronic on-board recorders.
It is clear that there is a lot of work to be done to
strengthen the FMCSA and its oversight. However, the Committee
does note that the agency has taken some steps to address
improve its programs and policies. In particular, the agency is
undergoing an organization and systems overhaul as part of the
Comprehensive Safety Analysis [CSA] 2010. A pilot being
conducted as part of this initiative has shown some promise and
has provided some assurance to the NTSB that the agency is
taking steps to improve the safety of motor carrier operations.
Moreover, the agency's own Motor Carrier Safety Advisory
Committee has provided numerous recommendations for how the
agency can address the recommendations made by the OIG, the
NTSB, and the GAO. The Committee believes that the FMCSA has
the opportunity to generate further reductions in large truck
fatalities this year by addressing its many outstanding
recommendations, and expects the agency to seize this
opportunity.

MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY OPERATIONS AND PROGRAMS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Limitation, 2009........................................ $234,000,000
Budget estimate, 2010 (limitation)...................... 239,828,000
House allowance......................................... 239,828,000
Committee recommendation................................ 239,828,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of
$238,500,000 for FMCSA's Operations and Programs. The Committee
has also provided the authority to liquidate an equal amount of
contract authorization. The Committee has also appropriated
$1,328,000 from the General Fund. The recommendation is
$5,828,000 more than the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and
equal to the budget request.

OPERATING EXPENSES

The Committee recommends $183,051,000 for operating
expenses. This level is $5,551,000 more than the fiscal year
2009 enacted level and equal to the budget request.
Comprehensive Safety Analysis [CSA] 2010.--Over the past 5
years, the FMCSA has been undertaking comprehensive evaluation
and overhaul of its systems and operations. The Comprehensive
Safety Analysis [CSA] 2010 initiative is designed to improve
the effectiveness of the agency's compliance and enforcement
programs. The Committee strongly supports the agency's efforts
to improve its programs, and remains focused on ensuring that
CSA 2010 delivers the promised results.
The accompanying chart identifies the major milestones
associated with the development and implementation of CSA 2010.
The FMCSA has shown good progress in meeting the milestones for
implementing this new system. The Committee also appreciates
that the agency has taken steps to communicate to its partners
and stakeholders the changes that CSA 2010 will bring. Since
the FMCSA relies on its partners in the field to assist them in
fulfilling its mission, continued communication with and
training of its partners in the field will be critical to the
success of this initiative.
The Committee notes that the FMCSA missed its target date
for issuing its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking related to the
safety fitness determination rating system. This rulemaking
will be subject to great scrutiny, which is likely to require a
significant amount of time, so delays in the rulemaking will
delay the potential safety benefits of this new system. The
Committee expects the FMCSA to meet its new target date of
October 2009.
In the agency's report to the Committee, the FMCSA noted
that the preliminary results of the test model for CSA 2010
have been encouraging. The test is slated to conclude in June
2010, with full deployment at the end of 2010. As such, the
Committee directs the FMCSA to submit a report to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations by March 15, 2010 regarding
the results of phase I of the pilot and any preliminary results
of phase II. The report should also include an update to the
spend plan required in fiscal year 2009. In addition, the
Committee requests that the GAO continue to monitor the
implementation of CSA 2010. The GAO's review should include an
assessment of the pilot being conducted as part of the
initiative, as well as a review of FMCSA's ability to meet the
milestones and cost estimates included in its spend plan.

CSA MILESTONES, 2008-2011
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008 2009 2010 2011
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August:
Final report on measurement
methodology (in review)
SFD Final report (in review)

September:
Establish protocols for program
evaluation data collection (in
process)
Define interventions for BASICs of:
Driver Fitness
Controlled Substances and Alcohol
Improper Loading/Cargo Securement
Crash History (in process)
Develop policy, guidance and aids
for interventions, Phase II (in
process)
Document intervention selection
guidance for Phase II BASICs (in
process)
Deliver refined concept of
operations for Phase II
(incomplete)
Deliver training for Phase II (in
process)
Initiate Phase II of operational
model test (scheduled)

November:
Deliver final rulemaking support
paper (complete)
October:
December: Coordinate with FMCSA Reauthorization Working
Annual public listening session/ Group (ongoing).
report-out (ongoing) Deliver final report of findings from analyses
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and evaluation (incomplete)\1\.
(incomplete)

March:

July:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Original completion date scheduled for November 2008.

High-risk Carriers.--In fiscal years 2008 and 2009, the
Committee directed additional resources toward FMCSA's effort
to meet the requirement to conduct compliance reviews on all
motor carriers that are identified as high risk. In addition,
the Committee required quarterly reports on the agency's
ability to meet this requirement. Since the agency first began
reporting to the Committee, the agency's performance in meeting
this requirement has increased significantly, from 69 percent
to 86 percent. While the Committee is pleased with this
progress, the Committee expects the agency to continue to make
strides in order to fulfill this requirement.
Since the President's budget is essentially baseline
funding, the Committee has not redirected additional resources
for this activity. However, the Committee expects that the
additional $500,000 requested for travel will fund additional
compliance reviews on high- risk carriers. The Committee also
directs the agency to continue to provide the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations with quarterly reports on its
ability to meet its requirement to evaluate high risk carriers.
ADA Compliance.--For several years, this Committee has
pushed the FMCSA to enforce DOT's own Americans with Disability
Act [ADA] regulations for over-the-road curbside operators. It
took the passage of a law by Congress to compel the agency to
accept its responsibility to deny or revoke operating authority
based on an operator's inability or unwillingness to meeting
DOT's ADA regulations. However, to date the FMCSA has not taken
any enforcement actions related to ADA noncompliance. The
Committee once again directs the FMCSA to include information
in its budget for fiscal year 2011 on enforcement actions the
agency has taken, including the number of denials or
revocations based on noncompliance with ADA regulations. The
Committee expects the information to demonstrate that the FMCSA
takes its responsibility to enforce DOT's ADA regulations
seriously.

PROGRAM EXPENSES

The Committee recommends $56,777,000 for FMCSA's program
expenses. Funding is provided for the programs as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
2009 enacted 2010 estimate recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research and Technology................................ $8,500,000 $8,543,000 $8,500,000
Information Management................................. 34,445,000 34,617,000 34,722,000
Regulatory Development................................. 9,686,000 9,728,000 9,680,000
Outreach and Education................................. 2,875,000 2,889,000 2,875,000
CMV Operations Grants.................................. 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMPASS.--The Creating Opportunities, Methods and Practices
to Secure Safety [COMPASS] program was undertaken by the FMCSA
to integrate the agency's information technologies with its
business practices and create a single source of safety data.
In the agency's report to the Committee, the FMCSA detailed the
functionalities delivered by the system as well as the legacy
systems that will be retired as the system becomes more robust.
The Committee believes that continued progress in this area
is critical to the agency's efforts to improve its systems and
better target the riskiest carriers. As such, the Committee
directs the agency to submit an updated spend plan for the
COMPASS by May 1, 2010.
Research and Technology Education.--In May 2009, the FMCSA
submitted a plan to the Committee detailing its planned
research and technology funding, as well as the safety benefits
of that research. The Committee is pleased that the agency's
efforts are aimed at safety technologies that promise to reduce
fatalities and improve safety. However, it is unclear how
quickly these technologies will be deployed by the industry.
The Committee believes that, at a minimum, the FMCSA should be
more aggressively sharing the safety benefits with the motor
carrier industry and promoting these safety technologies.
Therefore the Committee directs that the FMCSA use at least
$100,000 of the education and outreach budget to educate motor
carrier operators on available safety technologies and promote
those most likely to result in meaningful safety benefits.

MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY GRANTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

(INCLUDING RESCISSION)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liquidation of
contract Limitation on
authorization obligations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2009.............. $307,000,000 $307,000,000
Budget estimate, 2010............. 289,000,000 310,070,000
House allowance................... 310,070,000 310,070,000
Committee recommendation.......... 310,070,000 310,070,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of
$310,070,000 for motor carrier safety grants. The recommended
limitation is consistent with the budget estimate. The
Committee has also provided the authority to liquidate an equal
amount of contract authorization.
The Committee recommendation is $3,070,000 more than the
fiscal year 2008 enacted level. The Committee recommends a
separate limitation on obligations for each grant program
funded under this account with the following funding
allocations:

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

PRISM.--In fiscal year 2008, the Committee directed the
Government Accountability Office [GAO] to evaluate the extent
to which the PRISM program has assisted States and the FMCSA in
identifying and taking effective enforcement action against
unsafe motor carriers. In addition, the Committee wanted the
GAO to examine steps that could assist in fully implementing
PRISM nationally. The GAO found that in the States where PRISM
is being used to deny, revoke or suspend operating authority,
the program has shown safety benefits. However, GAO also noted
that the impact of its program is hard to measure, in part,
because the program is not implemented nationally. The
Committee recommendation includes funding for grants to
implement PRISM. However, the Committee encourages the FMCSA to
examine strategies that the agency can employ in order to
ensure full implementation of PRISM nationally, including
potential administrative or legislative changes.
The bill also rescinds $1,530,000 in unobligated balances
from amounts made available under this heading in prior
appropriations acts.

MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

(RESCISSION)

The bill rescinds $3,400,000 in unobligated balances from
amounts made available under this heading in prior
appropriations acts.

NATIONAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY PROGRAM

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

(RESCISSION)

The bill rescinds $400,000 in unobligated balances from
amounts made available under this heading in prior
appropriations acts.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Section 135 subjects the funds in this act to section 350
of Public Law 107-87 in order to ensure the safety of all
cross-border long haul operations conducted by Mexican-
domiciled commercial carriers.
The Committee notes that the Congress acted earlier this
year to suspend the Mexican trucking pilot program because of
serious and legitimate safety concerns, and expects that the
administration will not commence another Mexican trucking pilot
program until those concerns have been addressed and resolved.
The Committee urges the administration to work expeditiously
with the Mexican Government to establish a proposal to
implement a cross-border trucking program that maintains the
safety of our roads and highways and enhances the efficient
movement of commerce.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA]
is responsible for motor vehicle safety, highway safety
behavioral programs, and the motor vehicle information and
automobile fuel economy programs. The Federal Government's
regulatory role in motor vehicle and highway safety began in
September 1966 with the enactment of the National Traffic and
Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (codified as chapter 301 of
title 49, United States Code) and the Highway Safety Act of
1966 (codified as chapter 4 of title 23, United States Code).
The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966
instructs the Secretary to reduce traffic crashes and deaths
and injuries resulting from traffic crashes; establish motor
vehicle safety standards for motor vehicles and motor vehicle
equipment in interstate commerce; carry out needed safety
research and development; and expand the National Driver
Register. The Highway Safety Act of 1966 instructs the
Secretary to increase highway safety by providing for a
coordinated national highway safety program through financial
assistance to the States.
In October 1966, these activities, originally under the
jurisdiction of the Department of Commerce, were transferred to
the Department of Transportation, to be carried out through the
National Traffic Safety Bureau. In March 1970, the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA] was established
as a separate organizational entity in the Department. It
succeeded the National Highway Safety Bureau, which previously
had administered traffic and highway safety functions as an
organizational unit of the Federal Highway Administration.
NHTSA's mission was expanded in October 1972 with the
enactment of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act
(now codified as chapters 321, 323, 325, 327, 329, and 331 of
title 49, United States Code). This act as originally enacted,
instructs the Secretary to establish low-speed collision bumper
standards, consumer information activities, and odometer
regulations. Three major amendments to this act have been
enacted: (1) a December 1975 amendment directs the Secretary to
set and administer mandatory automotive fuel economy standards;
(2) an October 1984 amendment directs the Secretary to require
certain passenger motor vehicles and their major replacement
parts to be marked with identifying numbers or symbols; and (3)
an October 1992 amendment directs the Secretary to set and
administer automobile content labeling requirements.
NHTSA's current programs are authorized in five major laws:
(1) the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (chapter
301 of title 49, United States Code); (2) the Highway Safety
Act (chapter 4 of title 23, United States Code); (3) the Motor
Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act [MVICSA] (part C of
subtitle VI of title 49, United States Code); (4) the National
Driver Register Act of 1982; and (5) the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for
Users [SAFETEA-LU].
The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides
for the establishment and enforcement of safety standards for
vehicles and associated equipment and the conduct of supporting
research, including the acquisition of required testing
facilities and the operation of the National Driver Register,
which was reauthorized by the National Driver Register Act of
1982.
The Highway Safety Act provides for coordinated national
highway safety programs (section 402 of title 23, United States
Code) to be carried out by the States and for highway safety
research, development, and demonstration programs (section 403
of title 23, United States Code). The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of
1988 (Public Law 100-690) authorized a new drunk driving
prevention program (section 410 of title 23, United States
Code) to make grants to States to implement and enforce drunk
driving prevention programs.
SAFETEA-LU, which was enacted on August 10, 2005, either
reauthorized or added new authorizations for the full range of
NHTSA programs for fiscal years 2005 through 2009.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $868,153,000 for the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA]. This total
funding level includes both budget authority and limitations on
the obligation of contract authority. This funding is $925,000
more than the President's request and $12,153,000 more than the
fiscal year 2009 enacted level.
The following table summarizes the Committee
recommendations excluding rescissions:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
Program -------------------------------- Committee
2009 enacted 2010 estimate recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations and Research......................................... $232,500,000 $237,103,000 $241,303,000
National Driver Register........................................ 4,000,000 4,078,000 7,350,000
Highway Traffic Safety Grants................................... 619,500,000 626,047,000 619,500,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 856,000,000 867,228,000 868,153,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OPERATIONS AND RESEARCH

Appropriations, 2009.................................... $232,500,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 237,103,000
House allowance......................................... 240,628,000
Committee recommendation................................ 241,303,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee has provided $241,303,000 for Operations and
Research. This level is $4,200,000 more than the budget request
and $8,803,000 more than the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. Of
the total amount recommended for Operations and Research,
$135,803,000 is derived from the General Fund and $105,500,000
is derived from the Highway Trust Fund.
Alcohol-related Fatalities.--Alcohol-impaired driving
fatalities continue to be one of the leading causes of highway
fatalities. Although the number of alcohol-impaired driving
fatalities has dropped recently, they continue to represent
about 32 percent of all highway fatalities. Alcohol ignition
interlock systems hold great promise for reducing alcohol-
related fatalities. However, ignition interlock systems are an
intrusive technology, which limits their use.
In 2008, NHTSA partnered with leading automobile
manufacturers in the Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety
[ACTS] to develop alcohol detection technologies that could be
installed in a vehicle to prevent drunk driving. These
technologies need to be nonintrusive in order to achieve
greater acceptance by the general public. The development of
advanced alcohol detection technologies is one of the key
components of the Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving, which
has brought together Mothers Against Drunk Driving [MADD],
major leading auto manufacturers, law enforcement, and other
stakeholders with the goal of eliminating drunk driving. To
date, NHTSA and ACTS have developed preliminary device
specifications, performed a rigorous technical review of
candidate technologies, and initiated proof-of-concept research
to investigate those technologies that hold the most promise.
The Committee recommends $1,500,000 to support this work.
This funding level is $500,000 more than the budget request and
the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. Of the total recommended
funding, $500,000 is for research by ACTS on public
acceptability of advanced detection technologies. Because the
success of the effort depends on its acceptance by the general
public, this issue must be addressed as soon as possible.
National Emergency Medical Services [EMS] Information
System.--Although there are national databases to support
police and fire services, there has been no similar national
repository for data on emergency medical services [EMS]. EMS
systems vary in their ability to collect and use data in order
to improve emergency medical response and patient care. The
National Emergency Medical Services Information System [NEMSIS]
is designed to reduce post-crash death and disability by
developing a better understanding of current EMS response and
performance so that scarce resources can be efficiently
allocated to critical training, equipment, planning and other
needs that best improve patient outcomes.
The Committee recommends a funding level of $2,250,000 for
the full implementation of a National Emergency Medical
Services Information System. The recommended funding level is
$1,500,000 more than the budget request and the fiscal year
2009 enacted level.
Alternative Fuels Research.--The recommended funding level
includes $10,000,000 for research into the safety of vehicles
that use alternative fuels. This funding level is $9,000,000
more than the budget request and $9,850,000 more than the
fiscal year 2009 enacted level. This research is an important
step in ensuring that vehicles powered by alternative sources
of energy do not compromise our safety.
The funding provided for alternative fuels research shall
be used to initiate development of full-scale vehicle crash
test procedures and selection of suitable performance criteria
to quantify potential failures and resulting unsafe conditions;
to initiate research on the safety of emerging battery
technologies, particularly lithium ion, used in hybridized fuel
cell, ICE, and plug-in electric vehicles; to continue research
on vehicle fuel system performance, including determination of
appropriate leakage limits based on fire safety research, and
develop test procedures to monitor post-crash electrical
isolation of the high-voltage propulsion system; and to analyze
the results from the fuel system storage component testing and
evaluate the safe storage of hydrogen through cumulative life-
cycle durability, crash, and fire exposure testing.
Motorcycle Fatalities.--The Committee continues to believe
that States have the right to decide their own laws, but that
the Nation's chief transportation official must have the
authority to advocate on behalf of the enactment of safety laws
by those States. For this reason, the Committee continues to
recommend bill language that removes, for fiscal year 2010, the
restriction on the Secretary's ability to go to States and
advocate on behalf of motorcycle helmet laws.
Teen Drivers.--The Committee strongly believes that NHTSA
must continue to vigorously pursue strategies to reduce
impaired and dangerous driving among age groups that represent
the highest risks. According to NHTSA, motor vehicle crashes
are the leading cause of death for 15- to 20-year olds; they
are involved in three times as many fatal crashes as all other
drivers. Recognizing that teenage and young adult drivers are
at enhanced risk of being involved in an alcohol-related fatal
crash, the Committee applauds NHTSA's ongoing collaboration
with Students Against Destructive Decisions [SADD] and other
national organizations focused on reducing underage drinking
and promoting positive decision-making among young people. The
Committee encourages NHTSA to continue to seek ways to enlist
youth in addressing the behaviors that place youth at risk in
motor vehicles. NHTSA is also encouraged to support research
and create programs to directly address and improve teen
driving safety.

national driver register

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liquidation Limitation
of contract on
authorization obligations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2009........................ $4,000,000 $4,000,000
Budget estimate, 2010....................... 4,078,000 4,078,000
House allowance............................. 4,000,000 4,000,000
Committee recommendation.................... 4,000,000 4,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

The Committee recommends a liquidation of contract
authorization of $4,000,000 for payment on obligations incurred
in carryout provisions of the National Driver Register Act. The
recommended liquidating cash appropriation is $78,000 less than
the budget estimate and equal to the fiscal year 2009 enacted
level.

LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS

The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of
$4,000,000 for the National Driver Register. The recommended
limitation is $78,000 less than the budget request and equal to
the fiscal year 2009 enacted level.

NATIONAL DRIVER REGISTER MODERNIZATION

Appropriations, 2009....................................................
Budget estimate, 2010...................................................
House allowance......................................... $3,350,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,350,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,350,000 for
the modernization of the National Driver Register. The
administration requested no appropriation for this activity for
fiscal year 2010, and no funds were provided for this activity
in fiscal year 2009. However, the cost of the modernization
will exceed the original cost estimated by the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, and an additional appropriation
is necessary for fiscal year 2010 in order to allow the agency
to modernize the system while continuing to operate the
existing database.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liquidation of
contract Limitation on
authorization obligations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2009.................. $619,500,000 $619,500,000
Budget estimate, 2010................. 626,047,000 626,047,000
House allowance....................... 619,500,000 619,500,000
Committee recommendation.............. 619,500,000 619,500,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of
$619,500,000 for the highway traffic safety grant programs
funded under this heading. The recommended limitation is
$6,547,000 less than the budget estimate and equal to fiscal
year 2009 enacted level. The Committee has also provided the
authority to liquidate an equal amount of contract
authorization.
The Committee continues to recommend prohibiting the use of
section 402 funds for construction, rehabilitation or
remodeling costs, or for office furnishings and fixtures for
State, local, or private buildings or structures.
The Committee recommends a separate limitation on
obligations for administrative expenses and for each grant
program as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway Safety Programs (section 402)................... $235,000,000
Occupant Protection Incentive Grants (section 405)...... 25,000,000
Safety Belt Performance Grants (section 406)............ 124,500,000
State Traffic Safety Information System Improvements 34,500,000
Grants (section 408)...................................
Alcohol-Impaired Driving Countermeasures Incentive 139,000,000
Grants (section 410)...................................
Motorcyclist Safety Grants (section 2010)............... 7,000,000
Child Safety and Child Booster Seat Safety Incentive 7,000,000
Grants (section 2011)..................................
High Visibility Enforcement Program (section 2009)...... 29,000,000
Administrative Expenses................................. 18,500,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY
ADMINISTRATION

Section 140 allows $130,000 of obligation authority for
section 402 of title 23 U.S.C. to be available to pay for
travel and expenses for State management reviews and highway
safety staff core competency development training.
Section 141 exempts obligation authority made available in
previous Public Laws for multiple years from limitations on
obligations for the current year.
Section 142 rescinds $2,299,000 in unobligated balances
from amounts made available under the heading ``Operations and
Research'' in prior appropriations acts.
Section 143 rescinds $14,004,000 in unobligated balances
from amounts made available under the heading ``Highway Traffic
Safety Grants'' in prior appropriations acts.

Federal Railroad Administration

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

SAFETY AND OPERATIONS

Appropriations, 2009.................................... $159,445,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 168,770,000
House allowance......................................... 172,533,000
Committee recommendation................................ 171,770,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $171,770,000 for Safety and
Operations for fiscal year 2009, which is $3,000,000 more than
the budget request and $12,325,000 more than the fiscal year
2009 enacted level. Of this amount the bill specifies that,
$12,300,000 remains available until expended.
Next Generation Corridor Equipment Pool Committee.--The
Committee recommendation includes $3,000,000 for grants to
Amtrak and States for participation in the Next Generation
Corridor Equipment Pool Committee that was authorized under
section 305 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement
Act. In addition to supporting an alternative mode of
transportation, the investments being made in intercity and
high- speed rail have the potential to support a domestic
industry for manufacturing rail equipment. The Next Generation
Corridor Equipment Pool Committee is a mechanism by which
projects and corridors being developed across the country can
coordinate on rail equipment standards and orders so that a
domestic industry will be able to respond.

RAILROAD RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2009.................................... $33,950,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 34,145,000
House allowance......................................... 37,145,000
Committee recommendation................................ 34,145,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Railroad Research and Development provides for research in
the development of safety and performance standards for
railroads and the evaluation of their role in the Nation's
transportation infrastructure.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $34,145,000
for railroad research and development, which is equal to the
budget request and $195,000 more than the fiscal year 2009
enacted level.
Within the amount provided, the Committee recommends:

RAILROAD RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
Project name recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caltrain--Positive Train Control, CA................... $500,000
Constructed Facilities Center, West Virginia 250,000
University, WV........................................
Metrolink--Positive Train Control, CA.................. 500,000
PEERS Rail Grade Crossing Safety, Statewide, IL........ 500,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

RAILROAD REHABILITATION AND IMPROVEMENT FINANCING PROGRAM

The Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing
[RRIF] program was established by Public Law 109-178 to provide
direct loans and loan guarantees to State and local
governments, Government-sponsored entities, or railroads.
Credit assistance under the program may be used for
rehabilitating or developing rail equipment and facilities. No
Federal appropriation is required to implement the program
because a non-Federal partner may contribute the subsidy amount
required by the Credit Reform Act of 1990 in the form of a
credit risk premium.
The Committee continues bill language specifying that no
new direct loans or loan guarantee commitments may be made
using Federal funds for the payment of any credit premium
amount during fiscal year 2010.

RAIL LINE RELOCATION AND IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2009.................................... $25,000,000
Budget estimate, 2010...................................................
House allowance......................................... 40,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 25,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Under the Rail Line Relocation and Improvement program, the
Federal Railroad Administration provides grants to States to
fund the relocation and improvement of railroad lines. In
awarding these grants, the FRA takes into consideration the
effect that the proposed railroad project will have on freight
and passenger operations, as well as the effect it will have on
motor vehicle and pedestrian traffic and safety, community
quality of life, and area commerce.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $25,000,000
for the Rail Line Relocation and Improvement Program, which is
equal to the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. The administration
requested no appropriation for this program for fiscal year
2010.
Within the total funding available to the program for
fiscal year 2010, funds are to be made available to the
following projects and activities:

RAIL LINE RELOCATION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
Project name recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grade Crossing Mitigation, Galesburg, IL............... $3,000,000
Port of Alexandria Rail Spur, City of Alexandria, LA... 500,000
Shelby Intermodal Hub, MT.............................. 1,000,000
Southern Rail Corridor, MN............................. 600,000
Waterfront Rail Reconstruction Project: Kawasaki SWIMO, 800,000
NY....................................................
West Freight Access Project, WA........................ 3,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

RAILROAD SAFETY TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2009.................................... $25,000,000
Budget estimate, 2010...................................................
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 50,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends the appropriation of $50,000,000
for the Railroad Safety Technology Program for fiscal year
2010. This program was not funded for fiscal year 2009, and the
administration requested no funding for this program for fiscal
year 2010.
This past fall, two trains collided in Chatsworth,
California, killing 25 people and injuring another 135 people.
The accident turned the Nation's attention to rail safety and
the possibility that new technologies, such as positive train
control, could help prevent such accidents in the future. By
providing grants to railroads, railroad suppliers, and State
and local governments, the Railroad Safety Technology Program
will support the deployment of such rail safety technology.
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 the Rail Safety
Improvement Act. The Committee is providing this waiver for
this first year of funding for the program, but the Committee
directs the FRA to provide priority consideration to those
entities that have completed all of its reporting requirements.

THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK)

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

OPERATING GRANTS TO THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION

Appropriations, 2009.................................... $550,000,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 572,348,000
House allowance......................................... 553,348,000
Committee recommendation................................ 553,348,000

The Committee provides $553,348,000 for operating grants
for Amtrak. The operating grant provides a subsidy to account
for the difference between Amtrak's self-generated operating
revenues and its total operating costs. The amount provided is
$19,000,000 less than the President's request and $3,348,000
more than the fiscal year 2009 enacted level.
Both the President's budget request for fiscal year 2010
and the fiscal year 2009 enacted level included funding for the
Amtrak Office of Inspector General within the funding provided
for operating grants to Amtrak. This year, however, the
Committee has provided funding for the Amtrak Office of
Inspector General separately. After taking into account this
change in accounting, the Committee recommendation is equal to
the funding that would be provided to Amtrak for operating
expenses under President's budget request, and it is
$21,848,000 more than the funding that was provided to Amtrak
for operating expenses under the fiscal year 2009 enacted
level.
Supporting the Amtrak Office of Inspector General.--The
Committee is appalled by the failure of Amtrak and its
Inspector General to maintain even the semblance of a working,
professional relationship. Amtrak's former Inspector General
has recently retired from his position, and details about his
retirement, as well as the conduct of Amtrak and its legal
department are currently the subject of investigation. In the
meantime, Amtrak has appointed an interim Inspector General
while it looks for a permanent replacement.
The Committee understands that Amtrak and its interim
Inspector General will be working together to develop a set of
policies and procedures that will act as the foundation for a
more productive relationship going forward. The Amtrak Board of
Directors passed a resolution to support this effort, and
included in its resolution some flexibility so that future
Inspectors General at Amtrak can make changes to the policies
and procedures.
While these actions may be necessary steps to take, the
Committee cannot feel confident that they will result in a
fully independent and effective Amtrak Inspector General unless
an outside observer can monitor the developments. For this
reason, the bill includes language that requires two separate
analyses by a member of the Council of the Inspectors General
on Integrity and Efficiency [CIGIE]. This council consists of
Inspectors General from across the Federal Government, and its
mission is to address issues of integrity, economy and
effectiveness that transcend individual Government agencies and
to increase the professionalism and effectiveness of the
Inspector General workforce.
First, the bill requires a member of CIGIE to review the
policies and practices that Amtrak and its interim Inspector
General develop as the basis for its ongoing relationship. In
order for Amtrak to receive its operating grants for the third
and second quarter of fiscal year 2010, the member of CIGIE
must determine that these policies and procedures are
consistent with the letter and the spirit of the Inspector
General Act of 1978.
One year later, another member of CIGIE must evaluate the
operational independence of the Amtrak Inspector General. This
second review is necessary to ensure that the new policies and
procedures have resulted in an actual change in the
relationship between Amtrak and its Inspector General. The new
policies and procedures will be meaningless and without any
value if the Amtrak Inspector General cannot act effectively
and independently from Amtrak.
The bill requires Amtrak to reimburse CIGIE members for all
costs associated with the conduct of their work. The Committee
expects that the Amtrak Board of Directors, President, and all
of its offices will fully cooperate with these two reviews, and
that any unreasonable impairments or untimely responses from
Amtrak employees or management will be considered as evidence
of impairments to the ability of an Inspector General to attain
operational independence from Amtrak.
Finally, the Committee notes that Amtrak has had a policy
of inviting the Department of Transportation Inspector General
and his representatives to the meetings of its Board of
Directors. The Committee expects Amtrak to continue allowing
the DOT Inspector General and his employees to attend these
meetings and to continue making board materials available to
them. The Committee places great value on the work of the DOT
Inspector General, and expects Amtrak to maintain a
professional relationship with him and his office.
Reporting Requirements.--Last year, the Committee had
included report language that required Amtrak to submit budget
justifications in similar format and substance to the
justifications submitted by Government agencies. Amtrak has
still not submitted a budget justification, and so the
Committee has included bill language that requires Amtrak to
submit the budget justifications concurrent with the submission
of the President's budget request.
The bill also continues to include language requiring
Amtrak to submit a business and long-term financial plan 60
days after the enactment of the bill. This requirement is
consistent with the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement
Act, but includes instructions to provide a separate accounting
of ridership, revenues, and expenses of the Northeast Corridor,
commuter service, long-distance service, State-supported
service, each intercity train route, and commercial activities.
In addition, the bill includes language requiring Amtrak to
submit a plan for achieving operational savings, and requiring
the DOT Inspector General to report on actual savings achieved
through these efforts.
Improved Customer Service.--In an effort to reduce Amtrak's
operating costs, the Committee provides $5,000,000 and directs
Amtrak to deploy and study the use of human emulation
technology to improve customer service over the telephone and
online, and to provide consumers with feedback using voice,
text, and page navigation. Such technology shall only be
derived on a competitive basis from domestic sources. Within 24
months, Amtrak shall provide a comprehensive report to the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations an evaluation of
the impact of the utilization of such technology in achieving
cost savings, and improving customer service and overall
utilization.

CAPITAL AND DEBT SERVICE GRANTS TO THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER
CORPORATION

Appropriations, 2009.................................... $940,000,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 929,625,000
House allowance......................................... 929,625,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,001,625,000

The Committee recommends $1,001,625,000 for capital and
debt service grants for Amtrak. Of this amount, not more than
$264,000,000 shall be available for debt service payments. The
amount provided is $72,000,000 more than the budget request and
$61,625,000 more than the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. The
bill language includes a requirement that Amtrak submit a
comprehensive fleet plan. The fleet plan must be submitted at
the same time Amtrak submits its comprehensive business plan,
which is required by current law to be submitted to the
Committee no later than 60 days following enactment of the
annual appropriations act.
Compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act.--The
Committee believes that compliance with the requirements of the
Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA] is essential to ensuring
that all people have equal access to transportation services.
For this reason, the Committee has included bill language that
requires Amtrak to invest $144,000,000 in capital projects that
will bring the facilities of the railroad into compliance with
the ADA. This investment level for ADA compliance is consistent
with the needs identified by Amtrak for fiscal year 2010. The
Committee, however, does not grant Amtrak's request to include
bill language that would provide Amtrak with an extension on
the deadline to comply with ADA.

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

Appropriations, 2009...................................\1\$8,090,000,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 1,000,000,000
House allowance......................................... 4,000,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,200,000,000

\1\Of the funding provided for this program for fiscal year 2009,
$8,000,000,000 was provided as emergency spending as part of the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Public Law 111-5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends the appropriation of
$1,200,000,000 for grants to support intercity rail service and
high speed rail corridors. The recommended funding level is
$200,000,000 more than the budget request. It is also
$6,890,000,000 less than the fiscal year 2009 enacted level
including the funding provided as part of the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act, but $1,110,000,000 more than the fiscal
year 2009 enacted level excluding such funding.
This Committee provided $120,000,000 over the fiscal year
2008-2009 period to support capital investments in passenger
rail service. This effort saw a significant boost with the
enactment of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which
included the appropriation of $8,000,000,000 for continued
support of intercity passenger rail and for new investments in
the building of high speed rail in the United States. The
funding recommended by the Committee will build on these
investments in order to continue supporting individual projects
that improve intercity passenger rail across the country, as
well to create a new system of high speed rail corridors.
FRA's Strategy for High-speed Rail.--The American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act included language that required FRA to
complete a strategic plan describing how the agency would
invest the funds provided in the act to improve and deploy
high-speed passenger rail systems. In response to this
requirement, the Department published ``A Vision for High Speed
Rail in America'' in April of this year. However, the report
lacked detail, and few details have been offered since that
time either in program guidance or in the budget justifications
for fiscal year 2010.
The Committee continues to be concerned that investments in
intercity and high-speed rail will not be put to their best use
unless FRA can articulate a more developed strategy for
railroad investments. For this reason, the Committee has
included language in the bill which prohibits FRA from awarding
grants until the agency has completed a national rail plan as
required under the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement
Act. The Committee also directs FRA to submit to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations a report which describes
how the investments made with funding provided in the bill will
contribute to furthering the national rail plan. This report
shall include a discussion of what actions FRA is taking to
establish standards for high-speed rail corridors and how the
agency will prioritize funding for corridors across the
country. These standards shall address such issues as expected
ridership, project cost, public benefits (including benefits to
nonriders resulting from reductions in congestion), trip time,
frequency of service, reliability, and safety. FRA shall submit
this report no later than 180 days after enactment of the act.
High-speed Rail Research.--The bill includes a provision
that allows the FRA to retain $50,000,000 of the intercity and
high- speed rail funding for research and demonstration
activities that will support the development of high-speed
rail, including the engineering and development of high-speed
rail locomotives.
High-speed Rail and Rail Car Accessibility.--The Committee
believes that the pursuit of high speed rail in the United
States will require the FRA and its partners to think about the
contribution that rapid passenger boarding and alighting makes
to keeping trains on schedule. In order to create a system
around efficiency and speed, all people--regardless of ability,
age, or size--must be able to safely and quickly enter and exit
the rail cars. The smooth flow of passengers reduces dwell time
at stations, improving overall travel times. The Committee
encourages the FRA to coordinate with the Access Board, and to
take advantage of the expertise at the Board, in order to
develop an approach for working with grantees of intercity and
high-speed rail funding on issues of accessibility.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 151 allows DOT to purchase promotional items of
nominal value for use in certain outreach activities.
Section 152 permanently prohibits funds for the National
Railroad Passenger Corporation from being available if the
Corporation contracts for services at or from any location
outside of the United States which were, as of July 1, 2006,
performed by a full-time or part-time Amtrak employee within
the United States.
Section 153 allows the Secretary to receive and use cash or
spare parts to repair and replace damaged track inspection
cars.
Section 154 requires the Federal Railroad Administrator to
submit quarterly reports to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations on Amtrak on-time performance.
Section 155 clarifies funding made available for a
previously funded project.

Federal Transit Administration

The Federal Transit Administration was established as a
component of the Department of Transportation by Reorganization
Plan No. 2 of 1968, effective July 1, 1968, which transferred
most of the functions and programs under the Federal Transit
Act of 1964, as amended (78 Stat. 302; 49 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.),
from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The
missions of the Federal Transit Administration are: to assist
in the development of improved mass transportation facilities,
equipment, techniques, and methods; to encourage the planning
and establishment of urban and rural transportation services
needed for economical and desirable development; to provide
mobility for transit dependents in both metropolitan and rural
areas; to maximize the productivity and efficiency of
transportation systems; and to provide assistance to State and
local governments and their instrumentalities in financing such
services and systems.
The most recent authorization for transit programs was
contained in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users [SAFETEA-LU].
Although these programs are currently set to expire before the
beginning of fiscal year 2010, the Committee must forward its
recommendations with the assumption that the programs will be
extended under their current structure until the enactment of a
full reauthorization package.
The following table summarizes the Committee's
recommendations compared to the fiscal year 2009 enacted level
and the administration's request, excluding rescissions and
funding provided through the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Program ---------------------------------- Committee
2009 enacted 2010 estimate recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative Expenses...................................... $94,413,000 $97,478,000 $97,478,000
Formula and bus grants (trust fund).......................... 8,260,565,000 5,000,000,000 8,343,171,000
Formula and bus grants (general fund)........................ ............... 3,343,171,000 ...............
Research and University Research Centers..................... 67,000,000 67,670,000 67,670,000
Capital investment grants.................................... 1,809,250,000 1,827,343,000 2,307,343,000
Grants for energy efficiency and greenhouse gas reductions... ............... ............... 100,000,000
Grants to WMATA.............................................. ............... ............... 150,000,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................. 10,231,228,000 10,335,662,000 11,065,662,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2009.................................... $94,413,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 97,478,000
House allowance......................................... 97,478,000
Committee recommendation................................ 97,478,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total of $97,478,000 for the
agency's salaries and administrative expenses. The recommended
level of funding is equal to the budget request and $3,065,000
more than the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. The bill limits
travel expenses to $1,809,000.
The Committee recommendation includes language authorizing
the Administrator to transfer funding between offices. Any
transfers totaling more than 5 percent of the initial
appropriation from this account must be approved by the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations through the usual
reprogramming process. The bill also includes a provision
requiring FTA to provide $75,000 to the DOT Office of Inspector
General on a reimbursable basis for costs associated with
audits of FTA's financial statements.
Project Management Oversight Activities.--The Committee
directs FTA to continue to submit to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations the quarterly FMO and PMO reports
for each project with a full funding grant agreement.
Full Funding Grant Agreements [FFGAs].--SAFETEA-LU, as
amended, requires that FTA notify the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations, as well as the House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on
Banking, 60 days before executing a full funding grant
agreement. In its notification to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations, the Committee directs FTA to
submit the following information: (1) a copy of the proposed
full funding grant agreement; (2) the total and annual Federal
appropriations required for the project; (3) the yearly and
total Federal appropriations that can be planned or anticipated
for future FFGAs for each fiscal year through 2012; (4) a
detailed analysis of annual commitments for current and
anticipated FFGAs against the program authorization, by
individual project; (5) an evaluation of whether the
alternatives analysis made by the applicant fully assessed all
the viable alternatives; (6) a financial analysis of the
project's cost and sponsor's ability to finance the project,
which shall be conducted by an independent examiner and which
shall include an assessment of the capital cost estimate and
finance plan; (7) the source and security of all public and
private sector financing; (8) the project's operating plan,
which enumerates the project's future revenue and ridership
forecasts; and (9) a listing of all planned contingencies and
possible risks associated with the project.
The Committee also directs FTA to inform the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations in writing 30 days before
approving schedule, scope, or budget changes to any full
funding grant agreement. Correspondence relating to all changes
shall include any budget revisions or program changes that
materially alter the project as originally stipulated in the
FFGA, including any proposed change in rail car procurement.
The Committee directs FTA to continue to provide a monthly
new start project update to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations, detailing the status of each project. This
update should include FTA's plans and specific milestone
schedules for advancing projects, especially those within 2
years of a proposed full funding grant agreement. In addition,
FTA should notify the Committees 10 days before any project in
the new starts process is given approval by FTA to advance to
preliminary engineering or final design.

FORMULA AND BUS GRANTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORITY)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(INCLUDING RESCISSION)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obligation
limitation Budget authority
(trust fund) (general fund)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2009................ $8,260,565,000 \1\$7,550,000,00
0
Budget estimate, 2010............... 5,000,000,000 3,343,171,000
House allowance..................... 8,343,171,000 ................
Committee recommendation............ 8,343,171,000 ................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The budget authority provided for this program for fiscal year 2009
was provided as emergency spending as part of the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act (Public Law 111-5).

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends limiting obligations in the
transit formula and bus grants account in fiscal year 2010 to
$8,343,171,000. The recommendation is equal to the total level
of funding requested by the President, including both
obligation limitation and budget authority. The recommendation
is also $82,606,000 more than the obligation limitation enacted
for fiscal year 2009, but $7,467,394,000 less than the total
level of funding enacted for fiscal year 2009, including both
obligation limitation and budget authority provided as part of
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
The Committee recommends $9,400,000,000 in authority to
liquidate contract authorizations. This amount is sufficient to
cover outstanding obligations from this account.
The following table displays the distribution of obligation
limitation among the program categories of formula and bus
grants:

DISTRIBUTION OF OBLIGATION LIMITATION AMONG MAJOR CATEGORIES OF FORMULA
AND BUS GRANTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program category Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clean Fuels Program.................................. $61,500,000
Over-the-Road Bus Accessibility Program.............. 10,800,000
Urban Area Formula Grants............................ 4,757,130,662
Bus and Bus Facilities............................... 584,000,000
Fixed Guideway Modernization......................... 1,756,134,569
Planning Programs.................................... 113,500,000
Elderly and Persons with Disabilities................ 140,680,447
Nonurbanized Area Formula............................ 607,025,922
Job Access and Reverse Commute....................... 164,500,000
New Freedom.......................................... 92,500,000
National Transit Database............................ 3,500,000
Alternatives Analysis................................ 25,000,000
Alternative Transportation in Parks and Park Lands... 26,900,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION ESTIMATED FISCAL YEAR 2010 APPORTIONMENTS FOR FORMULA GRANTS PROGRAMS BY STATE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 5310
Section 5307 and Section 5311 and Section 5309 fixed special needs for Section 5316 job Section 5303 and
State name 5340 urbanized 5340 nonurbanized guideway elderly and access and reverse Section 5317 new 5304 metropolitan State total
area area modernization individuals with commute freedom and State planning
disabilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama......................... $20,213,562 $13,394,488.00 .................. $2,339,837 $3,090,329 $1,120,324 $900,701 $41,059,241
Alaska.......................... 24,879,026 6,108,165.00 $19,022,282 300,165 318,768 51,391 475,957 51,155,754
American Samoa.................. .................. 228,964.00 .................. 65,326 199,894 9,015 .................. 503,199
Arizona......................... 65,287,784 9,567,312.00 3,864,024 2,446,061 3,480,888 1,697,035 2,262,406 88,605,510
Arkansas........................ 10,124,395 10,214,755.00 .................. 1,499,654 1,950,951 919,691 475,957 25,185,403
California...................... 745,701,826 22,912,737.00 235,408,217 14,350,398 22,035,585 11,834,136 17,727,252 1,069,970,151
Colorado........................ 70,589,820 8,421,190.00 8,506,099 1,697,357 1,788,947 517,736 1,722,703 93,243,852
Connecticut..................... 81,538,411 2,726,657.00 48,138,102 1,649,708 1,110,772 1,266,165 1,321,732 137,751,547
Delaware........................ 12,004,430 1,274,371.00 335,004 471,361 337,635 249,118 475,957 15,147,876
District of Columbia............ 84,901,052 .................. 110,761,784 404,591 461,149 284,210 475,957 197,288,743
Florida......................... 223,007,054 13,730,980.00 28,640,963 9,148,699 9,107,977 6,382,258 7,460,040 297,477,971
Georgia......................... 84,378,259 17,327,132.00 37,257,533 3,422,569 4,787,617 2,845,572 2,913,287 152,931,969
Guam............................ .................. 618,879.00 .................. 173,959 200,162 26,300 .................. 1,019,300
Hawaii.......................... 31,322,153 1,979,881.00 2,158,724 658,453 624,490 348,365 475,957 37,568,023
Idaho........................... 7,479,772 5,892,091.00 .................. 627,494 692,492 381,374 475,957 15,549,180
Illinois........................ 268,074,939 14,293,876.00 178,230,666 5,292,091 6,117,369 4,181,489 6,167,927 482,358,357
Indiana......................... 46,212,928 13,712,175.00 1,164,584 2,778,259 2,650,633 1,909,101 1,749,168 70,176,848
Iowa............................ 17,391,413 10,222,636.00 .................. 1,425,202 1,244,420 787,995 517,252 31,588,918
Kansas.......................... 12,804,508 9,476,687.00 .................. 1,276,005 1,379,494 690,659 595,605 26,222,958
Kentucky........................ 23,668,773 12,959,093.00 .................. 2,155,887 3,148,759 1,223,164 749,060 43,904,736
Louisiana....................... 37,288,639 10,301,019.00 3,707,416 2,146,338 3,585,259 1,602,438 1,178,685 59,809,794
Maine........................... 4,594,781 5,469,706.00 .................. 744,950 641,078 376,757 475,957 12,303,229
Maryland........................ 117,500,479 5,012,969.00 38,676,624 2,282,950 1,999,401 1,816,135 2,527,808 169,816,366
Massachusetts................... 189,474,873 3,522,665.00 94,340,035 3,036,361 2,645,268 2,262,272 3,320,154 298,601,628
Michigan........................ 83,949,361 17,397,135.00 854,599 4,399,718 4,695,728 3,342,246 3,736,057 118,374,844
Minnesota....................... 57,082,751 12,836,943.00 12,549,519 2,010,302 2,009,700 1,144,663 1,585,200 89,219,078
Mississippi..................... 6,263,948 11,639,943.00 .................. 1,503,983 2,801,452 820,334 475,957 23,505,617
Missouri........................ 48,606,808 13,965,008.00 8,920,316 2,652,610 3,347,618 1,628,870 1,694,134 80,815,364
Montana......................... 3,297,981 7,590,831.00 .................. 519,202 578,848 257,565 475,957 12,720,384
N. Mariana Islands.............. 814,277 35,248.00 .................. 66,707 113,722 67,183 .................. 1,097,137
Nebraska........................ 10,297,728 6,610,842.00 .................. 841,304 962,233 372,186 475,957 19,560,250
Nevada.......................... 32,016,176 4,946,829.00 .................. 1,031,854 1,086,027 653,071 851,813 40,585,770
New Hampshire................... 6,374,116 3,521,848.00 .................. 630,660 301,296 447,685 475,957 11,751,562
New Jersey...................... 328,206,518 3,265,835.00 114,373,118 3,866,374 3,392,366 2,934,441 5,121,895 461,160,547
New Mexico...................... 12,111,890 8,255,401.00 .................. 930,474 1,562,267 540,563 475,957 23,876,552
New York........................ 715,662,513 17,714,351.00 468,274,315 9,188,559 12,311,541 6,723,242 9,832,202 1,239,706,723
North Carolina.................. 53,394,450 22,328,998.00 263,910 3,829,837 4,695,662 2,628,026 1,745,007 88,885,890
North Dakota.................... 4,621,308 4,008,716.00 .................. 407,148 306,052 180,401 475,957 9,999,582
Ohio............................ 104,731,293 20,134,534.00 21,186,113 5,147,676 5,742,652 3,337,778 3,705,011 163,985,057
Oklahoma........................ 16,900,303 11,415,670.00 .................. 1,770,868 2,668,662 979,959 688,393 34,423,855
Oregon.......................... 45,714,306 9,863,193.00 11,449,525 1,640,392 1,972,394 948,642 1,029,544 72,617,996
Pennsylvania.................... 181,099,471 20,385,324.00 138,005,589 6,079,291 6,298,813 4,073,469 4,665,229 360,607,186
Puerto Rico..................... 50,930,333 1,416,733.00 3,211,097 2,061,500 5,369,482 1,650,241 1,899,629 66,539,015
Rhode Island.................... 21,499,575 583,720.00 3,360,031 638,485 586,741 351,953 488,517 27,509,022
South Carolina.................. 19,320,533 11,221,693.00 .................. 2,036,514 2,609,163 1,362,072 869,434 37,419,409
South Dakota.................... 2,981,037 4,965,203.00 .................. 450,566 459,148 201,400 475,957 9,533,311
Tennessee....................... 39,062,706 14,291,778.00 710,198 2,844,058 3,637,095 1,883,718 1,375,601 63,805,154
Texas........................... 246,471,043 34,161,310.00 23,238,865 8,510,140 14,032,530 6,876,194 8,347,600 341,637,682
Utah............................ 39,285,354 4,886,639.00 3,356,325 834,940 1,092,747 529,542 811,092 50,796,639
Vermont......................... 1,810,687 2,649,400.00 .................. 382,388 295,370 152,284 475,957 5,766,086
Virgin Islands.................. 982,640 .................. .................. 164,152 200,962 18,173 .................. 1,365,927
Virginia........................ 72,676,347 12,527,146.00 1,663,503 3,000,334 3,175,759 2,179,529 2,594,020 97,816,638
Washington...................... 124,542,764 9,646,633.00 41,839,080 2,549,491 2,655,109 1,918,356 2,424,769 185,576,202
West Virginia................... 6,922,834 6,780,388.00 1,485,163 1,126,635 1,312,776 699,061 475,957 18,802,814
Wisconsin....................... 48,332,695 13,583,199.00 1,380,027 2,326,894 2,016,776 1,607,534 1,391,629 70,638,754
Wyoming......................... 1,765,685 4,695,756.00 .................. 324,094 254,972 131,919 475,957 7,648,383
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................. 4,566,168,307 516,694,675 1,666,333,350 134,160,825 166,145,000 93,425,000 114,061,825 7,256,988,982
===============================================================================================================================================================
Oversight....................... 31,514,768 2,348,250 16,831,650 674,175 .................. .................. 573,175 51,942,018
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................... 4,597,683,075 519,042,925 1,683,165,000 134,835,000 166,145,000 93,425,000 114,635,000 7,308,931,000
Tribal Transit Program.......... .................. 15,150,000 .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 15,150,000
RTAP............................ .................. 9,393,000 .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 9,393,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Total............... 4,597,683,075 543,585,925 1,683,165,000 134,835,000 166,145,000 93,425,000 114,635,000 7,333,474,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

BUS AND BUS FACILITIES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
Project name recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40' Fixed Route Transit Buses, DE....................... $1,000,000
ACE Boulder Highway Rapid Transit Project, NV........... 750,000
Albany Transit Multimodal Transportation Center, GA..... 1,500,000
Automotive-Based Fuel Cell Hybrid Bus Program, DE....... 500,000
Benzie Transportation Authority Bus and Bus Facilities, 1,000,000
Honor, MI..............................................
Bridgeport Intermodal Transportation Center, CT......... 2,500,000
Cache Valley Transit District Expansion, UT............. 2,000,000
Capital Metro--Bus and Bus Facilities, TX............... 2,000,000
Cedar Avenue Bus Rapid Transit, Phase I, Dakota County, 700,000
MN.....................................................
Chittenden County Transportation Authority Buses, 2,000,000
Equipment, and Facilities, Including Downtown
Burlington Transit Center Design, VT...................
City of Dinuba CNG Fueling Station Expansion, CA........ 800,000
Colorado Transit Coalition Statewide Bus and Bus 2,500,000
Facilities, CO.........................................
Continue the Port of Anchorage Intermodal Expansion 500,000
Project, AK............................................
Coralville Intermodal Facility, Coralville, IA.......... 750,000
C-TRAN Transit Vehicle Replacement, WA.................. 1,900,000
Deerfield Valley Transit Association Facilities, Buses, 600,000
and Equipment, VT......................................
City of Imperial Downtown Transportation Park, CA....... 1,000,000
Electric Hybrid Bus Upgrade Grants, IN.................. 2,400,000
Great Falls Transit District Bus Replacement, MT........ 1,000,000
Harbor Point Bus Expansion, CT.......................... 500,000
Harrison County Multimodal, MS.......................... 2,000,000
Hobbs Transit Intermodal Facility, NM................... 800,000
Idaho Transit Coalition Bus and Bus Facilities, ID...... 1,000,000
Intercity Vehicle Acquisition, WA....................... 1,800,000
Jamaica Intermodal Station Plaza, NY.................... 600,000
JATRAN Fleet Replacement, MS............................ 500,000
KCATA Bus Replacement, MO............................... 2,000,000
Link Transit Vehicle Acquisition, WA.................... 2,300,000
Illinois Downstate Bus and Bus Facilities, IL........... 4,000,000
Lufkin VA Clinic Shuttle, TX............................ 300,000
LYNX Buses, Orlando, FL................................. 1,500,000
Marble Valley Regional Transit District Buses, 1,500,000
Facilities, and Equipment, VT..........................
MARTA Acquisition of Clean Fuel Buses, GA............... 4,000,000
Metro St. Louis--Downtown Transfer Center, MO........... 1,150,000
Newark Penn Station Intermodal Improvements, NJ......... 2,000,000
North Dakota Statewide Transit, ND...................... 1,500,000
Northstar Phase II Commuter Buses, MN................... 100,000
Pierce Transit Diesel--Electric Bus Acquisition, WA..... 1,300,000
Purchase Hybrid Buses, Lehigh and Northampton 500,000
Transportation Authority [LANTA], PA...................
Reconstruction of the University Circle Rapid Station, 2,000,000
OH.....................................................
Rural Bus Program for Hawaii, Maui and Kauai, HI........ 3,500,000
Senior Transportation Program, AL....................... 2,000,000
Spokane Transit Diesel-Electric Hybrid Bus Acquisition, 1,300,000
WA.....................................................
State of Arkansas--Bus and Bus Facilities for Urban, 500,000
Rural, and Elderly and Disabled Agencies, AR...........
Staten Island Ferry Campus Shuttle Bus Service, NY...... 260,000
Statewide (Rural and Urban) Bus and Bus Facilities, KS.. 2,000,000
Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities for Commuter Choice, NM 2,000,000
Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities, IA.................... 3,450,000
Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities, MO.................... 2,000,000
Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities, SD.................... 500,000
Statewide Bus Replacement, RI........................... 500,000
Tacoma Intermodal Transit Center, WA.................... 1,000,000
Tennessee Statewide Bus Program, TN..................... 6,000,000
The Clean and Green Bus Replacements Initiative, OH..... 500,000
The Rapid, Wealthy Street Operations Center Expansion 2,000,000
Project, Grand Rapids, MI..............................
Thompsonville Intermodal Transportation Center, CT...... 1,000,000
Transit Authority of Northern Kentucky Bus Replacement 1,600,000
Project, KY............................................
Transit Maintenance Garage Initiative, IA............... 700,000
Transit Vehicle and Related Equipment, MO............... 1,000,000
Washoe County Bus and Bus Facilities, NV................ 500,000
Western Kentucky University Shuttle Bus Improvement 1,075,000
Project, KY............................................
Whatcom Transportation Authority Fleet Replacement 1,000,000
Project, WA............................................
Wisconsin Bus Capital on Behalf of Transit Agencies 3,000,000
Statewide, WI..........................................
Silverton Senior and Disabled Transportation Service, OR 39,429
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
Project name recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naval Station Norfolk/Virginia Beach Light Rail Study, $1,000,000
VA.....................................................
C-TRAN High Capacity Transit--WA........................ 1,750,000
New Haven-Hartford-Springfield Rail Line Improvements, 4,000,000
CT.....................................................
Northwest New Jersey-Northeast Pennsylvania Passenger 1,000,000
Rail Project, NJ and PA................................
Puyallup Bus Rapid Transit Project, WA.................. 1,500,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

RESEARCH AND UNIVERSITY RESEARCH CENTERS

------------------------------------------------------------------------
General fund
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2009...................................... $67,000,000
Budget estimate, 2010..................................... 67,670,000
House allowance........................................... 65,670,000
Committee recommendation.................................. 67,670,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $67,670,000 for research and
university research centers. The Committee recommendation is
equal to the budget request, and $670,000 more than the fiscal
year 2009 enacted level.
Asset Management.--In the appropriations act for fiscal
year 2008, this Committee required the FTA to assess the
condition of the Nation's commuter rail infrastructure. The FTA
issued its report this past April. The agency found that one-
third of the transit agencies' assets are either in marginal or
poor condition, and that significant reinvestment would be
necessary to address the backlog of capital needs. Given the
large gap between the level of investment needed to bring rail
transit into better condition and the level of resources
currently available for such investments, it is imperative that
every dollar invested in rail capital improvements is put to
its best use.
However, the FTA also reported that the transit industry
lags behind other sectors in managing its capital assets
strategically. Asset management programs would enable transit
agencies to take inventory of their capital assets, assess the
condition of those assets, use objective and quantitative
analysis to estimate reinvestment needs over the long term, and
prioritize their capital investments by using all of the
information and analysis that was required under the program.
The FTA examined the seven largest transit agencies to
inform its report on the condition of transit rail systems.
While most of these large agencies took inventory of their
capital assets, the inventories varied greatly in how recently
the data was collected and in how comprehensive the data were.
The FTA found that the large transit agencies regularly
assessed the condition of their assets, but that none of the
transit agencies had a full asset management program that was
used to set long term priorities for capital reinvestment.
The Committee expects the FTA to take a leadership role in
improving the use of asset management practices among transit
agencies, and the Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000
in order to support this leadership role. The Committee directs
the FTA to use a portion of these funds to develop standards
for asset management plans, and to design these standards so
that transit agencies are encouraged to place the appropriate
priority on protecting safety. The Committee further directs
the FTA to use the remaining funds to provide technical
assistance to transit agencies that are developing or
implementing asset management plans, to improve the ability of
the FTA to collect data relevant to asset management, and to
conduct a pilot program designed to identify the best practices
of asset management. The Committee expects the FTA to include
in its pilot program a group of transit agencies that vary in
size, and directs the FTA to report its findings to the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations no later than 18 months
after the date of enactment of this act.

CAPITAL INVESTMENT GRANTS

Appropriations, 2009...................................\1\$2,559,250,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 1,827,343,000
House allowance......................................... 1,827,343,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,307,343,000

\1\Of the funds provided for this program for fiscal year 2009,
$750,000,000 were provided as emergency spending as part of the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Public Law 111-5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a level of $2,307,343,000 for
capital investment grants. The recommended level is
$480,000,000 more than the budget request. It is also
$251,907,000 less than the fiscal year 2009 enacted level
including funding provided through the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act, but $498,093,000 more than the level enacted
for fiscal year 2009 excluding such funds. This additional
funding is provided as part of the Committee recommendation to
increase investment in our national infrastructure across a
wide variety of transportation modes.
To further support oversight activities, the bill continues
a provision requiring FTA to transfer $2,000,000 to the DOT
Office of Inspector General [OIG] for costs associated with
audits and investigations of transit-related issues, including
reviews of new fixed guideway systems. This transfer must come
from funds set aside under the program authorization law for
oversight activities.
The Committee recommends the following allocations of
capital investment grant funds in fiscal year 2010:

CAPITAL INVESTMENT GRANTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AC Transit BRT Corridor, CA............................ $2,000,000
Ann Arbor-Detroit Regional Rail Project, Detroit, MI... 5,000,000
ARC/THE Tunnel (New Jersey Trans-Hudson Midtown 200,000,000
Corridor), NJ.........................................
Baltimore Red Line, MD................................. 4,000,000
Bellevue to Redmond Bus Rapid Transit, WA.............. 9,368,193
Central Corridor Light Rail Transit Project, MN........ 3,500,000
Central Florida Commuter Rail Transit, FL.............. 35,000,000
Central Phoenix/East Valley Light Rail, AZ............. 61,249,903
City of Charlotte, Charlotte Area Transit System's 24,000,000
[CATS] Blue Line Extension--Northeast Corridor
Project, NC...........................................
Commuter Rail Improvements, MA......................... 32,000,000
CTA Chicago Hub (Circle Line), IL...................... 2,000,000
CTA Red Line North Station, Track, Viaduct and Station 10,000,000
Rehabilitation, IL....................................
Draper Light Rail, UT.................................. 10,000,000
Dulles Corridor Rail Project, VA....................... 85,000,000
Fort Lauderdale--The Downtown, Transit Corridor 1,000,000
Program, Downtown Transit Circulator, FL..............
Galveston-Houston Commuter Rail, TX.................... 2,000,000
HART Light Rail Preliminary Engineering, FL............ 3,000,000
Honolulu High Capacity Transit Corridor Project, HI.... 30,000,000
Houston North Corridor LRT, TX......................... 75,000,000
Houston Southeast Corridor LRT, TX..................... 75,000,000
Hudson-Bergen MOS-2, NJ................................ 11,039
Improvements to the Rosslyn Metro Station, VA.......... 2,000,000
Lackawanna Cut-Off Restoration Project, PA/NJ.......... 2,000,000
Largo Metrorail Extension, Washington, DC.............. 347,000
Livermore/Amador Route 10 BRT, CA...................... 79,900
Long Island Rail Road East Side Access, NY............. 193,500,000
Mason Corridor BRT, CO................................. 48,000,000
Metra Connects, IL..................................... 2,000,000
Metro Express--Airport Way Corridor BRT Project, CA.... 2,808,825
Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension, Los Angeles, CA.... 9,582,551
Metro Rapid Bus System Gap Closure, CA................. 23,326
Metrorail Orange Line Extension, FL.................... 20,000,000
Mid-Jordan Light Rail, UT.............................. 100,000,000
Monterey Bay Rapid Transit, CA......................... 2,830,042
Mountain Links BRT, AZ................................. 681,942
North Shore LRT Connector, PA.......................... 6,153
Northstar Corridor Rail Project, MN.................... 711,661
Northstar Phase II--Extension of Northstar Commuter 4,000,000
Rail to the St. Cloud Area, MN........................
Northwest/Southeast Light Rail MOS, TX................. 86,249,717
Pacific Highway South BRT, WA.......................... 6,815
Purple Line, MD........................................ 4,000,000
Ravenswood Extension Line, IL.......................... 304,744
Roaring Fork Valley, BRT Project, CO................... 810,000
Route 1 Bus Rapid Transit, Potomac Yard-Crystal City, 2,000,000
VA....................................................
RTD East Corridor Construction, CO..................... 5,500,000
RTD Gold Corridor, CO.................................. 5,000,000
RTD West Corridor, CO.................................. 100,000,000
San Bernardino, E Street Corridor sbX BRT, CA.......... 20,000,000
San Francisco Muni Third Street Light Rail--Central 2,000,000
Subway Project, CA....................................
Second Avenue Subway Phase I, NY....................... 177,463,000
Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit [SMART], CA............. 1,000,000
Sound Transit--Central Link Initial Segment, WA........ 3,144,294
Sound Transit--University Link LRT Extension, WA....... 110,000,000
South Corridor I-205/Portland Mall LRT, OR............. 74,229,000
South Sacramento Light Rail Extension, CA.............. 40,000,000
Stamford Urban Transitway, CT.......................... 4,500,000
Virginia Railway Express Rolling Stock, VA............. 4,000,000
Weber County to Salt Lake City Commuter Rail, UT....... 80,000,000
Wilmington to Newark Commuter Rail Improvement Program, 5,000,000
DE....................................................
Wilshire Boulevard Bus-Only Lane, CA................... 13,558,474
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

GRANTS FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTIONS

Appropriations, 2009.................................... \1\$100,000,000
Budget estimate, 2010...................................................
House allowance.........................................
Committee recommendation................................ 100,000,000

\1\These funds were provided as emergency spending as part of the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Public Law 111-5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation includes $100,000,000 for
grants to public transit agencies for making capital investment
that will reduce the energy consumption or the greenhouse gas
emissions of their public transit systems. The bill requires
the FTA to place priority on projects based on the total energy
savings that are projected to result from the investment, and
the projected energy savings as a percentage of the total
energy usage of the public transit agency.
These grants build on the $100,000,000 investment made in
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act [ARRA]. In response
to the availability of the ARRA funding, over 200 transit
systems and coalitions submitted proposals with a total value
of over $1,000,000,000.

GRANTS TO THE WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY

Appropriations, 2009....................................................
Budget estimate, 2010...................................................
House allowance......................................... $150,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 150,000,000

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation includes $150,000,000 for
grants to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
[WMATA] for capital and preventive maintenance expenses. These
grants are authorized under section 601 of the Passenger Rail
Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-432).
The bill requires the FTA to provide these grants to WMATA
only after receiving and reviewing a request for each specific
project to be funded under this heading. The bill also requires
the FTA to determine that WMATA has placed the highest priority
on funding projects that will improve the safety of its public
transit system before approving these grants. The Committee
expects FTA to make this determination by taking into account
the extent to which WMATA plans to use the funding provided
under this heading in order to implement the safety
recommendations of the National Transportation Safety Board.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

Section 160 exempts authority previously made available for
programs of the FTA under section 5338 of title 49, United
States Code, from the obligation limitations in this act.
Section 161 requires that funds appropriated or limited by
this act for specific projects not obligated by September 20,
2012, and other recoveries, be directed to projects eligible to
use the funds for the purposes for which they were originally
provided.
Section 162 allows funds appropriated before October 1,
2009, that remain available for expenditure to be transferred
to the most recent appropriation heading.
Section 163 allows unobligated funds for new fixed guideway
system projects in any previous appropriations act to be used
during this fiscal year to satisfy expenses incurred for such
projects.
Section 164 prohibits the FTA from issuing a final rule
under section 5309 of title 49, United States Code, but allows
the agency to continue to review comments on the rule.
Section 165 allows funds made available for Alaska or
Hawaii ferry boats or ferry terminal facilities to be used to
construct new vessels and facilities, or to improve existing
vessels and facilities, and provides that funding may be used
by the city and county of Honolulu to operate a passenger ferry
boat service demonstration project.
Section 166 clarifies local share calculations for a New
Starts project supported by funding contributed from the
private sector.
Section 167 requires FTA to propose recommendations to
Congress, including legislative proposals, for strengthening
the agency's role in regulating transit safety.
Section 168 extends funding for previously funded projects.
Section 169 extends the contingent commitment authority for
the New Starts program.
Section 170 provides an exemption from the charter bus
regulations for the State of Washington. The Committee directs
the Inspector General to complete a study on the effect of the
charter tours regulation on the quality and price of transit
services.
Section 171 clarifies local share calculations for New
Starts projects which are multi-modal in nature and located on
interstate highway corridors.

Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

(HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2009.................................... $31,842,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 32,324,000
House allowance......................................... 32,324,000
Committee recommendation................................ 32,324,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $32,324,000 for the operations,
maintenance, and asset renewal of the Saint Lawrence Seaway.
This amount is $482,000 more than the fiscal year 2009 enacted
level, and equal to the President's fiscal year 2010 request.
The recommended level includes $16,317,000 to continue the
Agency's Asset Renewal Program [ARP].
The Seaway is entering its 51st year of operation, which
means that its infrastructure components are reaching the end
of their design life. ARP is a significant, 10-year, multi-
project strategy to address the long-term asset renewal needs
of the U.S. portions of the Saint Lawrence Seaway, with
attention to two locks (Snell and Eisenhower), the U.S. segment
of the Seaway International Bridge, maintenance dredging,
operational systems, facilities and equipment.
While committed to maintaining the safe and reliable
functionality of the Seaway, the Committee notes substantial
increases to the costs of two major ARP projects, one of which
is expected to increase by two or three times the original
estimate. Going forward, the Committee expects SLSDC to control
costs and implement the ARP in as timely and cost-effective
manner as possible. It is crucial for the agency to anticipate
changes to project scope and design, and to calculate and
report projected estimates in year of expenditure.
The Committee recognizes that it is complex to develop
reliable design specifications and accurate cost projections
for a 50-part program that will be implemented over a 10-year
period. SLSDC based its original cost projections on inputs
from four sources: its own historical expenditures for similar
work, consultation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and
the Canadian Saint Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation
[SLSMC] for similar lock work, and data from RS Means for
general construction cost information. The Committee encourages
SLSDC to continue to benchmark ARP against these four sources.
In addition, as SLSDC refines its cost estimates for near-
term projects and integrates those estimates into budget
requests, the Committee expects SLSDC to achieve an increased
level of accuracy by comparing projects to data that is as
current and relevant as possible. The Committee encourages
SLSDC to work with its Canadian counterpart, SLSMC, to track
the actual costs of their modernization projects in the
Canadian sectors of the Seaway, and to use these projects as a
benchmark in determining the reasonableness of cost estimates
and bids received for U.S. projects. The Committee also
encourages SLSDC to increase the dependability of its cost
estimation process by requesting independent financial reviews
of project cost estimates and independent constructability
reviews of project designs prior to contract solicitation for
large construction projects to better ensure that projects can
be successfully bid and built.
The Committee directs SLSDC to submit semiannual reports
regarding the ARP. SLSDC shall, not later than April 30 and
October 31 of each year, submit to the Senate and House
Appropriations Committees a semiannual report summarizing the
activities of the ARP during the immediately preceding 6-month
periods ending March 31 and September 30. Such reports shall
include up to date information on the status of the ARP,
including but not limited to the following: an update on the
status of each project that has received funding; cost overruns
and cost savings for each active project; total work years of
employees per project to date; delays and the cause of delays;
schedule changes; up to date cost projections for each project
in the ARP, highlighting changes in estimates; and any other
deviations from the ARP. The SLSDC is directed to include in
the reports any other relevant information relating to the
management, funding, and implementation of the ARP.
GAO Audit.--Last year, the Committee included language to
conduct an audit and assessment of SLSDC's progress in carrying
out ARP. The Committee requests GAO to continue its efforts to
monitor the ARP. The first GAO report should be submitted to
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations no later than
May 31, 2010, and should take a comprehensive look at ARP. In
general, this audit should include, but is not limited to, an
assessment of the accuracy of the cost projections presented in
the ARP; a determination of cost estimates not included by the
Agency in the ARP; and the need and importance of investment in
each project of the ARP to the operation of the SLSDC.

Maritime Administration

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

MARITIME SECURITY PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2009.................................... $174,000,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 174,000,000
House allowance......................................... 174,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 174,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $174,000,000
for the Maritime Security Program. This amount is equal to the
fiscal year 2009 enacted level and budget request. This level
is consistent with the program's authorized level.

OPERATIONS AND TRAINING

Appropriations, 2009.................................... $123,360,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 152,900,000
House allowance......................................... 140,900,000
Committee recommendation................................ 154,900,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee has recommended an appropriation of
$154,900,000 for Operations and Training at the Maritime
Administration for fiscal year 2010. This amount is $31,540,000
more than the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and $2,000,000
above the budget request. Funding for the subaccounts within
the ``Operations and training'' account are provided as
follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2010 Committee
request recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Merchant Marine Academy
[USMMA]:\1\
Salaries and Benefits......... $31,677,000 $31,677,000
Midshipment Program........... 8,360,000 8,360,000
Instructional Program......... 3,765,000 3,765,000
Program, Direction, and 6,188,000 6,188,000
Administration...............
Maintenance, Repair and 9,067,000 9,067,000
Operations...................
Capital Improvements.......... 15,391,000 15,000,000
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, USMMA............. 74,448,000 74,057,000
=====================================
State Maritime Schools:
Direct Schoolship Payments.... 2,400,000 2,400,000
Fuel Payments................. ................. 300,000
Student Incentive Payments.... 2,000,000 2,150,000
Maintenance and Repair of 11,240,000 11,240,000
Training Ships...............
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, State Maritime 15,640,000 16,090,000
Academies..................
=====================================
MARAD Operations:
Salaries and Benefits......... 28,602,000 28,602,000
Non-Discretionary Operations.. 9,731,000 9,731,000
Information Technology........ 6,214,000 8,155,000
Discretionary Operations and 1,777,000 1,777,000
Travel.......................
Discretionary Program Expenses 1,488,000 1,488,000
MARAD-Homeland Security Port 15,000,000 15,000,000
Initiative...................
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, MARAD Operations.. 62,812,000 64,753,000
=====================================
Total, MARAD Operations and 152,900,000 154,900,000
Training...................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\These amounts may be altered as part of the spending plan.

USMMA.--The United States Merchant Marine Academy [USMMA]
provides educational programs for men and women to become
shipboard officers and leaders in the transportation field. The
Committee is committed to its mission and to ensuring that the
Academy's midshipmen receive the highest quality education so
that they are prepared for their commissions with the U.S.
Naval Reserve or other uniformed service when they graduate.
However, the Committee is concerned that for many years,
officials at the Academy engaged in questionable financial and
management practices that potentially compromised the education
of the students at the Academy. Following an internal audit
conducted by staff at the Maritime Administration [MARAD], the
Committee was alerted to several potential Anti-Deficiency Act
violations and other questionable management practices by
officials at the Academy. In response, the bipartisan
leadership of the House and Senate Subcommittees on
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and Related
Agencies asked the Government Accountability Office [GAO] to
undertake a thorough audit of the Academy's finances and
operations.
The preliminary findings of the GAO suggest a serious lack
of internal controls and accountability, as well as a disregard
for funding limits contained in appropriations laws. The
Committee is dismayed by the number of violations and the
serious flaws in the control process at the Academy. However,
these improper practices in which officials at the Academy
engaged are also the result of lax oversight on the part of the
Department of Transportation and MARAD.
While the GAO's work is not yet complete, the Committee
anticipates dozens of recommendations aimed at establishing a
fiscal control process and an organizational structure that
will establish accountability and restore fiscal integrity at
the Academy. These recommendations will focus on the need to:
address potential Anti-Deficiency Act violations, establish a
funds control process; establish a comprehensive risk-based
internal control system; address problems with nonappropriated
fund instrumentalities; and reconcile midshipmen's fees
collected with uses.
The Committee recognizes that many of the problems that
have already been identified by MARAD as well as the ones
likely to be identified by the GAO began many years ago.
Moreover, officials at MARAD, DOT, and the Academy have already
taken some steps to address some of the problems. In fact, soon
after assuming office the Secretary notified Congress of
several Anti-Deficiency Act violations. The Committee
appreciates the administration's willingness to finally admit
the problems at the Academy, as well as some of the proposals,
including ones contained in the budget, aimed at correcting
issues. In addition, the Academy has a new Superintendent at
the Academy who appears to understand the challenges at the
Academy, and willing to make the changes necessary to improve
Academy's operations.
It is clear, though, that the internal process and
organizational changes that are needed will take time to be
fully implemented. Therefore, the Committee has once again
included language requiring that all funding for the Academy be
given directly to the Secretary, and that 50 percent of the
funding will not be available until MARAD submits a plan
detailing how the funding will be spent. While MARAD did submit
a more detailed plan for how funding will be used as part of
this year's budget submission, the Committee expects the plan
to provide additional specificity as well as make any
adjustments necessary to satisfy recommendations of the GAO.
The Committee also believes that this process will ensure
continued engagement by the Secretary and MARAD officials in
the operations at the Academy, as well as establish a system of
funds control and accountability.
The Committee does recognize the many capital improvement
needs at the Academy, which are important to improving the
experiences of the students at the Academy. Therefore the
Committee has provided $15,000,000 for capital improvements at
the Academy, an increase of $6,850,000 over the level provided
in fiscal year 2009. However, the Committee wants to ensure
that this funding is used for its intended purpose, and directs
the DOT to include detailed information as part of this spend
plan on the Academy's long-term capital plan. This plan should
include new safeguards that will be established to ensure that
the funding is used only for capital improvements.
Finally, the Committee expects the Academy to carefully
assess the necessity of the numerous NAFIs at the Academy.
While the Committee appreciates the important role that the
NAFIs can plan, it is clear that the management and oversight
of these NAFIs was a challenge for the Academy, and warrants a
reassessment of their role at the Academy.
Port Initiative.--The Committee recommendation includes
$15,000,000 that was requested by the President for a new
initiative to be undertaken in partnership with the Department
of Homeland Security to improve the security, capacity, and
efficiency of our Nation's ports. This initiative seeks to
develop the Nation's intermodal freight infrastructure by
linking coastal and inland ports to the highway and rail
networks. The Committee applauds the administration's effort to
recognize the important role that our ports and waterways can
plan in easing congestion and increasing mobility by moving
both freight and passengers from our roads to waterways. The
funding provided as part of this initiative will allow MARAD to
designate and support specific projects that will create new or
expanded services along designated Marine Highway corridors. In
addition the funding will allow for the collection of data to
support the expanded use of a secure national marine highway.
The Committee hopes that this pilot will result in expanded use
of our waterways.
State Maritime Academies.--The Committee has included an
additional $450,000 above the President's request for State
Maritime Academies. The increased funding will support the
efforts of the six-State maritime academies to educate and
train merchant marine and commercial ship officers. These
academies produce the largest number of new licensed officers
in the country. The Committee has included an increase of
$150,000 for the Student Incentive Payments to adequately cover
these payments to students, which were increased last year from
$4,000 to $8,000 per student. In addition, the Committee has
included a new line item for fuel payments, which are an
essential, but costly part of cost of operating the ships used
to train its students.
Information Technology.--Integrated, real-time data on
vessels is critical to both maritime commerce and the safety
and security of our ports and waterways. The Committee has
provided additional resources for information technology, so
that the agency can continue to improve and enhance data
collection and analysis efforts.

SHIP DISPOSAL

Appropriations, 2009.................................... $15,000,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 15,000,000
House allowance......................................... 15,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 15,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Ship Disposal account provides resources to dispose of
obsolete merchant-type vessels of 150,000 gross tons or more in
the National Defense Reserve Fleet [NDRF] which the Maritime
Administration is required by law to dispose of by the end of
2006. Currently there is a backlog of more than 91 ships
awaiting disposal. Many of these vessels are some 50 years old
or more and pose a significant environmental threat due to the
presence of hazardous substances such as asbestos and solid and
liquid polychlorinated biphenyls [PCBs].

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $15,000,000
for the Maritime Administration's Ship Disposal program. This
level of funding is equal to the fiscal year 2009 enacted level
and the President's request. The Committee strongly supports
the Maritime Administration's efforts to dispose of all
obsolete vessels that it has in its fleet. The Committee
recognizes that the agency faces a challenge in reducing its
backlog since ship disposal activities are currently suspended
in the State of California due to conflicting environmental
mandates and regulatory constraints. However MARAD has been
successful at disposing ships in the James River and Beaumont
Reserve Fleets. The Committee expects MARAD to continue its
efforts to reduce the backlog.

ASSISTANCE TO SMALL SHIPYARDS

Appropriations, 2009\1\................................. $117,500,000
Budget estimate, 2010...................................................
House allowance.........................................
Committee recommendation................................ 17,500,000

\1\Of the funds provided for this program for fiscal year 2009,
$100,000,000 was provided as emergency spending as part of the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Public Law 111-5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee is recommending an appropriation of
$17,500,000 for assistance to small shipyards and maritime
communities. This level of funding is $100,000,000 less than
the fiscal year 2009 enacted level, but is equal to the level
of nonemergency funding provided for this program in fiscal
year 2009. The President did not request funding for this
program in fiscal year 2010.
Beginning in fiscal year 2008, the Committee has provided
funding for this program, which helps small shipyards improve
the efficiency of their operations by providing funding for
equipment and other facility upgrades. There were over 250
qualified applicants for the funding provided in fiscal year
2009, both through the Omnibus Appropriations Act and the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 whose requests
far exceeded available resources. The funding recommended by
the Committee will help meet the demand for this funding, and
improve the competitiveness of our Nation's small shipyards.

MARITIME GUARANTEED LOAN (TITLE XI) PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2009.................................... $3,531,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 3,360,000
House allowance......................................... 3,630,000
Committee recommendation................................ 14,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee has recommended an appropriation of
$14,000,000 for the Maritime Guaranteed Loan Title XI program.
Of the amount provided, $4,000,000 is for administrative
expenses necessary to carry out the program. This level of
funding is $10,469,000 more than the fiscal year 2009 enacted
level and $10,370,000 more than the President's request. The
loan guarantee amount of $10,000,000 will provide for a total
loan volume of up to $170,000,000. The affordable financing
opportunities that these loans allow are critical to ensuring
that small and medium shipowners can build ships in the United
States. The Committee expects that MARAD will move quickly to
approve the loan guarantees, which are critical to our domestic
shipbuilding industry.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION

Section 175 authorizes the Maritime Administration to
furnish utilities and services and make repairs to any lease,
contract, or occupancy involving Government property under the
control of MARAD. Rental payments received pursuant to this
provision shall be credited to the Treasury as miscellaneous
receipts.
Section 176 provides a mechanism to collect and utilize
fees collected from midshipmen at the United States Merchant
Marine Academy. The language also accounts for fees previously
collected and held by the Maritime Administration, and allows
for surplus fees from prior years to be refunded to midshipmen.

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

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

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

(PIPELINE SAFETY FUND)

Appropriations, 2009.................................... $19,130,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 18,968,000
House allowance......................................... 19,968,000
Committee recommendation................................ 19,968,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $19,968,000 for this account, of
which $639,000 is to be derived from the Pipeline Safety Fund.
This level of funding is $1,000,000 more than the budget
request and $838,000 more than the fiscal year 2009 enacted
level. The Committee has provided $1,000,000 over the budget
request and directs that this funding be transferred to the
Office of Pipeline Safety for Information Grants to
Communities.

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY

Appropriations, 2009.................................... $32,000,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 35,500,000
House allowance......................................... 36,500,000
Committee recommendation................................ 35,500,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $35,500,000
for hazardous materials safety, of which $1,699,000 shall
remain available until September 30, 2011. The amount provided
is equal to the budget request and $3,500,000 more than the
fiscal year 2009 enacted level.
The Committee recommendation includes an increase to the
Office of Hazardous Materials Safety of $1,300,000 for 15 new
positions as requested. The funding provided for these
positions will enable PHMSA to fill vacancies across the Office
of Hazardous Materials Safety, including: research and
analysis, technology and training and outreach. The additional
resources will also help pay for inspection-related costs
necessary for enforcement of hazardous materials safety
regulations. The Committee notes that the Hazardous Materials
Safety Office currently has several open National
Transportation Safety Board recommendations, and hopes that the
additional resources and personnel will allow the agency to
make progress toward satisfying these recommendations.

PIPELINE SAFETY

(PIPELINE SAFETY FUND)

(OIL SPILL LIABILITY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2009.................................... $93,291,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 105,239,000
House allowance......................................... 105,239,000
Committee recommendation................................ 105,239,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $105,239,000
for the Office of Pipeline Safety. This amount is $11,948,000
more than the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and equal to the
budget request. Of the funding provided, $18,905,000 shall be
derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and $86,334,000
shall be from the Pipeline Safety Fund.
The Pipeline Safety Office has the important responsibility
of ensuring the safety and integrity of the pipelines that run
through every community in our Nation. Following the passage of
the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002, the Office of
Pipeline Safety has taken important steps to improve the
integrity of pipelines in order to protect our communities from
pipeline incidents. Efforts by Congress and the OPS to push for
further advancements in safety technologies, increase civil
penalties, and educate communities about the dangers of
pipelines, have resulted in a reduction in serious pipeline
incidents. However, it is critical that the agency continue to
make strides in protecting communities from pipeline failures
and incidents.
The Committee recommendation includes funding to support 18
new inspection and enforcement positions. These new positions
will meet the authorized level of inspectors and will provide
the OPS with the necessary personnel to oversee the 2.5 million
miles of pipelines across the country. In order to ensure that
OPS is moving forward in hiring these additional personnel, the
Committee continues to request quarterly staffing reports from
OPS.
In addition to funding for additional personnel, the
Committee recommendation also includes an increase of over
$5,000,000 for grants to States, as requested. These grants
enable States to assist OPS in conducting oversight on
pipelines in our States.
Technical Assistance Grants.--In fiscal year 2009, the
Committee provided funding for the first time for pipeline
safety information grants to communities, or technical
assistance grants [TAG]. Through this funding, communities will
be able to obtain technical assistance in the form of
engineering or other scientific analysis of pipeline safety
issues. The funding will also help promote public participation
in official proceedings. The President's budget requested no
additional funding for additional grants. However, the
Committee strongly believes that providing communities with the
resources to obtain expertise and assistance will assist them
in protecting their communities from future pipeline incidents.
Therefore the Committee has provided an additional $1,000,000
for TAG grants for 2010.

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS GRANTS

(EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUND)

Appropriations, 2009.................................... $28,506,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 28,506,000
House allowance......................................... 28,506,000
Committee recommendation................................ 28,506,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $28,506,000 for this activity, of
which $188,000 shall be for activities related to emergency
response training curriculum development and updates, as
authorized by section 117(A)(i)(3)(B) of HMTUSA. The Committee
includes an obligation limitation of $28,318,000 for the
emergency preparedness grant program.
The recommended level for emergency preparedness grants
supports training of first responders and planning for
communities to allow them to appropriately respond to hazardous
materials incidents. This amount also supports the development
and publication of the Emergency Response Guidebook, as well as
training and curriculum development for public sector emergency
response and preparedness teams.

Research and Innovative Technology Administration

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2009.................................... $12,900,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 13,179,000
House allowance......................................... 12,834,000
Committee recommendation................................ 13,179,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $13,179,000
for Research and Innovative Technology Administration for
fiscal year 2010. The amount provided is $279,000 more than the
fiscal year 2009 level and equal to the President's budget
request.
The Committee recommends funds to be distributed to the
following program activities in the following amounts:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salaries and Administrative Expenses.................... $7,143,000
Alternative Fuels Safety Research and Development....... 500,000
RD&T Coordination....................................... 536,000
Nationwide Differential Global Positioning System 4,600,000
[NDGPS]................................................
Position, Navigation, and Timing [PNT].................. 400,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Following a 2006 GAO report which was critical of RITA, GAO
testified in early 2009 that RITA has since implemented several
key GAO recommendations related to: enhancing coordination and
preventing duplication of effort in RITA's oversight of DOT's
research, development and technology activities; evaluating
Departmental research projects against best practices;
developing a Department-wide database to catalogue and track
DOT research activities; communicating research evaluation
results to internal and external stakeholders; and documenting
multi-modal research processes. The Committee expects RITA to
continue to implement these recommendations.
Furthermore, the Committee expects RITA to implement the
remaining GAO recommendations--specifically to develop a
strategic plan, including performance goals and measures, an
implementation strategy, and an evaluation plan. A well-managed
and structured strategic planning process has the potential to
transform RITA into a more effective organization. The
Committee encourages RITA to develop and implement a detailed
action plan--that includes a timetable--for completing the
strategic plan, implementation strategy and evaluation plan.
GAO will continue to monitor RITA's performance in implementing
its recommendations to ensure the effective stewardship of the
Department's research dollars.
Alternative Fuels Safety Research and Development.--The
Committee recommends $500,000 for Fuels Safety Research and
Development. RITA is updating this program to encompass
alternative fuels in addition to hydrogen. This funding
provides for alternative fuels safety standards development,
coordination and outreach activities, and clears the pathway to
fuel technology deployment. RITA will respond to direct
stakeholder and industry needs in advancing alternative fuels
as part of the administration's goal of a greener, more secure
and sustainable economy.
Research, Development, and Technology Coordination.--The
Committee recommends $536,000 for Research, Development, and
Technology [RD&T] Coordination with the expectation that RITA
will coordinate, facilitate, and review the Department's R&D
portfolio and identify synergies among the programs. GAO
reports that RITA has implemented a key recommendation to
coordinate, facilitate, and review RD&T activities within and
across modes. The Committee applauds these efforts to prevent
unnecessary duplication of research efforts, and encourages the
Secretary to entrust RITA with the responsibility to facilitate
Department-wide research projects that investigate cross-
cutting topics like climate change, alternative fuels, and
human factors. To succeed at this endeavor, RITA must hire and
retain RD&T staff that possess the technical expertise to
analyze a wide range of research efforts and identify critical
similarities and differences, and the organizational
credibility and sensitivity to coordinate intermodal teamwork.
Nationwide Differential Global Positioning System
[NDGPS].--The Committee provides $4,600,000 to support
operations and maintenance of the Nationwide Differential
Global Positioning System [NDGPS]. This year's appropriation
will maintain current NDGPS service levels.
Position, Navigation, and Timing [PNT].--The Committee
provides $400,000 to support responsibilities in Position,
Navigation and Timing [PNT] leadership that were delegated from
OST to RITA. The Deputy Secretaries of DOT and the Department
of Defense co-chair the National Executive Committee (ExCom)
for Space-Based PNT, which brings together nine Federal
Departments. RITA supports the Deputy Secretary's leadership
role in ExCom. In addition, RITA directs the PNT National
Coordination Office, represents the PNT concerns of civil
government and the commercial community, and advises existing
and future operations of PNT systems.

Bureau of Transportation Statistics

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

Limitation on obligations, 2009......................... $27,000,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 28,000,000
House allowance......................................... 28,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 28,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

Under the appropriation of the Federal Highway
Administration, the bill provides $28,000,000 for BTS.
In the aforementioned 2006 report, GAO issued a multi-part
recommendation to the RITA Administrator and the BTS Director
to ensure that BTS would better meet the needs of its users.
GAO recommended that RITA develop a formal, comprehensive
system for: identifying and documenting the primary users of
BTS; soliciting feedback from those users on a periodic basis;
developing a formal process for documenting and evaluating user
feedback; and measuring user satisfaction. Since then, BTS has
taken steps to improve user satisfaction with its products and
has formalized criteria to determine whether and how user
feedback should be incorporated. BTS is in the process of
developing performance indicators to measure user satisfaction;
this is an important step, as BTS' user groups include
Congress, DOT and other Federal agencies, State and local
governments, metropolitan planning organizations, universities,
the private sector and the traveling public. The Committee
encourages BTS to develop a detailed action plan--that includes
a timetable--for developing and implementing these performance
indicators.
The Committee limits BTS staff to 122 FTEs and 135 FTPs in
fiscal year 2010 in order to curtail the significant growth in
staffing that occurred previously within this agency.

Office of Inspector General

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2009.................................... \1\$91,400,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 74,839,000
House allowance......................................... 74,839,000
Committee recommendation................................ 75,389,000

\1\Of the funds provided for this program for fiscal year 2009,
$20,000,000,000 was provided as emergency spending as part of the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Public Law 111-5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation provides $75,389,000 for
activities of the Office of the Inspector General, which is
$550,000 more than the President's budget request. While the
funding level is $16,011,000 less than the fiscal year 2009
enacted level including funding provided through the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act [ARRA], it is $3,989,000 more
than the fiscal year enacted level excluding ARRA funds.
The Committee recommendation includes $550,000 to allow OIG
to hire an additional four FTE staff. This will bring OIG to a
total of 420 FTEs in fiscal year 2010. The Committee expects
the Inspector General to use this funding to hire staff with
the expertise necessary to address the Office's most pressing
issues.
As the aviation, transit, and rail industries grow in size
and complexity, the programs and policies of the Federal
Aviation, Transit and Rail Administrations also grow
increasingly complicated. The Committee relies on the Inspector
General and his staff to provide objective analysis of the
Departments' programs. For this reason, the Committee believes
that the Inspector General needs to maintain an adequate
staffing level.
In addition, the OIG will receive $6,604,000 transferred
from other agencies in this bill for audit and investigation
activities within those respective agencies, as noted below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Highway Administration.......................... $3,809,000
Federal Transit Administration.......................... 2,075,000
Federal Aviation Administration......................... 620,000
National Transportation Safety Board.................... 100,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Audit Reports.--The Committee requests the Inspector
General to continue to forward copies of all audit reports to
the Committee immediately after they are issued, and to
continue to make the Committee aware immediately of any review
that recommends cancellation or modifications to any major
acquisition project or grant, or which recommends significant
budgetary savings. The OIG is also directed to withhold from
public distribution for a period of 15 days any final audit or
investigative report which was requested by the House or Senate
Committees on Appropriations.
The Committee has included a provision in section 407 that
requires all departments and agencies in this act to report to
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on all sole
source contracts, including the contractor, the amount of the
contract, and the rationale for a sole-source procurement as
opposed to a market-based procurement. The Committee directs
the IG to assess any conflicts of interest with regard to these
contracts and DOT.
Unfair Business Practices.--The bill maintains language
which authorizes the OIG to investigate allegations of fraud
and unfair or deceptive practices and unfair methods of
competition by air carriers and ticket agents.

Surface Transportation Board

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crediting
Appropriation offsetting
collections
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2009.................. $26,847,000 $1,250,000
Budget estimate, 2010................. 27,032,000 1,250,000
House allowance....................... 29,800,000 1,250,000
Committee recommendation.............. 28,332,000 1,250,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total appropriation of
$28,332,000. This funding level is $1,300,000 more than the
President's request, and $1,485,000 more than the fiscal year
2009 enacted level. Included in the recommendation is
$1,250,000 in fees, which will offset the appropriated funding.
Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008
[PRIIA].--The enactment of PRIIA delineated new roles and
responsibilities for STB, among them to: consult FRA and Amtrak
regarding the development of metrics and minimum standards for
measuring the performance and service quality of intercity
passenger train service; set up a process for receiving and
addressing complaints regarding poor on time performance or
other service quality deficiencies of intercity passenger rail;
and identify for DOT those rail corridors that need to improve
on time performance and reliability, so that DOT may consider
this information when selecting grantees for high priority rail
corridor projects.
The Committee recommends an increase of $678,000 to help
STB meet its PRIIA-related requirements. These funds shall be
used to recruit and hire staff with appropriate education and
experience to manage these new responsibilities.
Uniform Rail Costing System.--The Uniform Rail Costing
System [URCS] is the general purpose, highly specialized cost
model that STB employs to make decisions regarding its core
regulatory matters, including resolution of rate disputes,
abandonment of rail lines, and determination of railroad
revenue adequacy. STB's predecessor agency, the Interstate
Commerce Commission, invested 5 years' time and leveraged
significant technical assistance from economists to develop
URCS in 1989.
A diverse group of stakeholders, including DOT, railroad
industry leaders, and rail customers, has voiced concerns
regarding the key cost and engineering assumptions of URCS, and
the resultant integrity, accuracy and robustness of its
outputs. The group asserts that URCS no longer generates
accurate information that is reflective of industry realities.
STB determined that it lacks the resources to review and update
URCS; therefore, the agency has requested one-time funding to
scope the URCS project, and the Committee provides $350,000 for
this purpose.
The Committee expects STB to use the funds to: (1) work
with experts to judge the validity of the criticisms of URCS,
and, if the criticisms are found to be valid, then (2) define
the proper scope of a project to review and modernize the
costing system; and (3) identify a range of at least three
cost-effective options--basic, moderate and comprehensive--for
the URCS update. The Committee directs STB to submit a final
written report, describing the pros and cons of each of the
three options, as well as the time, funding and other resources
necessitated by each option, to the Senate and House Committees
on Appropriations no later than May 30, 2010. The Committee
will use this final report as the basis for its decisions
regarding fiscal year 2011 requests regarding URCS.
User Fees.--Current statutory authority, under 31 U.S.C.
9701, grants the Board the authority to collect user fees.
Language is included in the bill allowing fees to be credited
to the appropriation on a dollar-for-dollar basis as the fees
are received and credited. The Committee continues this
language to simplify the tracking of the collections and
provide the Board with more flexibility in spending its
appropriated funds.

General Provisions--Department of Transportation

Section 180 allows funds for maintenance and operation of
aircraft; motor vehicles; liability insurance; uniforms; or
allowances, as authorized by law.
Section 181 limits appropriations for services authorized
by 5 U.S.C. 3109 not to exceed the rate for an Executive Level
IV.
Section 182 prohibits funds in this act for salaries and
expenses of more than 110 political and presidential appointees
in the Department of Transportation.
Section 183 prohibits funds for the implementation of
section 404 of title 23, United States Code.
Section 184 prohibits recipients of funds made available in
this act to release personal information, including a Social
Security number, medical or disability information, and
photographs from a driver's license or motor vehicle record
without express consent of the person to whom such information
pertains; and prohibits the Secretary of Transportation from
withholding funds provided in this act for any grantee if a
State is in noncompliance with this provision.
Section 185 allows funds received by the Federal Highway
Administration, Federal Transit Administration, and the Federal
Railroad Administration from States, counties, municipalities,
other public authorities, and private sources for expenses
incurred for training may be credited to each agency's
respective accounts.
Section 186 clarifies the requirement to fund certain
programs, projects and activities identified in this report
within the accounts of the Federal Highway Administration,
Federal Railroad Administration, and Federal Transit
Administration.
Section 187 authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to
allow issuers of any preferred stock to redeem or repurchase
preferred stock sold to the Department of Transportation.
Section 188 prohibits funds in this act to make a grant
unless the Secretary of Transportation notifies the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations at least 3 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 administration.
Section 189 allows rebates, refunds, incentive payments,
minor fees, and other funds received by the Department of
Transportation from travel management center, charge card
programs, subleasing of building space and miscellaneous
sources are to be credited to appropriations of the Department
of Transportation.
Section 190 requires amounts from improper payments to a
third-party contractor that are lawfully recovered by the
Department of Transportation be available to cover expenses
incurred in recovery of such payments.
Section 191 establishes requirements for reprogramming
actions by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
Section 192 prohibits the Surface Transportation Board from
charging filing fees for rate complaints that are greater than
the fees authorized for district court civil suits.
Section 193 allows the Department of Transportation to make
use of the Working Capital Fund in providing transit benefits
to Federal employees.
Section 194 establishes a 1-year pilot program related to
truck weight in the State of Maine. The Committee directs the
Secretary of Transportation to study the impact of this pilot
program on safety, road durability, commerce, and energy use.
The Committee understands that the State of Maine will also
make assessments of the effects of the pilot program on safety,
road durability, commerce, and energy use. In addition, the
Committee directs the Secretary to report to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations no later than 6 months
after the start of the pilot program on the impact to date of
the pilot program on bridge safety and weight impacts.
Section 195 requires the Department of Transportation to
conduct a study related to the Missouri River.
Section 196 clarifies funding for previously funded
projects in Nevada.

TITLE II

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2009..................................\1\$55,197,290,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 45,482,659,000
House allowance......................................... 47,047,751,000
Committee recommendation................................ 45,828,144,000

\1\Of the funds provided for this program for fiscal year 2009,
$13,662,000,000 was provided as emergency spending as part of the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Public Law 111-5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends for fiscal year 2010 an
appropriation of $45,828,144,000 for the Department of Housing
and Urban Development. This is $9,369,146,000 less than the
fiscal year 2009 enacted level but $4,292,854,000 more than the
level of nonemergency funding provided in fiscal year 2009.
This level of funding is also $345,485,000 more then the budget
request.
The Committee reiterates that the Department must limit the
reprogramming of funds between the program, projects, and
activities within each account without prior approval of the
Committees on Appropriations. Unless otherwise identified in
the bill or report, the most detailed allocation of funds
presented in the budget justifications is approved, with any
deviation from such approved allocation subject to the normal
reprogramming requirements. It is the intent of the Committee
that all carryover funds in the various accounts, including
recaptures and de-obligations, are subject to the normal
reprogramming requirements outlined above. No change may be
made to any program, project, or activity if it is construed to
be policy or a change in policy, without prior approval of the
Committees on Appropriations. Finally, the Committee expects to
be notified regarding reorganizations of offices, programs or
activities prior to the planned implementation of such
reorganizations, as well as be identified, 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. No reprogramming between
accounts is allowed under this bill.

Executive Direction

Appropriations, 2009.................................... $23,799,456
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 25,969,000
House allowance......................................... 25,969,000
Committee recommendation................................ 25,969,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $25,969,000
for this account, which is equal to the budget request and
$2,170,000 more than the fiscal year 2009 enacted level.
Amounts are made available as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immediate Office of the Secretary and Deputy Secretary.. $4,619,000
Office of Hearings and Appeals.......................... 1,703,000
Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization.. 778,000
Immediate Office of the Chief Financial Officer......... 727,000
Immediate Office of the General Counsel................. 1,474,000
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional and 2,912,000
Intergovernmental Relations............................
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs.... 3,110,000
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration.... 1,218,000
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian 2,125,000
Affairs................................................
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community and 1,781,000
Planning Development...................................
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing, Federal 3,497,000
Housing Commissioner...................................
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy Development 1,097,000
and Research...........................................
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and 928,000
Equal Opportunity......................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 (Public Law
110-161) included a new salaries and expenses structure for the
Department of Housing and Urban Development. This structure
aligned personnel and operational funding with actual costs by
program. This structure improved the transparency of the
Department's use of Federal resources and gave the Committees
on Appropriations greater oversight of appropriated funds. The
``Executive Direction'' account includes funding for the
Secretary, Deputy Secretary, and Assistant Secretaries to
increase accountability over the lead policy makers of the
Department. The Committee is pleased that the President's
budget continued to request funding in this structure, and has
provided funding as requested to give the Secretary and other
executives at HUD the resources needed to implement the
Department's programs.
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 for prior approval by the Committees. Further, the
Secretary must provide quarterly written notification to the
Committees regarding the status of 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.

Administration, Operations, and Management

Appropriations, 2009.................................... $527,433,640
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 537,897,000
House allowance......................................... 537,897,000
Committee recommendation................................ 537,897,000

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $537,897,000
for this account, which is equal to the budget request and
$10,463,360 more than the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. Funds
are made available as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of Administration Personnel Compensation and $76,958,000
Benefits...............................................
Office of Departmental Operations and Coordination 11,277,000
Personnel Compensation and Benefits....................
Office of Field Policy and Management Personnel 51,275,000
Compensation and Benefits..............................
Office of the Chief Procurement Officer Personnel 14,649,000
Compensation and Benefits..............................
Office of the Chief Financial Officer Personnel 35,197,000
Compensation and Benefits..............................
Office of the General Counsel Personnel Compensation and 89,062,000
Benefits...............................................
Office of the Departmental Equal Employment Opportunity 3,296,000
Personnel Compensation and Benefits....................
Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives 1,393,000
Personnel Compensation and Benefits....................
Office of Sustainability Personnel Compensation and 2,400,000
Benefits...............................................
Office of Strategic Planning and Management Personnel 2,520,000
Compensation and Benefits..............................
Non-personnel expenses.................................. 249,870,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Committee continues to provide for the necessary
administrative and nonadministrative 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.

Personnel Compensation and Benefits

PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING

Appropriations, 2009.................................... $190,390,100
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 197,074,000
House allowance......................................... 197,074,000
Committee recommendation................................ 197,074,000

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $197,074,000
for this account, which is equal to the budget request and
$6,683,000 more than the fiscal year 2009 enacted level.

COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2009.................................... $94,233,700
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 98,989,000
House allowance......................................... 98,989,000
Committee recommendation................................ 98,989,000

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $98,989,000
for this account, which is equal to the budget request and
$4,755,300 more than the fiscal year 2009 enacted level.

HOUSING

Appropriation, 2009..................................... $363,198,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 374,887,000
House allowance......................................... 374,887,000
Committee recommendation................................ 374,887,000

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $374,887,000
for this account, which is equal to the budget request and
$11,689,000 more than the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. The
FHA program has increased its volume significantly, from only 3
percent of the market share in 2006 to nearly 30 percent today.
The Committee understands the important role that FHA is
currently playing in providing Americans with access to
financing and refinancing options. However, the Committee is
greatly concerned that Government is equipped to take the
necessary steps to protect itself from increased risk as the
FHA volume increases. Therefore it is imperative that the
Department has sufficient staff with the appropriate skills to
effectively monitor the FHA program and maintain the solvency
of the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund. Over the past few years,
the Committee has provided additional resources to allow the
Office of Housing to hire additional personnel. In fiscal year
2008, HUD hired more than 160 new employees to work on FHA and
expects to gain over 80 more people in fiscal year 2009. The
Committee is once again providing resources to hire 20
additional staff to work on the single-family housing portfolio
in fiscal year 2010.
The Committee understands that the Department is conducting
an assessment of the program's staffing needs. The Committee
directs the Secretary to submit a plan to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations with 120 days of the enactment of
this act on the human resource needs of the Office of Housing.
The plan should identify the responsibilities, locations and
expertise of the FHA staff, including how staff will address
any shortfalls or needs that could undermine the program. To
the extent possible, the plan should also include how
technology advancements may affect personnel needs. The
Committee also expects the plan to address the aging of HUD's
staff and then identify actions that HUD can take to prevent
problems associated with the retirement of older staff.
The Committee also recognizes that the limited availability
of credit in the private market, as well as programmatic
changes have increased demand for FHA's mortgage insurance
programs for long-term care facilities and hospitals.
Therefore, as part of the staffing plan for FHA, the Committee
directs HUD to include information on the steps being taken to
ensure sufficient staffing levels with the necessary expertise
dedicated to these programs to effectively manage this
increased volume and meet the Department's own targets for
application review and processing.

OFFICE OF THE GOVERNMENT NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION

Appropriations, 2009.................................... $10,000,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 11,095,000
House allowance......................................... 11,095,000
Committee recommendation................................ 11,095,000

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $11,095,000,
which is equal to the budget request and $1,095,000 more than
the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. The Committee provides an
increase to cover the expansion of anticipated FHA guarantees
for fiscal year 2010. The Committee provides language to
continue allowing funding for personnel compensation and
benefits to be derived from the GNMA guarantees of mortgage-
backed securities guaranteed loan receipt account.

POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH

Appropriations, 2009.................................... $18,070,850
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 21,138,000
House allowance......................................... 21,138,000
Committee recommendation................................ 21,138,000

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $21,138,000
for this account, which is equal to the budget request and
$3,067,150 more than the fiscal year 2009 enacted level.

FAIR HOUSING AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

Appropriations, 2009.................................... $69,020,990
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 71,800,000
House allowance......................................... 71,800,000
Committee recommendation................................ 71,800,000

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $71,800,000,
which is equal to the budget request and $2,779,010 more than
the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. The appropriated level for
this account reflects the actual needs based on updated
information provided by HUD prior to the Committee markup of
the bill.
The Committee notes that many communities hardest hit by
the foreclosure crisis are also seeing an increase in dishonest
and predatory lending practices. The Secretary recently
announced the addition of two full time fair housing staff in
HUD's Las Vegas office to conduct education and outreach
locally, receive discrimination complaints and more readily
conduct full investigations. The Committee appreciates the
Secretary's recognition that Las Vegas has been one of the
places in the Nation hardest hit by the foreclosure crisis,
making its residents more susceptible to these predatory and
unfair lending practices. The Committee encourages the
Secretary to maintain staff in this office to continue to
address fair housing issues in and around Las Vegas. In
addition, the Committee encourages the Secretary to assess
other areas of the country experiencing similar foreclosure
problems to see if additional measures or resources are needed
to aid those communities.

OFFICE OF HEALTHY HOMES AND LEAD HAZARD CONTROL

Appropriations, 2009.................................... $6,727,950
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 7,151,000
House allowance......................................... 7,151,000
Committee recommendation................................ 7,151,000

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $7,151,000 for
this account, which is equal to the budget request and $423,050
more than the fiscal year 2009 enacted level.

Public and Indian Housing

TENANT-BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2009\1\................................. $16,975,000,000
Budget estimate, 2010\1\................................ 17,836,000,000
House allowance......................................... 18,242,200,000
Committee recommendation\1\............................. 18,187,200,000

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

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of
$18,137,200,000 for fiscal year 2010; including $4,000,000,000
as an advance appropriation to be made available on October 1,
2010. This amount is $301,200,000 more than the budget request
and $1,162,200,000 more than the fiscal year 2009 enacted
level.
The Committee recommends $16,339,200,000 for the renewal
costs for section 8 contracts, which is $150,000,000 more than
the budget request and $1,139,200,000 more than the fiscal year
2009 enacted level. Housing choice vouchers allow over 2
million individuals and families across the Nation to find and
maintain safe and affordable housing. However, the structure of
the program and its reliance on the private market makes the
program's costs susceptible to economic changes. Currently,
increased unemployment is raising the cost of vouchers for many
public housing authorities [PHAs] across the country since PHAs
must assume housing costs that tenants can no longer pay as a
result of a loss of income. Moreover, an adverse impact of the
recession is that fewer households are able leave the program,
making increased costs even more difficult for PHAs to bear.
Without sufficient resources to cover these increased housing
costs, PHAs may be forced to reduce the number of vouchers to
stay within budget. The Committee recognizes that for many
program participants, losing their vouchers may result in
homelessness. Therefore the Committee provides additional
resources to ensure adequate funding for PHAs to continue
providing housing for all program participants.
The Committee is pleased that the President's first budget
request demonstrated a real commitment to the housing choice
voucher program by requesting the level of funding believed to
be necessary to fund the renewal of all existing vouchers.
However, since the budget was submitted, it has become clear
that the funding requested may not be sufficient to meet the
actual renewal needs of the program. The Committee recognizes
that there will always be uncertainty within the program, and
that the recession is making projections for this account
particularly difficult. However, the agency must do a better
job of tracking voucher use and program costs. The Committee
agrees that the program should serve as many people as feasible
within the resources allocated. However, this requires vigilant
oversight by HUD to ensure that PHAs are managing their
programs within budget. The Committee was dismayed to learn of
instances where incorrect data may have led to HUD providing
PHAs with resource allocations below their renewal needs. Data
problems can stem from both faulty input and analysis, but it
is HUD's responsibility to monitor these data and program
costs, and identify any problems.
In addition to adequate resources, it is also important for
the program to have greater stability. Therefore the Committee
has not included language proposed in the President's budget,
including removing the caps on the number of vouchers that a
PHA can lease and giving the Secretary broad authority to
reallocate reserves. Instead, the Committee has included
language to fund the program in substantially the same manner
as fiscal year 2009. Changes to the program must be done in a
comprehensive manner. Moreover, the Committee cautions that
some of the proposed changes have the potential to quickly and
significantly increase the amount of resources needed for the
program. At this point, the Committee does not have the
confidence that such changes and their potential costs can be
managed by HUD and its IT systems.
HUD-Veterans Affairs Supported Housing [HUD-VASH].--The
Committee has included $75,000,000 to support 10,000 additional
HUD-VASH vouchers. The President's budget did not include
funding for any new HUD-VASH vouchers. These vouchers are an
important part of the solution to homelessness among the
Nation's veterans. The Committee expects that these vouchers
will serve veterans who have experienced long-term
homelessness, as well as high risk Operation Iraqi Freedom and
Operation Ensuring Freedom [OIF/OEF] veterans, including those
with dependent children.
The Committee has been pleased that both HUD and the
Department of Veterans Affairs [VA] have worked together to
address some of the challenges that emerged when the program
was restarted in fiscal year 2008. The VA has increased hiring
of case managers, and HUD joined the VA in conducting a joint
training of both VA case managers and public housing authority
personnel in order to improve the success of the program. These
actions have resulted in increased leasing, which the Committee
expects to continue.
When the Secretary appeared before the Committee in June
2009, he noted that having multiple kinds of vouchers within
the housing choice voucher program may cause complexity for
housing authorities. The Committee acknowledges that public
housing authorities must track HUD-VASH vouchers separately,
but this is important not only in order to ensure that they
continue to serve veterans, but also because these vouchers are
administered in conjunction with the VA. The supportive
services provided by the VA are one of the reasons that HUD-
VASH tenants are more successful in achieving and maintaining
housing stability. Separately tracking and monitoring these
vouchers helps to ensure that the VA has sufficient case
managers to support program participants, while also
guaranteeing that these vouchers will continue to serve
homeless veterans until homelessness among the Nation's
veterans is ended.
The HUD-VASH program has contributed to the overall
reduction in homelessness among the Nation's veterans. However,
there has been an increase in the number of homeless female
veterans, whose number is increasing at a distressing rate, and
many of whom have children. The HUD-VASH program has proven to
be one of the most effective tools in assisting these women and
their families. As the VA works to adapt to the unique needs of
female veterans and their children, the Committee wants to
ensure that the HUD-VASH program will continue to provide them
with permanent and safe housing.
Family Unification Program.--The Committee has provided
$20,000,000 for incremental voucher assistance through the
Family Unification Program. This level of funding is the same
as the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and $20,000,000 more than
the budget request. The Committee has included language that
requires the Secretary to make this funding available to
entities with experience in using this program and the
sufficient resources available to provide voucher recipients
with appropriate supportive services. Congress provided funding
for incremental vouchers in fiscal year 2008, but it was not
until 2009 under the current administration that these vouchers
were awarded. The Committee expects these vouchers to be
allocated effectively, but swiftly.
The Family Unification Program assists families that have
been separated, or are facing separation due to a lack of
housing. The program also provides vouchers to youths age 18 to
21 that are aging out of foster care, or those age 16 or older
who lack adequate housing.
The Committee encourages HUD to coordinate the release of
these vouchers with providers that are part of HUD's Continuum
of Care. Members of the Continuum of Care can assist public
housing authorities identify families and youth that could
benefit from this program. The Committee also hopes that these
vouchers will be used to serve victims of domestic violence who
lack a safe and stable home environment.
Vouchers for Persons with Disabilities.--The Committee has
not included funding for additional incremental vouchers for
non-elderly people with disabilities in fiscal year 2010. The
Committee is concerned with HUD's management of the previous
allocations of vouchers for people with disabilities made in
fiscal years 2008 and 2009. The Committee requests that HUD
provide a letter report on how the competition for these
vouchers has been managed. This information should include the
criteria for selecting among applicant public housing agencies
and efforts to link these resources to human service policies
on community integration for people with disabilities.
Tenant Protection Vouchers.--The Committee recommends
$103,000,000 for tenant protection assistance. This is equal to
the budget request and $47,000,000 below the fiscal year 2009
enacted level. The Committee has once again included statutory
language requiring the Secretary to provide replacement
vouchers for all units in use within the past 24 months that
cease to be available as assisted housing due to demolition,
disposition, or conversion, subject to the availability of
funds. The Committee has also included bill language allowing
tenant protection in the form of project-based assistance to
prevent the displacement of seniors currently residing in
section 202 properties built between 1959 and 1974 that are
refinanced or rehabilitated. These two statutory changes will
prevent the loss of critical housing assistance in communities
around the Nation.
Set-asides for Special Circumstances.--The Committee
provides a set-aside of $150,000,000 to allow the Secretary to
adjust allocations to PHAs under certain prescribed
circumstances. The Committee notes that the set-aside level
represents an increase of $50,000,000 over the fiscal year 2009
enacted level. The Committee expects this will provide the
Secretary with a means of assisting PHAs with unexpectedly high
unemployment and loss of income. Qualifying factors include:
(1) public housing agencies that experienced a significant
increase, as determined by the Secretary, in renewal costs of
tenant-based rental assistance resulting from unforeseen
circumstances and voucher utilization or the impact from
portability under section 8(r) of the act; (2) public housing
agencies with voucher leasing rates at the end of the calendar
year that exceed the average leasing for the 12-month period
used to establish the allocation; (3) adjustments to costs
associated with VASH vouchers; and/or (4) public housing
agencies with vouchers that were not in use during the 12-month
period in order to be available to meet a commitment pursuant
to section 8(o)(13) of the act. A PHA should not receive an
adjustment to its allocation from the funding provided under
this section if the Secretary determines that such PHA, through
negligence or intentional actions, would exceed its authorized
level.
Administrative Fees and Family Self-sufficiency
Coordinators.--The Committee recommends $1,550,000,000 for
administrative fees, which is $56,200,000 more than the budget
request and $100,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2009 enacted
level. The Committee also includes bill language allowing the
Secretary to utilize unobligated balances, including recaptures
and carryovers, remaining from funds appropriated under this
heading from fiscal years 2009 and prior fiscal years to
increase funding as needed for administrative fees.
The Committee also recommends $50,000,000 for the Family
Self-Sufficiency Coordinators, which is equal to the budget
request and the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. The Family-Self
Sufficiency program provides services, such as childcare, job
training and employment counseling, transportation and
education, to housing choice voucher recipients. The supportive
services provided through this program assist families in
achieving economic independence and self-sufficiency.
Transformation Initiative.--The Committee has included
language allowing the Secretary to transfer up to $50,000,000
from this account to the Transformation Initiative. The
President's budget proposed to allow a transfer of up to 1
percent from this account. The Committee did not agree that the
proposed uses of funding for the Transformation Initiative
warranted such an immediate and significant deviation of funds
from the tenant-based rental assistance account. However, the
Committee has included the authority to transfer a more limited
amount of funding from this account in order to invest in
research, demonstrations, and technologies that will provide
direct benefits to the tenant-based rental assistance program.
Within the Transformation Initiative account, the Committee
directs that some of the funding will be dedicated to improving
the voucher management system. The existing systems are unable
to accurately track vouchers, which results in challenges for
both the Department and the Committee in trying to determine
the appropriate funding levels for the program. The Committee
expects the Secretary to work expeditiously to improve the
systems.

PUBLIC HOUSING CAPITAL FUND

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2009...................................\1\$6,450,000,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 2,244,000,000
House allowance......................................... 2,500,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,500,000,000

\1\Of the funds provided for this program for fiscal year 2009,
$4,000,000,000 was provided as emergency spending as part of the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Public Law 111-5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,500,000,000
for the Public Housing Capital Fund, which is $256,000,000 more
than the budget request and $3,950,000,000 less than the amount
provided for the program in fiscal year 2009. However, the
amount is $50,000,000 more than the nonemergency funding
provided in fiscal year 2009.
Of the amount made available under this section,
$40,000,000 is for supportive services for residents of public
housing and up to $8,820,000 is made available to pay the costs
of administrative and judicial receiverships. The Committee
recommends up to $15,345,000 to support the ongoing financial
and physical assessment activities at the Real Estate
Assessment Center [REAC]. This amount is equal to the budget
request.
Public housing provides over 1.2 million low-income
households with safe and stable housing. The resources provided
in the Capital Fund assist in the preservation of these
important national assets. Unfortunately, limited resources
have affected the ability of public housing authorities to
upgrade and preserve these facilities, leading to a backlog in
capital needs of over $20,000,000,000.
In recognition of the importance of preserving the Nation's
affordable housing stock, Congress included an additional
$4,000,000,000 to the Public Housing Capital Fund as part of
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act [ARRA]. With this
funding, public housing authorities will be able to increase
the energy efficiency of public housing, build new housing or
facilities, and bring vacant units back online. In addition,
these investments are also creating jobs. While the Committee
recognizes the investment that was made in the Capital Fund as
part of ARRA, additional funds are warranted as part of the
fiscal year 2010 bill to continue to address the backlog and
increase the condition and supply of the Nation's public
housing.
Early Childhood Education Facilities.--The Committee has
included $50,000,000 to fund grants for public housing agencies
to construct, rehabilitate or acquire facilities to provide
quality early childhood education and care to children living
in and around public housing. Research has demonstrated that
effective early learning can have an enormous impact on a
child's future success in school and in society. However, the
cost of building adequate facilities that best serve children
is high, which poses a particular challenge to serving low-
income children. These grants will provide public housing
agencies the necessary capital to leverage additional resources
and increase their ability to work with State, local, nonprofit
and private sector partners to bring quality early childhood
education and childcare opportunities to children living in and
around public housing. The funding provided can also be used
for facilities that provide other important services to public
housing residents, including: job and employment training,
adult education, financial literacy education, or other
appropriate supportive services.
The administration recently announced its intention to
reward the incorporation of early childhood education in
community revitalization efforts when selecting grantees to
receive HOPE VI awards in its annual competition. The Committee
agrees with this emphasis on better integrating housing and
supportive service delivery in order to improve educational and
economic outcomes for public housing residents. By including
funding for competitive grants under the Public Housing Capital
Fund, the Committee intends to expand access to capital
resources necessary to bring early childhood education or other
service facilities to public housing agencies beyond those
participating in the HOPE VI program.
Capital Needs Assessment.--In fiscal year 2008, the
Committee directed HUD to undertake an assessment of the
capital needs of public housing. The Committee requested this
study in order to understand the condition of our Nation's
public housing stock and to gain a better understanding of the
cost of maintaining this housing. This assessment will help the
Committee determine the level of resources necessary to ensure
that public housing continues to serve its residents and be an
asset to the government. In conducting this assessment,
however, the Committee expects HUD to evaluate not only the
cost of maintaining the housing as is, but the cost of making
reasonable improvements that will ensure efficiently operated
housing that meets the needs of tenants.
Therefore, the study should include what capital
improvements are necessary to meet the demands of its aging
population, which continues to grow. In addition, the study
should consider the cost of making green or energy efficiency
improvements. Since the last evaluation was conducted, it has
become clear that these investments can result in a reduction
in the cost of operating public housing. So, while these
investments may seem to go beyond what is necessary to maintain
public housing, the study should include improvements that can
be made to increase the efficiency and sustainability of the
portfolio. Moreover, since the Committee also provides the
funding to operate public housing, it is necessary to
understand how investments in green buildings and energy
efficient technologies might result in cost savings on the
operating side. In order to ensure that the study provides
sufficient information to inform the decisions of Congress, the
Committee directs the Department to once again meet with the
advisory committee on the scope of the capital needs
assessment. The assessment undertaken must evaluate the true
capital needs of public housing.
Providing Guidance to PHAs on Disaster-related Damages.--
Since Hurricane Katrina, HUD has worked with the Federal
Emergency and Management Administration [FEMA] to delineate
clear roles and responsibilities for each agency in providing
housing and related assistance to citizens in the wake of
disasters. In addition, last year, Congress repealed section
9(k) of the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act
[QHWRA], thereby clarifying that public housing capital funds
cannot be used to pay for the repair of public housing damaged
in Presidentially declared disasters. In light of this change,
HUD must provide public housing authorities [PHAs] clear
guidance on the process for applying for funding to make
permanent repairs to public housing damaged by disasters. The
Committee directs HUD to continue working with FEMA to ensure
that Federal policies and procedures for addressing public
housing needs following disasters accurately reflect the repeal
of section 9(k). Moreover, as policies are developed, they must
be clearly communicated to all PHAs.

PUBLIC HOUSING OPERATING FUND

Appropriations, 2009.................................... $4,455,000,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 4,600,000,000
Housing allowance....................................... 4,800,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 4,750,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,750,000,000
for the public housing operating fund, which is $150,000,000
more than the budget request and $295,000,000 more than the
fiscal year 2009 enacted level. The Committee applauds the
administration's goal to fully fund the cost of operating
public housing. However, the Committee is concerned that the
analysis understates the actual costs of operating public
housing. As such, the Committee has recommended additional
funding in order to maintain safe and sanitary housing and
services for public housing residents. The Committee has
provided additional funds to offset rising utility costs and
increased requirements placed on PHAs.
The bill includes language from the fiscal year 2004
appropriation bill that prohibits the use of operating funds to
pay for the operating expenses for a prior year.

REVITALIZATION OF SEVERELY DISTRESSED PUBLIC HOUSING [HOPE VI]

Appropriations, 2009.................................... $120,000,000
Budget estimate, 2010...................................................
House allowance......................................... 250,000,000
Committee recommendation................................................

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The HOPE VI program has been a vital tool used to
revitalize low-income neighborhoods and improve the lives of
public housing residents. The Committee remains supportive of
the goal of the HOPE VI program to replace severely distressed
public housing with new housing and stronger communities. The
Committee has included funding for the President's proposed
Choice Neighborhoods Initiative, which builds on the successes
of HOPE VI and expands the program to other HUD-assisted
housing. The Committee is therefore not recommending any
additional funding for HOPE VI in fiscal year 2010.
However, the Committee notes that there are still over 140
active HOPE VI grants, as well as the additional grants that
will be awarded funding in 2009. The Committee remains
committed to the success of these projects, and therefore
directs the Secretary to continue to provide the necessary
oversight, technical assistance and support to existing HOPE VI
grantees. As noted in 2009, the Committee is particularly
focused on ensuring the success of the HOPE VI grantees that
face imminent expenditure deadlines and encourages the
Secretary to support those grantees in expending their funding
in a timely and effective manner.

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS

Appropriations, 2009....................................................
Budget estimate, 2010................................... $250,000,000
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 250,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $250,000,000
for the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative. This amount is equal
to the level requested by the President. The fiscal year 2009
Omnibus Appropriations bill included $120,000,000 for the HOPE
VI program, which replaces the most severely distressed public
housing with mixed-income, mixed-use neighborhoods. Choice
Neighborhoods seeks to build on the HOPE VI program by
expanding the types of eligible grantees and allowing funding
to be used on HUD-owned or assisted housing, as well as the
surrounding community.
The Committee agrees that expanding HUD's ability to direct
funds to revitalization efforts that reach beyond public
housing will broaden the impact of the Department's community
revitalization efforts. However, the Committee notes that the
work to replace distressed public housing is not yet complete.
Therefore the Committee has included language that stipulates
that not less than $165,000,000 of the funding provided shall
be awarded to projects where public housing authorities are the
lead applicant.
In addition, this initiative is designed to evaluate and
address the services and opportunities that are important to
the success of residents living in these newly revitalized
neighborhoods, including access to schools, transportation,
jobs, and services. The Committee applauds the administration's
effort to think holistically about the needs of distressed
communities and their residents to ensure that revitalization
efforts transform both neighborhoods, and the lives of their
residents. However, while the Committee supports the
administration's efforts to push communities to work in
partnership with other organizations and different State and
local agencies, the Committee also expects HUD to recognize
that communities have different local needs and structures. So,
in developing the criteria for this initiative, HUD should not
be overly prescriptive or unnecessarily limiting in what types
of partnerships are required or how they are defined.
While the Committee recommends funding to allow this
initiative to move forward, the Committee is concerned by the
lack of details about how the Secretary will evaluate and
determine successful projects. Moreover, there are many
important issues to be resolved by the Department before
implementing the program, including resident protections.
Therefore, the Committee has directed the Secretary to submit a
plan to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations
within 60 days of the enactment of this act detailing how HUD
will define functioning, sustainable, mixed-income
neighborhoods, as well as what specific goals the Secretary and
grant recipients will have to meet. In addition, the Committee
expects the plan to include more detail on the role that other
Federal agencies will play in this initiative. It is important
for the Committee to have a better understanding of how the
administration intends to implement the program before the
administration publishes criteria for project selection.
Green Buildings and Green Jobs.--As HUD seeks to define the
projects that it will fund, the Committee encourages the
Department to prioritize investments in green buildings and
energy efficient technologies. Furthermore, the Committee
encourages the Secretary to consider grantees that have
demonstrated experience in creating green, affordable housing
and redeveloping distressed neighborhoods. Green and energy
efficient investments are not only beneficial to the
environment, but they can also result in important energy cost
savings for public housing authorities and low-income housing
residents.
Moreover, as Choice Neighborhoods grantees undertake
construction, the Committee expects HUD to promote grantees
that successfully integrate green jobs training into projects
with an emphasis on providing training and job opportunities to
public housing and community residents.

NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANT

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2009\1\................................. $1,155,000,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 645,000,000
House allowance......................................... 750,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 670,000,000

\1\Of the funds provided for this program for fiscal year 2009,
$510,000,000 was provided as emergency spending as part of the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Public Law 111-5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $670,000,000
for the Native American Housing Block Grants, of which
$2,000,000 is set aside for a credit subsidy to support a loan
level not to exceed $18,000,000 for the section 601 Loan
Guarantee Loan Program.
The recommended level of funding is $485,000,000 less than
the amount provided in fiscal year 2009, but $25,000,000 more
than the amount of nonemergency funding provided for this
program in fiscal year 2009. The amount is also $25,000,000
more than the request.
The Committee recognizes the housing and economic
development challenges that face so many Native American tribes
today. In fact, Native Americans face unemployment and poverty
rates that are nearly twice as high as those of other
Americans. However, there is little recent data available to
quantify the housing needs of Native Americans. The
transformation initiative includes funding for research
activities, and the Committee has recommended that HUD
undertake a study to evaluate the housing needs of Native
American. The Committee expects that this research will provide
HUD with a better understanding of the housing needs of Native
American tribes, which should result in innovative new policies
and approaches to addressing their unique needs.
In fiscal year 2009, the Committee included funding to
Office of Rural Housing and Economic Development to conduct
economic development and entrepreneurship activities for
federally recognized Indian tribes. The Committee provided this
funding in order to give tribes the resources and tools to
enable tribes to promote economic development, create jobs, and
increase housing capacity. The Committee directs the Office of
Rural Housing and Economic Development to coordinate this
effort with the Office of Native American Programs.
The Committee continues to include $3,500,000 for technical
assistance through a national organization representing Native
American housing interests and $4,250,000 for inspections of
Indian housing units, contract expertise, training, technical
assistance, oversight, and management.

NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANT

Appropriations, 2009.................................... $10,000,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 10,000,000
House allowance......................................... 12,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 13,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $13,000,000
for the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant Program, which is
$3,000,000 more than the budget request and the fiscal year
2009 enacted level. Of the amount provided, $300,000 shall be
for training and technical assistance activities, including up
to $100,000 for related travel for Hawaii-based HUD employees.

INDIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation on
Program account guaranteed
loans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2009.................. $9,000,000 $420,000,000
Budget estimate, 2010................. 7,000,000 919,000,000
House allowance....................... 7,000,000 919,000,000
Committee recommendation.............. 7,000,000 919,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $7,000,000 in
program subsidies to support a loan level of $919,000,000. This
subsidy amount is equal to the budget request and $2,000,000
less than the fiscal year 2009 enacted level.

NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation on
Program account guaranteed
loans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2009.................. $1,044,000 $41,504,255
Budget estimate, 2010................. 1,044,000 41,504,255
House allowance....................... ............... ...............
Committee recommendation.............. 1,044,000 41,504,255
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,044,000 in
program subsidies to support a loan level of $41,504,255. This
subsidy level and loan level is equal to the budget request and
the fiscal year 2009 enacted level.

Community Planning and Development

HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS [HOPWA]

Appropriations, 2009.................................... $310,000,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 310,000,000
House allowance......................................... 340,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 320,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $320,000,000
for the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS program.
This level of funding is $10,000,000 more than both the fiscal
year 2009 enacted level and the budget request. The Committee
has included language requiring HUD to allocate these funds in
a manner that preserves existing HOPWA programs to the extent
that these programs are determined to be meeting the needs of
persons with AIDS.
The HOPWA program has proven effective at helping
individuals with HIV/AIDS avoid homelessness and achieve
housing stability. Research has demonstrated that providing
stable housing to persons with HIV/AIDS can improve their
health outcomes. For example, a June 2009 article published in
the American Journal of Public Health discussed a comparison of
housing outcomes for persons who received respite care after
hospitalization with those who were unable to find housing. The
research found that the individuals with housing had improved
health outcomes and fewer hospitals stays. These data
demonstrate, once again, that housing not only improves the
health and quality of life of persons living with HIV/AIDS, but
is also more cost-effective than frequent hospital stays.
Grantees receiving HOPWA funding have demonstrated similar
success in their performance reports. According to information
HUD gathered from its grantees, from 2007-2008, 92 percent of
households receiving rental assistance achieved housing
stability with related support. In the same reporting data,
individuals receiving short term or transitional housing
support maintained their housing stability, or reduced their
risk of homelessness by 62 percent.
While the HOPWA program has demonstrated success, there is
still substantial work to do to meet the housing demand of low-
income persons with HIV/AIDS. Recent data from HUD's Annual
Homeless Assessment Report to Congress indicate that the number
of homeless persons with HIV/AIDS increased slightly from 2007
to 2008. As such, the Committee has increased funding for this
account above the President's request and expects that the
additional funding provided will allow grantees to continue to
serve those in existing programs and reach additional persons
in need.

OFFICE OF RURAL HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2009.................................... $26,000,000
Budget estimate, 2010...................................................
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................................

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Rural Housing and Economic Development was
established to ensure that the Department has a comprehensive
approach to rural housing and rural economic development
issues. The account includes funding for capacity building in
rural, underserved areas, and grants for Indian tribes, State
housing finance agencies, State and local economic development
agencies, rural nonprofits and rural community development
corporations to pursue strategies designed to meet rural
housing and economic development needs.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The President's budget proposes to fund the activities of
the Office of Rural Housing and Economic Development within the
Community Development Fund as a new Rural Innovation Fund. The
budget therefore requested no funding in fiscal year 2010 for
the Office of Rural Housing and Economic Development. The
Committee supports the recommendation to move the program in
order to better coordinate community development activities and
programs. However, the Committee remains committed to the goals
of the program, and retained the structure of the program,
while encouraging the Secretary to seek out new and innovative
approaches to address the unique housing and economic
challenges of rural communities.

community development fund

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2009...................................\1\$6,900,000,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 4,450,000,000
House allowance......................................... 4,598,607,000
Committee recommendation................................ 4,450,000,000

\1\Of the funds provided for this program for fiscal year 2009,
$3,000,000,000 was provided as emergency spending as part of the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Public Law 111-5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,450,000,000
for the Community Development Fund in fiscal year 2010. This
level is $2,450,000,000 less than the level provided to the
program in fiscal year 2009, but $550,000,000 more than the
amount provided in fiscal year 2009 not including emergency
funding. The recommendation is equal to the budget request.
The Committee has provided $3,992,000,000 for Community
Development Block Grants. This level of funding represents an
increase of $350,033,125 over the nonemergency block grant
funding provided in fiscal year 2009. This funding provides
States and entitlement communities across the Nation with
resources that allow them to undertake a wide range of
community development activities, including public
infrastructure improvements, housing rehabilitation and
construction, job creation and retention, and public services
that primarily benefit low and moderate income persons. As
States and communities struggle with budget constraints, this
funding will allow States and communities to undertake new
housing and community development projects, and maintain
important services.
The Committee notes that the President's budget proposed
altering the existing CDBG formula. However, specific reform
legislation was not transmitted for the authorizing committees
to consider. As such, the funding provided will be allocated
under the existing formula.
Sustainable Communities Initiative.--The Committee has
recommended $150,000,000, as requested, to support the
President's Sustainable Communities Initiative. The funding
provided will support an interagency collaboration among HUD,
DOT, and the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]. The
resources provided include: $100,000,000 for Regional
Integrated Planning grants; $40,000,000 for Community Challenge
Planning grants; and $10,000,000 for joint HUD and DOT research
to support and enhance the creation of sustainable, livable
communities.
Across the country today, families living in urban,
suburban, and rural communities are burdened by the high costs
of housing and transportation. Moreover, the housing and
transportation options available in many of our communities do
not meet the needs of their citizens. The economic recession
has only highlighted the need to increase access to affordable
housing and public transportation, as well as the need to lower
transportation and energy costs. The interagency partnership
among HUD, DOT, and EPA is a first step to removing barriers
that limit the ability of communities to coordinate the
housing, transportation, and water infrastructure resources
that support smart community redevelopment. The objective of
this interagency partnership is to work together to identify
and remove barriers to collaboration. Removing these barriers
should create new opportunities to design and build communities
that link the housing, transportation, services, and commercial
assets that comprise vibrant, economically diverse communities.
The Committee has provided $100,000,000 for Regional
Integrated Planning Grants. HUD, DOT, and EPA should promote
plans that incorporate affordable rental and homeownership
options, and consider a variety of transportation options
including: transit, ferries, and bicycles. The agencies should
also encourage planning that effectively places housing in
proximity to transportation, jobs, retail, social services, and
other public assets such as schools and libraries. The funding
recommended for fiscal year 2010 will support regions' efforts
to build and improve the capacity of metropolitan
transportation and housing planning organizations to conduct
integrated planning. The funding can also be used to provide
regions with the technology and tools necessary to conduct
effective, integrated regional planning. The Committee has
included language stipulating that not less than $25,000,000
shall go to metropolitan areas with fewer than 500,000 persons.
The Committee has included this language to ensure that
residents of smaller, more rural communities will also benefit
from improved housing and transportation coordination.
In addition, $40,000,000 has been included to fund similar
planning efforts at the local level. The Committee expects that
HUD and DOT will prioritize communities located in regions that
receive Regional Integrated Planning Grants, so that the local
communities will have the capacity and resources to support and
increase the success of regional planning efforts. The
Committee expects that these resources will be allocated to a
wide range of communities, including urban, rural, and suburban
communities.
In announcing their partnership, HUD, DOT, and EPA
simultaneously released six livability principles. These
guiding principles are to: provide more transportation choices;
promote equitable, affordable housing; enhance economic
competitiveness; support existing communities; coordinate and
leverage Federal policies and investment; and value communities
and neighborhoods. The Committee agrees with the foundation of
this initiative as outlined by HUD, DOT, and EPA. However, the
Committee seeks additional detail about the specific manner in
which the resources provided by the Committee in fiscal year
2010 will generate projects in support of these principles. In
order to gain greater clarity about eligibility requirements
for program participation, and the performance measures for
selected grantees, the Committee has included language
requiring HUD, in consultation with DOT and EPA, to submit a
plan to the Committee on Appropriations as well as the Senate
Committee on Banking and Urban Affairs and the House Committee
on Financial Services establishing grant criteria, as well as
performance measures by which the success of grantees will be
measured. This plan should also include actions that HUD,
working with DOT and EPA, will take to identify and remove
statutory or regulatory barriers that are critical to the
success of this initiative.
The Committee expects that as HUD, DOT, and EPA work to
develop performance measures of grantees and communities, they
will integrate accessibility needs. The Committee directs HUD
to work with the Access Board on elements that are critical to
fostering accessible design and community development.
The Committee has also included $10,000,000 for HUD, in
partnership with DOT, to conduct research around this
initiative. This research should provide more data and analysis
to inform and improve local and regional planning efforts. In
addition the research should provide HUD and DOT with
information on how successful approaches to integrated planning
by regions and local communities can assist the departments in
the development of policies and best practice models. The
funding will also be used to conduct an evaluation of the
program. The Committee directs an initial evaluation to be
submitted to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations
within 18 months of grant awards, with annual updates
thereafter. These evaluations should include as assessment of
grantees, as well as actions undertaken by the departments to
integrate lessons learned into this initiative as well as other
HUD and DOT programs.
Rural Innovation Fund.--The Committee supports the
administration's effort to seek new and innovative ways to
address housing and economic challenges in rural communities.
However, the administration has not provided a clear vision for
how this program will be structured or why the funding is
better utilized by States. The Committee has therefore agreed
with the President's request to move the program activities
under the Community Development Fund, but has maintained the
eligibility of existing program participants including Indian
tribes, State housing finance agencies, and local nonprofits
and community development corporations. The Committee expects
that in selecting grant recipients in fiscal year 2010, the
Secretary will seek out new and innovative approaches to
addressing the needs of rural communities.
Continuing HUD's Partnerships with Colleges and
Universities.--The Committee has included funding for colleges
and universities as authorized under section 107 of the Housing
and Community Development Act of 1974. Consistent with prior
years, funding will be awarded to historically black colleges
and universities, tribal colleges and universities, Alaska
Native and Native Hawaiian institutions, and Hispanic-serving
institutions. While the Committee has maintained the structure
of the program it has included the funding within the Community
Development to better align it with other community development
programs. The Committee expects that the Secretary will use the
resources provided in a manner that will support the goals of
assisting residents and revitalizing neighborhoods surrounding
these colleges and universities.
The Committee includes $65,000,000 for grants to Indian
tribes for essential economic and community development
activities which is equal to the budget request and the fiscal
year 2009 enacted level.
The Committee recommends funding for the Economic
Development Initiative [EDI] and the Neighborhood Initiatives
program [NI]. The Committee clarifies that funding provided
through EDI and NI cannot be used to reimburse costs already
incurred on a project before an award is made by HUD for that
specific project.
The Committee includes language making technical
corrections to economic development initiatives funded under
this heading in prior appropriation acts.
The Economic Development Initiatives are as follows:

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
Recipient and location Project purpose recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abused Women's Aid in Crisis; Anchorage, AK.... For infrastructure improvements at a center to serve victims of domestic violence............................................. $200,000
Ada Public Works Authority, Ada, OK............ For construction of a water tower............................................................................................. 400,000
Albany, GA..................................... For the transformation of real estate property and infrastructure into a Certified Industrial Park............................ 450,000
American Red Cross of Northeast IN............. For an expansion of the existing facility..................................................................................... 200,000
Amos House, Providence, RI..................... For construction of a training and support center to serve low-income individuals............................................. 750,000
Anchorage Community Land Trust, Anchorage, AK.. For rehabilitation and renewal of key blighted property along Mountain View Drive............................................. 400,000
Androscoggin Valley Council of Governments..... For the restoration of the historic Camden Yarns Mill building in downtown Lewiston would rehabilitate a blighted mill on the 600,000
river.
Appalachia Service Project, Brenton, WV........ For a home repair program for low-income families in Southern West Virginia................................................... 750,000
Appalachia Service Project, Chavies, KY........ To serve families below the Federal poverty level through a variety of means, such financial assistance with daily purchases 460,000
or equipping homes with running water.
Appleton Housing Authority, Appleton, WI....... For construction and preservation of low-income elderly housing............................................................... 420,000
Architectural Heritage Foundation, Lowell, MA.. For construction of a mixed-use urban development including space for affordable housing...................................... 200,000
Ardmore Development Authority, Ardmore, OK..... For infrastructure improvements............................................................................................... 600,000
Argentine Neighborhood Dev. Assoc., Kansas For property acquirement, infrastructure improvements, and housing construction............................................... 1,000,000
City, KS.
Arkansas Food Bank Network, AR................. For establishment of a new facility........................................................................................... 200,000
Automation Alley, Troy, MI..................... For contruction of the Automation Alley International Business Center......................................................... 300,000
Blair County, PA............................... For acquisition, demolition and site preparation within Blair County's blighted urban core areas, including downtown Altoona.. 250,000
Bolivar County, MS............................. For the renovation and repair of a historic courthouse........................................................................ 350,000
Boyle County Fiscal Court, Danville, KY........ To upgrade the current building and infrastructure in Boyle County............................................................ 500,000
Boys & Girls Club of Greater Westfield, For renovation and expansion of a youth facility.............................................................................. 300,000
Westfield, MA.
Boys and Girls Clubs of Southwest Washington... For the expansion of the Boys & Girls Clubs of SW Washington Facility......................................................... 1,000,000
Bristol Bay Borough, AK........................ For infrastructure expansion at the Port of Bristol Bay....................................................................... 1,000,000
Buena Vista Charter Township, MI............... For the redevelopment of blighted property.................................................................................... 400,000
Calhoun County, MS............................. For renovation and construction of an historic courthouse..................................................................... 900,000
Chippewa-Luce-Mackinac Community Action Human For construction of a new service center to house all the agency's programs which benefit low-income county residents......... 400,000
Resources Authority, Luce County, MI.
City of Anderson, IN........................... For technology and building infrastructure improvements, tenant build-out and enhancements, and laboratory development for the 200,000
incubator campus of buildings.
City of Billings, MT........................... For the purchase of generators to provide emergency power to critical water facilities........................................ 1,000,000
City of Bozeman, MT............................ For reconstruction following an explosion in a downtown historic district..................................................... 1,000,000
City of Cincinnati, OH......................... For redevelopment of Brownfield property into a new light industrial and service center business park......................... 600,000
City of Council Bluffs, IA..................... For development of low and moderate income housing............................................................................ 350,000
City of Danville, IL........................... For acquisition, demolition and redevelopment of dilapidated and abandoned structures......................................... 350,000
City of Dells Rapids, SD....................... For restoration, renovation and modernization of an historic public library................................................... 500,000
City of Desert Hot Springs, CA................. For development of a community facility to address a serious health and public safety problems in a low income area........... 300,000
City of Forsyth, GA............................ For renovations of the former Tift College are necessary to house the Georgia Department of Corrections which has been vacant 650,000
since 1994 and are in various states of disrepair and must be brought up to the current standards.
City of Gig Harbor, WA......................... For construction of a multi-use facility by the Boys and Girls Club........................................................... 750,000
City of Greenville, MS......................... For renovations and infrastructure enhancements for a youth wellness project.................................................. 300,000
City of Hattiesburg, MS........................ For renovations and replacement of buildings and equipment for a park in a blighted neighborhood.............................. 500,000
City of Hopkinsville, KY....................... For necessary infrastructure.................................................................................................. 3,000,000
City of Hyden, KY.............................. For construction and development of a community wellness facility to serve southeastern Kentucky.............................. 500,000
City of Jackson, MS............................ For property improvements related to the Capitol Street Renaissance Project................................................... 805,000
City of Jackson, MS............................ For renovation and rehabilitation of the City of Jackson's Public Facilities for the Cultural Arts and Science................ 550,000
City of Lewiston, ME........................... For the City of Lewiston's ongoing efforts to revitalize its riverfront....................................................... 900,000
City of Midland, TX............................ For renovations to 30-year old facilities so that they can continue to serve the Midland community............................ 500,000
City of North Adams, MA........................ For renovation and restoration of a downtown historic building in order to reduce blight and attract private investment....... 200,000
City of Oxford, MS............................. For renovation of a historical structure...................................................................................... 400,000
City of Pascagoula, MS......................... For construction of city of Pascagoula beach park promenade................................................................... 500,000
City of Pawtucket, RI.......................... For repair and renovation of a historic public library........................................................................ 250,000
City of Peoria, IL............................. For critical public infrastructure improvements around the Glen Oak and Harrison Community Schools............................ 250,000
City of Philadelphia, PA....................... For mixed-use Transit Oriented Development in the area around the 9th and Berks rail station.................................. 500,000
City of Piedmont, OK........................... For the construction of a municipal building.................................................................................. 1,000,000
City of Quincy................................. For the acquisition of blighted residential properties to create affordable housing and facilitated mixed-use development..... 200,000
City of Rochester, NY.......................... For environmental mediation, demolition, and other site preperation for revitalization........................................ 350,000
City of Rockford, IL........................... For capital costs associated with the city's mixed-use development plans...................................................... 250,000
City of Ruston, LA............................. Purchase of the equipment needed to construct the city-wide broadband network to be managed and maintained by the city of 200,000
Ruston.
City of Springfield, IL........................ For acquisition of abandoned properties and upgrades to infrastructure........................................................ 350,000
City of Taunton, MA............................ For safety and access improvements at a low-income senior center.............................................................. 200,000
City of Tuscaloosa, AL......................... For the downtown revitalization project....................................................................................... 5,000,000
City of Waterbury, CT.......................... For the redevelopment of Brownfields and blighted properties.................................................................. 500,000
City of Wenatchee, WA.......................... For property acquisition and renovation of Wenatchee Pybus Food Bank and Distribution Center.................................. 1,500,000
City of Winston-Salem, NC...................... For creation of office space to recruit businesses to a Winston-Salem, as part of the revitalization of a blighted area....... 500,000
City of York, PA............................... For restoration and preservation of historic central market................................................................... 800,000
Community Area Resource Enterprise [CARE 66], For the development of up to 60 units of affordable housing................................................................... 500,000
Gallup, NM.
Community Chest, Virginia City, NV............. For construction of a multi-use community center in Storey County............................................................. 200,000
County Commissioners of Charles County, MD..... For installation of plumbing in low-income housing............................................................................ 300,000
County of Kauai, HI............................ For on-site infrastructure improvements to enable the construction of 26 residential homes for low-income households.......... 250,000
County of Minnehaha, SD........................ For construction of a facility to house chronically homeless persons.......................................................... 350,000
Covenant House Alaska, Anchorage, AK........... For the relocation of a crisis center facility................................................................................ 500,000
Crossroads, North Kingstown, RI................ For the development and construction of a Child Care and Community Center..................................................... 750,000
Delaware Children's Museum, DE................. For the construction of the Delaware Children's Museum in Wilmington, Delaware, as part of a community revitalization effort.. 200,000
Detroit Institute of Arts, Detroit, MI......... For removal and replacement of the roof on an historic building............................................................... 650,000
Divide County, Crosby, ND...................... For reclamation of a former Air Force Base site for redevelopment............................................................. 300,000
East Central Community Center, Spokane, WA..... For design and construction of a community facility........................................................................... 350,000
East Orange Division of Senior Services, East For renovation of a Senior Citizen Center..................................................................................... 200,000
Orange, NJ.
El Centro de Servicios Sociales, Lorain, OH.... For construction and renovations of an aging structure........................................................................ 600,000
Emergency Shelter of the Fox Valley, Appleton, For acquisition and rehabilitation of permanent supportive housing for chronically homeless persons........................... 350,000
WI.
Esperanza, Philadelphia, PA.................... For the planning, design, rehabilitation and construction of affordable housing in the Hunting Park neighborhood.............. 200,000
Eva's Village, Paterson, NJ.................... For renovation of the center's facilities..................................................................................... 800,000
First Steps Primeros Pasos, Georgetown, DE..... For construction and start up costs for a bilingual early care and education facility to help children of non-English-speaking 200,000
families develop the skills needed to succeed.
Food Bank of Delaware, Newark, DE.............. For expansion of a commercial kitchen, a volunteer room, a Culinary Arts Training Facility, a retail area and additional 200,000
office space that will allow the food bank to meet growing demand in Kent and Sussex counties.
Freestore Foodbank, Cincinnati, OH............. For major renovations on two heavily used food bank facilities................................................................ 550,000
Garrard County Fiscal Court, Lancaster, KY..... For renovation and expansion of the Garrard County EMS building in Lancaster, KY.............................................. 200,000
Georgia Maritime Trade Center Authority, For site preparation in accordance with the Parcel 7/Riverwalk Civic Master Plan, including planning and preparation work, and 900,000
Savannah, GA. the design and construction of a public access floating dock system to accommodate traffic flow to/from the site.
Greater Boston Food Bank, Boston, MA........... For construction of a regional food distribution center....................................................................... 600,000
Hampshire County Special Services Center, WV... For the acquisition of an additional facility to provide services and employment to individuals with developmental 1,000,000
disabilities.
Hawaii Public Housing Authority, Honolulu, HI.. For code enforcement and renovation of 24 housing units for very low to low income elderly individuals at the Pahala Elderly 400,000
Housing projects.
Hawaii Public Housing Authority, Honolulu, HI.. For renovation of housing units to provide 25 refurbished housing units for low income individuals at the Kahale Mua Public 400,000
Housing.
Heritage Services, Omaha, NE................... For construction of an 80,000 square foot, multi-level facility that will accommodate an education and interactive learning 800,000
center.
Homeward, Inc., Clarion, IA.................... For expansion of a construction finance program to develop housing in rural communities for low-income individuals............ 200,000
Housing Vermont, Burlington, VT................ For construction and improvement of housing stock............................................................................. 250,000
Howard County, MD.............................. For rehabilitation and equipment purchase for community and wellness rooms in low- and moderate-income elderly housing 500,000
community.
Iowa Department of Economic Development, Des For rehabilitation of buildings and areas..................................................................................... 1,000,000
Moines, IA.
Jackson County Commission, WV.................. For expansion of the drill hall and supporting facilities at the proposed Spencer-Ripley Armed Forces Reserve Center.......... 1,500,000
Jackson County, MS............................. For Phase I of construction and renovation.................................................................................... 500,000
KC Parks and Recreation Department, Kansas City For the construction of new community center.................................................................................. 2,000,000
Kids Come First; Columbus, OH.................. For construction of a child care facility..................................................................................... 500,000
King County Housing Authority, King County, WA. For the renovation and expansion of three youth community centers located in three public housing sites....................... 1,000,000
Lanakila Rehabilitation Center, Honolulu, HI... For renovation and expansion of the Wahiawa Training and Support Complex, which will double capacity to provide training and 300,000
employment opportunities for people with disabilities and other low income individuals.
Longview Housing Authority, Longview, WA....... For the rehabilitation of historic building into a veterans housing and service center........................................ 500,000
Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule, SD....... For purchase of a new playground equipment and upgrades to a kitchen and learning areas of a daycare facility to improve 200,000
safety for children.
Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule, SD....... For upgrades to a community center............................................................................................ 350,000
Luna County Community Recreation Facility, NM.. For the renovation of the old Pepsi building to house dedicated youth activities, practice space, and community meeting rooms 410,000
Maryland Department of Natural Resources, For restoration and preservation of properties to alleviate economic distress through stimulation of private investment and 475,000
Annapolis, MD. community revitalization.
Maryland Food Bank, Halethorpe, MD............. For infrastructure improvements to a distribution facility and purchase of equipment.......................................... 400,000
Maui Economic Concerns of the Community, For rehabilitation and improvement of a homeless resource center and affordable housing for low-income residents.............. 500,000
Wailuku, HI.
Mid Plains Community College, McCook, NE....... For construction of a new Events Center that supports rural economic development and activity in southwestern Nebraska........ 500,000
Middlesex Community College, Lowell, MA........ For redevelopment of an underutlized historic building to expand community services........................................... 200,000
Military Business Park, City of Fayetteville, For construction of a military business park.................................................................................. 600,000
NC.
Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks For redevelopment of a Superfund site and a State park........................................................................ 750,000
Ministry of Caring, Wilmington, DE............. For renovations to the Josephine Bakhita House to serve as residence for young adults who are committed to social 200,000
responsibility and giving back to the community through volunteer service.
Mookini Luakini Foundation, North Kohala, HI... For construction and renovation of a cultural education center for low income youth........................................... 200,000
Mt. Washington Community Development For planning, designing, site preparation, demolition and construction associated with brownfield redevelopment............... 200,000
Corporation, Pittsburgh, PA.
Multi-Disciplinary Combined Facility for the For construction of a facility................................................................................................ 1,000,000
Copper River Native Association, Cantwell, AK.
Navajo Technical College, Crownpoint, NM....... For construction of a regional health center located on the campus of the Navajo Technical College............................ 400,000
Nevada Housing and Neighborhood Development For development of an assisted living facility for low-income seniors......................................................... 700,000
[HAND], Las Vegas, NV.
New Futures, Seattle, WA....................... For the planning, design and construction of a community center............................................................... 450,000
Noble County Health Department, Caldwell, OH... For the rehabilitation of a 30-year-old building to increase functionality and energy efficiency.............................. 400,000
North Olympic Regional Housing Network, Forks, For the purchase and conversion of building into transitional and permanent supportive housing for homeless veterans and their 500,000
WA. families.
Northeast Iowa Food Bank, Waterloo, IA......... For construction of a food warehouse and distribution center.................................................................. 350,000
Northern Comm. Investment Corp., St. Johnsbury, To continue to expand high-speed, high technology broadband connectivity to New Hampshire's North Country..................... 1,000,000
VT.
Northside Community Housing, Inc., St. Louis, To provide renovations in order to preserve affordable housing units for low- and moderate-income seniors, individuals, and 1,000,000
MO. families.
Our City Reading, Reading, PA.................. For rehabilitation of abandoned houses and provision of down- payment assistance to home buyers............................... 200,000
Panhandle Area Development District, Gering, NE For remodel of an existing building into a physical and virtual small business incubator to serve the Panhandle of Nebraska... 300,000
Parish of Ascension, LA........................ For acquisition of the multi-purpose center................................................................................... 700,000
Pendleton Round-Up Foundation, Pendleton, OR... For the reconstruction and construction needs of facilities which are critical to the local economy........................... 500,000
Pocahontas County Commission, Marlinton, WV.... For construction of a mulltipurpose community center, which would promote the health and wellness of county residents, and 3,000,000
provide youth and adult alcohol and drug prevention programs.
Port of Coos Bay, Coos Bay, OR................. For purchase of critical dock equipment essential to local economic survival.................................................. 350,000
Portsmouth Music Hall, Portsmouth, NH.......... To repair, restore, and modernize the theater and construct an additional space............................................... 1,000,000
Redevelopment Authority of the City of For site acquisition, demolition, remediation and redevelopment of priority sites in the 30th Street Industrial Corridor...... 300,000
Milwaukee, WI.
Riverfront, Inc., La Crosse, WI................ For expansion of a training facility for vocational and independent living services........................................... 300,000
Rockland Housing Action Coalition, Nanuet, NY.. For construction of permanent, supportive rental housing for existing and returning disabled veterans and their families...... 1,000,000
Rocky Mountain Youth Corps, Rancho de Taos, NM. For preconstruction costs of a youth facility................................................................................. 300,000
Saginaw County, MI............................. For an energy efficient infrastructure demonstration project to support the renaissance of downtown Saginaw................... 350,000
Scranton City, PA.............................. For elimination of slum and blight............................................................................................ 300,000
Self-Help Housing Corporation of Hawaii, For the construction of 76 lot subdivision for self-help housing project for low-income families.............................. 500,000
Honolulu, HI.
Silver Stage Youth Organization, Silver For design and construction of a multi-purpose youth facility................................................................. 200,000
Springs, NV.
Snohomish County, Everett, WA.................. For the acquisition and renovation of a new facility for use by Dawson's Place Child Advocacy Center.......................... 1,000,000
Spirit Lake Nation, Fort Totten, ND............ For construction of low-income senior housing units........................................................................... 750,000
Squamscott Community Commons, Exeter, NH....... For the construction of a new community center................................................................................ 1,000,000
St. Louis County Economic Council, St. Louis, For the final design and construction of Wellston Child Care Center........................................................... 2,250,000
MO.
Starr Commonwealth, Battle Creek, MI........... For renovations to facilities serving at-risk youth........................................................................... 900,000
Tallahatchie County, MS........................ For renovation of the Emmett Till Memorial Complex............................................................................ 195,000
The Arc of Spokane, Spokane, WA................ For capital costs and equipment acquisition for the renovation of the Arc of Spokane's Indiana building....................... 1,000,000
The Institute for Human Services, Honolulu, HI. For construction of a job and skills training center at Hawaii's oldest and largest emergency homeless shelter................ 200,000
The Old Slater Mill Association, Pawtucket, RI. For completion of the historic restoration project at the Historic Slater Mill................................................ 200,000
Theodore Roosevelt Medora Foundation, Medora, For restoration and expansion of historic property............................................................................ 300,000
ND.
Tides Family Services, West Warwick, RI........ For renovation and expansion a center for at-risk youth in Providence, RI..................................................... 350,000
Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority, Toledo, OH. For purchase and remediation of the 110-acre former Jeep Parkway property..................................................... 1,300,000
Town of Gorham, NH............................. For renovation of a community facility to house programs serving children, youth and families in Coos County.................. 200,000
Town of Greenville, ME......................... For completing the Greenville Junction Wharf, including the construction of boat trailer parking, a handicapped-accessible 250,000
boat launch, picnic tables and benches, steel sheet piles, and composite wood cribbing to replace the rotting timbers.
Town of North Kingstown, RI.................... For construction of a new senior center....................................................................................... 300,000
Town of Silver City, NM........................ For the construction of the Vistas de Plata, a 56 unit affordable housing project............................................. 600,000
Tundra Women's Coalition, Bethel, AK........... For replacement of a women's facility......................................................................................... 500,000
United Way of Dave County, Madison, WI......... For acquisition and redevelopment of apartment units in order to provide supportive housing for homeless families............. 200,000
United Way of Kitsap County, Bremerton, WA..... For capital costs related to the development of the United Way Non-profit Community Center.................................... 500,000
Utah Food Bank Services, UT.................... For expanding the capacity to collect and distribute food to low-income individuals and families.............................. 250,000
Vermont Association of Area Agencies on Aging, For improvements to facilities for seniors.................................................................................... 500,000
Barre, VT.
Vermont Division for Historic Preservation, For preservation of historic assets........................................................................................... 200,000
Montpelier, VT.
Vermont Foodbank, Barre, VT.................... For energy efficiency improvements............................................................................................ 200,000
Vermont Housing and Conservation Board, For enhancement of affordable housing and community development linked with land conservation and historic preservation....... 4,000,000
Montpelier, VT.
Vermont Housing and Conservation Board, For the construction and improvement of housing stock......................................................................... 250,000
Montpelier, VT.
Volunteers of America Michigan, Lansing, MI.... For expansion of housing shelters and community access to medical, social, civic, and economic services....................... 400,000
Waipa Foundation, Hanalei, HI.................. For construction, renovation, and equipment purchase for a State-certified commercial kitchen, food mill, and underground 400,000
oven, for vocational training and processing of value-added agricultural products in low-income and farming communities.
Watson's Children's Shelter, Missoula, MT...... For construction of an emergency children's shelter........................................................................... 250,000
Wayne State College, Wayne, NE................. For construction of a new collaborative education center...................................................................... 300,000
West Columbia, SC.............................. To establish an enrichment complex for families and children.................................................................. 250,000
West Valley City, UT........................... For the construction of a new City Center Plaza in a blighted area. The plaza is a critical element of a major redevelopment 1,000,000
project currently underway along with a planned intermodal center.
Westerly Area Rest Meals [WARM Inc.], Westerly, For expansion and renovation of a community soup kitchen...................................................................... 300,000
RI.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The neighborhood initiatives are as follows:

NEIGHBORHOOD INITIATIVES
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commitee
Recipient and location Project purpose recomendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capitol Hill Housing, Seattle, WA.............. For the construction of affordable housing.................................................................................... $725,000
Center for Planning Excellence, Baton Rouge, LA For provision of technical assistance to a community regarding sustainable development, neighborhood revitalization, housing 1,000,000
and land use planning.
City of Gig Harbor, Gig Harbor, WA............. For improved physical access to area businesses............................................................................... 1,500,000
City of Olympia, Olympia, WA................... For downtown revitalization and business access improvements.................................................................. 1,100,000
Consumer Credit Counseling Service, Las Vegas, For foreclosure prevention efforts............................................................................................ 500,000
NV.
Growing Places, Centralia, WA.................. For facility and infrastructure improvements to an education and job training facility serving at-risk youth.................. 500,000
Holyoke Community College, Holyoke, MA......... For completion of construction of a one-stop education, social services, and job training center serving low-income persons... 250,000
homeWORD, Missoula, MT......................... For development of rental housing that is affordable to working families...................................................... 500,000
Jacksonville Area Legal Aid, Jacksonville, FL.. For foreclosure prevention training and other legal services.................................................................. 400,000
Jefferson County, CO........................... For the housing authority to establish a new program of housing and supportive services for homeless veterans over age 50..... 500,000
Kitsap Community Resources, Bremerton, WA...... For the construction of an early learning center.............................................................................. 750,000
Lighthouse for the Blind, Inc., Seattle, WA.... For the improved accessibility of community and transit services for blind, low vision, and deaf-blind individuals in King, 550,000
Pierce, and Spokane counties in Washington State.
Mississippi State University, Starkville, MS... For community planning and development........................................................................................ 500,000
NeighborWorks Lincoln, Lincoln, NE............. For neighborhood revitalization including elimination of blight, construction of single family homes, rehabilitation and 500,000
repairs.
North End Action Team, Middletown, CT.......... For foreclosure prevention assistance......................................................................................... 200,000
Northern Community Investment Corporation, For capitalization of a revolving loan fund to support businesses in New Hampshire's North Country............................ 500,000
Berlin, NH.
South Dakota Science and Technology Authority, For infrastructure improvements to the Homestake Mine......................................................................... 400,000
Lead, SD.
Southeastern Connecticut Housing Alliance, For programs to increase affordable housing................................................................................... 200,000
Norwich, CT.
Technology Access Foundation, White Center, WA. For the construction of the TAF Community Learning Space facility............................................................. 500,000
Town of Huntington, NY......................... For construction of a state-of-the-art community center for veterans.......................................................... 800,000
Urban League of Southern Connecticut, Stamford, For homeownership and foreclosure prevention counseling....................................................................... 300,000
CT.
YWCA of Yakima, Yakima, WA..................... For upgrades to the YWCA's Bringing It Home supportive housing project for victims of domestic violence....................... 300,000
YWCA Southeastern Massachusetts, New Bedford, For construction of a community center and women's transitional housing facility.............................................. 200,000
MA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LOAN GUARANTEES PROGRAM ACCOUNT

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee has recommended a loan level guarantee of
$275,000,000 for the section 108 loan guarantees account for
fiscal year 2010. This guaranteed loan level is equal to both
the fiscal year 2009 level and the budget request. This program
enables Community Development Block Grant recipients to use
their CDBG dollars as leverage as part of economic development
projects and housing rehabilitation programs. Communities are
allowed to borrow up to five times their most recent CDBG
allocation. The Committee strongly supports this program, which
is even more critical with limited credit in the private
market. The Committee has included the language proposed by the
President which allows the program to continue, while
eliminating the need for a Federal appropriation.

BROWNFIELDS REDEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2009.................................... $10,000,000
Budget estimate, 2010...................................................
House allowance......................................... 25,000,000
Committee recommendation................................................

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2009...................................\1\$4,075,000,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 1,825,000,000
House allowance......................................... 2,000,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,825,000,000

\1\Of the funds provided for this program for fiscal year 2009,
$2,250,000,000 was provided as emergency spending as part of the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Public Law 111-5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

program description

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,825,000,000
for the Home Investment Partnership Program. This amount is
$2,250,000,000 less than the amount provided in fiscal year
2009, but equal to the 2009 program level not including
emergency funding. The level recommended is also equal to the
budget request.
The Home Investment Partnership Program is HUD's major
housing production program. Since 1992, the HOME program has
succeeded in producing over 870,000 units. The majority of the
units produced serve low-income or extremely low-income
residents and include homeownership, rental and homeowner
rehabilitation. In addition to construction and rehabilitation,
HOME funds can also be used for rental assistance, and there
are over 197,000 households receiving rental assistance through
the HOME program. The flexibility provided in the HOME program
allows participating jurisdictions to use HOME funds to
effectively meet the needs of their communities.
The Committee notes that in fiscal year 2008, HUD
reallocated funding to conduct a ``green buildings''
competition, in order to encourage the use of green buildings
and energy efficient technologies. The Committee hopes that HUD
will continue to encourage the use of green buildings and
energy efficient technologies as part of HOME programs.
Technical Assistance.--The Committee has not included
funding for technical assistance within the amount provided for
the HOME Investment Partnerships Program, but has instead
allowed funding provided under this heading to go toward the
Transformation Initiative as requested. However, the Committee
expects that technical assistance funding will still be awarded
to qualified nonprofit intermediaries to provide technical
assistance to Community Housing and Development Organizations
[CHDOs], as well as for technical assistance for jurisdictions
participating in the HOME program.

SELF-HELP AND ASSISTED HOMEOWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2009.................................... $64,000,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 77,000,000
House allowance......................................... 85,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 85,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $85,000,000 for the Self-Help and
Assisted Homeownership Program, which is $8,000,000 more than
the budget request and $21,000,000 more than the fiscal year
2009 enacted level. The Committee has included $27,000,000 for
the Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program authorized
under section 11 of the Housing Opportunity Extension Act of
1996.
The Committee recommends $50,000,000 for capacity building
as authorized by section 4 of the HUD Demonstration Act of
1993. The Committee notes that funding provided under this
section requires a statutory 3-to-1 match to further leverage
resources to assist more communities. The Committee provides
$8,000,000 to carry out capacity building activities in rural
communities as authorized under section 6301 through 6305 in
Public Law 110-246.
During this economic crisis, the need for affordable
housing has only increased. Congress has provided funding
through such programs as the Neighborhood Stabilization Program
to create additional affordable housing, and undertake economic
development in communities across the Nation, especially those
hardest hit by the foreclosure crisis and recession. However,
the success of these efforts relies, in large part, on the
capacity of States, local governments, and organizations to
develop and implement effective housing and community
development plans. The increased funding recommended under this
program is intended to ensure that these communities have the
skills and technical capabilities necessary to undertake
effective community development activities. In addition,
resources have been targeted to rural communities to address
their unique needs and challenges.

HOMELESS ASSISTANCE GRANTS

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2009...................................\1\$3,177,000,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 1,793,715,000
House allowance......................................... 1,850,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,875,000,000

\1\Of the funds provided for this program for fiscal year 2009,
$1,500,000,000 was provided as emergency spending as part of the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Public Law 111-5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Homeless Assistance Grants Program provides funding to
break the cycle of homelessness and to move homeless persons
and families to permanent housing. This is done by providing
rental assistance, emergency shelter, transitional and
permanent housing, and supportive services to homeless persons
and families. The emergency grant is a formula funded grant
program, while the Supportive Housing, Section 8 Moderate
Rehabilitation Single-Room Occupancy and Shelter Plus Care
Programs are competitive grants. Homeless assistance grants
provide Federal support to one of the Nation's most vulnerable
populations. These grants assist localities in addressing the
housing and service needs of a wide variety of homeless
populations while developing coordinated Continuum of Care
[CoC] systems that ensure the support necessary to help those
who are homeless to attain housing and move toward self-
sufficiency.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,875,000,000
for Homeless Assistance Grants in fiscal year 2010. This amount
is $81,285,000 more than the President's request. This amount
is $1,302,000,000 less than the amount provided in fiscal year
2009, but $198,000,000 more than the nonemergency funding
provided in fiscal year 2009. Of the amount appropriated, up to
$6,000,000 is for technical assistance and data analysis. The
Committee has also provided the Secretary with the authority to
transfer up to $12,500,000 of Homeless Assistance funding to
the Transformation Initiative. Sufficient funding has also been
included to fully fund Shelter Plus Care renewals on an annual
basis. The Committee has continued bill language that: (1)
requires not less than 30 percent of the funds appropriated,
excluding renewal costs, shall be for permanent housing for
both individuals and families; (2) requires the renewal of all
expiring Shelter Plus Care contracts on an annual basis if the
contract meets certain requirements; (3) requires a 25 percent
match for social services; and (4) requires all homeless
funding recipients to coordinate and integrate their programs
with other mainstream and targeted social programs.
On July 9, 2009, the Secretary released the Annual
Homelessness Assessment Report [AHAR] for 2008, as required by
Congress. While the report found that the number of homeless in
the United States remained relatively unchanged from 2007 to
2008, the data did reveal an increase of 9 percent in
homelessness among families. Our Nation's suburban and rural
communities also experienced an increase in homelessness. While
these figures are alarming, what is perhaps even more
distressing is that the data collection ended as the economic
crisis was accelerating.
Congress took action to help address this concern by
including $1,500,000,000 as part of the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act for homelessness prevention and rapid re-
housing activities. The Committee expects that this funding
will provide communities with the necessary resources to aid
families that are struggling to remain in stable housing.
However, more action is necessary. The Committee has
recommended additional resources for homeless programs in
fiscal year 2010 to help communities respond to and prevent
increased homelessness in this difficult economic time. The
Committee expects that this additional funding will allow the
Secretary to fund an increased number of new projects, and
directs that resources be targeted to the most pressing needs
identified in the AHAR, including family homelessness and
suburban and rural homelessness.
Coordination with the Department of Education.--The
President recently signed the Homeless Emergency Assistance and
Rapid Transition to Housing [HEARTH] Act into law (Public Law
111-22). This bill will expand the definition of homelessness
and also provide communities with more resources and tools to
prevent homelessness. This is particularly important in
assisting children and youth who are homeless or at-risk of
homelessness. HUD and the Department of Education both provide
critical resources to assist these children and youth in
achieving housing stability and improving educational outcomes.
While each agency's role is different, it is imperative--for
serving these children and youth successfully--that the
departments work in coordination to best identify and serve
these children and youth in need. By working in partnership on
the Federal level and then providing clear and coordinated
guidance to homeless education liaisons and homeless service
providers in the field, communities will be able to better
identify and provide homeless or at-risk children and youth
with the housing and education services to which they are
entitled. While each department has different statutory
guidelines, the goal must be to effectively coordinate and
utilize Federal resources to provide these vulnerable children
and youth the services that they need.
As HUD works to develop the regulations and guidance
necessary to implement the HEARTH Act, there is an opportunity
to encourage communities to find new and innovative ways to
prevent and end homelessness. Moreover, in an effort to foster
a more collaborative approach to homelessness, HUD should work
with other Federal agencies during this process to design
programs at HUD that support and complement other Federal
programs. In order to facilitate this, the Committee directs
the Secretary to work with the Secretary of Education and
develop measures and guidance that will result in better
coordination between HUD and the Department of Education, as
well as measures that will result in better coordination in
delivering housing and education services to homeless and at-
risk children and youth in our communities. These measures and
guidance should include: coordination on Continuum of Care
plans on identifying and making homeless families and youth
aware of education services available to them; designating
agency staff to ensure that children are enrolled in school and
connected to appropriate community services; establishing
policies and practices consistent with the education subtitle
of the McKinney-Vento Act and other related laws relating to
the provision of educational and related services to
individuals and families experiencing homelessness; and
ensuring that collaborative applicants for Continuum of Care
funding take into account the educational needs and the school
of origin of children placed in emergency or transitional
shelters.
Increased Homelessness Among Female Veterans.--Homelessness
among our Nation's veterans is a tragedy that requires not only
attention, but also action. Congress has taken steps to provide
homeless veterans with increased housing and services with
programs such as the HUD-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing
program, which takes veterans off the street or out of shelters
and places them in permanent housing. While officials at the
Department of Veterans Affairs [VA] have seen a decrease in the
overall number of homeless veterans, unfortunately, there has
been an increase in homelessness among our Nation's female
veterans. Recent data from the VA indicate that the number of
female veterans who end up homeless has doubled over the last
decade, and in fact 1 out of every 10 homeless veterans under
the age of 45 today is a woman. Faced with mental trauma
related to military service and challenges in transitioning
into the civilian workforce, these female veterans are between
two and four times more likely to become homeless than other
women. Many of these female veterans also have children in
their care, which can make accessing housing services from the
VA challenging. As the Secretary looks to fund additional
programs to serve families as part of the homeless competition
in fiscal year 2010, the Committee encourages special attention
to programs that will provide services to female veterans and
their children. In addition, as the Secretary works in
coordination with the VA and the Department of Labor to execute
the demonstration program to prevent homelessness among our
Nation's veterans, for which the Committee included funding in
fiscal year 2009, selected grantees should have plans to
address the unique and growing needs of female veterans who are
at-risk of homelessness.
Permanent Supportive Housing.--The Committee continues
language that requires 30 percent of funds be set aside for
permanent supportive housing for individuals and families. This
will support Federal, State, and local efforts to increase the
supply of permanent housing. Meeting the goal of creating
150,000 new units of permanent housing is critical to efforts
to end chronic homelessness among individuals and families.
Annual Homeless Assessment Report [AHAR].--The Annual
Homeless Assessment Report stems from congressional directives
begun in 2001 that charged the Department with collecting
homeless data through the implementation of a new Homeless
Management Information System [HMIS]. The AHAR report included
HMIS data, information provided by Continuums of Care, and a
count of sheltered and unsheltered persons from one night in
January of each year. The Committee applauds the Secretary's
efforts to improve and collect more real time data on
homelessness in our communities. Because of the importance of
these data and the AHAR report, the Committee has retained some
funding within the account to support those efforts.
The Committee requests that HUD submit the AHAR report by
June 14, 2010. The Committee further hopes that HUD's efforts
to increase participation in the HMIS effort will lead to
improved information about and understanding of the Nation's
homeless.
Renewal Costs.--The Committee reiterates the directive
included in the conference report for the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2005 (House Report 108-792) regarding out-
year costs of renewing HUD's permanent housing programs. The
Department should continue to include 5-year projects, on an
annual basis, for the cost of renewing the permanent housing
component of the Supportive Housing Program and the Shelter
Plus Care Program in its fiscal year 2011 budget
justifications.

Housing Programs

PROJECT-BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2009\1\\2\.............................. $9,500,000,000
Budget estimate, 2010\1\................................ 8,100,000,000
House allowance......................................... 8,700,000,000
Committee recommendation\1\............................. 8,100,000,000

\1\Includes an advance appropriation.
\2\Of the funds provided for this program for fiscal year 2009,
$2,000,000,000 was provided as emergency spending as part of the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Public Law 111-5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total appropriation of
$8,100,000,000 for the annual renewal of project-based
contracts, of which not less than $232,000,000, but not to
exceed $258,000,000 is for the cost of contract administrators.
The recommended level of funding is $1,400,000,000 less than
the amount provided in fiscal year 2009, but is $600,000,000
more than the amount of nonemergency funding provided for this
program in fiscal year 2009. The recommendation is also equal
to the budget request.
The section 8 project-based account provides the necessary
funding to ensure that many of our Nation's vulnerable elderly,
disabled, and low-income citizens have safe and stable housing.
The funding provided pays the cost of privately owned housing
for these residents. However, for several years, HUD created
great instability in this program by requesting insufficient
resources to pay the full renewal costs if its contracts. HUD
managed the program by short-funding contracts, and in some
instances delaying payments to landlords. The effect of this
policy was to push the costs of the program into a future year,
thereby creating a shortfall of over $2,000,000,000 in the
amount necessary to fully fund all existing contracts. As a
result of this policy of short-funding contracts and delaying
contract payments, landlords reconsidered program
participation, and residents living in project-based housing
feared losing their housing.
In order to restore stability to the program, and fulfill
the Federal Government's commitment under existing contracts,
Congress included $2,000,000,000 in emergency funding as part
of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. This
funding allowed HUD to return to the practice of fully fund all
contracts for 12 months. The amount of funding recommended in
this bill will allow HUD to continue this practice in fiscal
year 2010. The Federal Government has an important role to play
in creating and sustaining affordable housing, especially for
its most vulnerable citizens. However, it cannot do it alone;
it requires partnerships with State and local governments,
nonprofits and others in the private sector. By providing the
resources necessary to fully funding contracts, the Committee
expects that the Federal Government will be able to maintain
and create new partnerships with local, nonprofit and private
sector entities to sustain and create new affordable housing
for our Nation's low-income citizens.
Transformation Initiative Transfer.--The President's budget
proposed to transfer up to 1 percent of the funding from this
account to the Transformation Initiative. The Committee is not
convinced that this initiative warrants such a significant
investment from the section 8 project-based rental assistance
program. Moreover, the Committee does not want to leave the
program with insufficient funding to cover contract costs in
fiscal year 2010. However, the Committee does see some benefits
that the initiative can provide to the program. This includes
investments in better information technology to improve
management of project-based contracts. Therefore the Committee
includes language allowing up to $20,000,000 to be transferred
from this account to the Transformation Initiative.

HOUSING FOR THE ELDERLY

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2009.................................... $765,000,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 765,000,000
House allowance......................................... 1,000,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 785,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $785,000,000
for the section 202 program. This level is $20,000,000 more
than the budget request and the fiscal year 2009 enacted level.
The Committee recommends $90,000,000 for service coordinators
and for the continuation of existing congregate service grants;
up to $25,000,000 for the conversion of projects to assisted
living housing or for substantial rehabilitation for emergency
capital repairs; $20,000,000 for grants to nonprofits for
architectural and engineering work, site control, and planning
activities.
The Committee notes that the number of Americans aged 65
and older is growing in number, as well as a percentage of the
total U.S. population. Unfortunately, the supply of affordable
housing to assist our Nation's low-income elderly is not
sufficient to meet this increased demand. According to a May
2007 report from HUD to Congress on the worst case housing
needs, elderly households constituted over 21 percent of the
Nation's worst case housing needs in 2005, an increase of over
14 percent from the 2003 level. In order to address these
housing needs, new units of affordable elderly housing are
needed. HUD's section 202 program, the HUD program exclusively
for the elderly, is an important part producing additional
units to meet this growing need. As such, the Committee has
increased resources for this account in order to increase the
supply of housing for the elderly. The Committee expects HUD to
use the additional funding, and make any programmatic changes
necessary to ensure that we are increasing our production of
affordable housing for the elderly.

HOUSING FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2009.................................... $250,000,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 250,000,000
House allowance......................................... 350,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 265,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides funding for housing for the persons
with disabilities under section 811. Under this program, the
Department provides capital grants to eligible entities for the
acquisition, rehabilitation, or construction of housing for
persons with disabilities. Up to 25 percent of the funding may
be made available for tenant-based assistance under section 8
and provides project-based rental assistance [PRAC] to support
operational costs for such units.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $265,000,000
for the section 811 program. This level is $15,000,000 more
than the budget request and the fiscal year 2009 enacted level.
HUD is directed to ensure all tenant-based assistance made
available under this account shall remain available for persons
with disabilities upon turnover. The Committee has provided
$87,100,000 for incremental section 8 vouchers under this
program. In addition, section 811 funds may be used for
inspections by HUD's Real Estate Assessment Center [REAC] and
for related inspection activities. HUD is directed to submit a
budget to the Committees on Appropriations before funding REAC
inspections.
In February 2008, a report by HUD indicated that over
1,000,000 households with disabilities had some of the Nation's
worst case housing needs. This information underscores the
importance of the section 811 program, which provides both
capital and rental assistance to help low-income disabled
Americans find affordable housing in order to live
independently. The Committee has provided increased funding for
the section 811 program in order to increase the number of
units created for low-income disabled Americans. The Committee
expects that in addition to utilizing this funding to support
more supportive housing projects to serve the disabled, the
Department will also examine ways to make the program and
project process more efficient.

HOUSING COUNSELING ASSISTANCE

Appropriations, 2009\1\................................. $65,000,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 100,000,000
House allowance......................................... 70,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 100,000,000

\1\Funding for this activity was previously provided under the Home
Investment Partnership Office Partnership account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $100,000,000
for the Housing Counseling Assistance program, which is the
same as the budget request and $35,000,000 more than the fiscal
year 2009 enacted level.
The Committee has also included language stipulating that
not less than $15,000,000 shall be for HUD-certified housing
counseling agencies located in the 100 metropolitan statistical
areas with the highest rate of home foreclosures to assist
homeowners with mortgage mitigation efforts and mortgage scam
prevention. The Committee remains concerned about the high
incidents of foreclosures in these areas, and that vulnerable
homeowners may be the target of rescue scams. Therefore, the
Committee has targeted some of the increased funding that the
President has requested for fiscal year 2010 to help address
the needs in the areas most affected.
The Committee expects HUD to work the Neighborhood
Reinvestment Corporation (NeighborWorks America) as it
administers the funding for foreclosure prevention counseling.
The combination of these programs will provide a comprehensive
approach to the counseling needs of homeowners facing
foreclosure and help identify the most appropriate options for
these homeowners. The counseling programs that have proven most
effective should be used as models for the other counseling
programs.
The Committee does recognize that while housing counseling
agencies are experiencing increased demand for foreclosure
counseling, it is also important to provide sufficient
resources to support a variety of counseling activities,
including pre-purchase counseling, rental counseling, and HECM
counseling. It is critical for the department to ensure that as
people enter the housing or rental market, they have the
necessary counseling to ensure their success.
HECM Counseling.--The Committee is concerned about the
findings of a GAO report published in June 2009 which evaluated
the delivery of HECM counseling services. GAO found that in
many instances, the HECM counseling, which HUD requires for
program participants, was inadequate and incomplete. Due to the
growing use and complexity of HECM, the Committee believes
comprehensive counseling is integral to ensuring that
prospective participants are fully informed about the terms,
conditions, processes, and alternatives to HECM. The Committee
urges the Department to review its oversight controls and
administration of these counseling services to make certain
HECM counseling services are being executed to fully meet
agency requirements.

ENERGY INNOVATION FUND

Appropriation, 2009.....................................................
Budget estimate, 2010................................... $100,000,000
House allowance......................................... 50,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 75,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The objective of the Energy Innovation Fund is to provide
support for promising local initiatives that can be replicated
across the Nation and to stimulate and enhance private
investment in cost-saving energy efficiency retrofits of
existing housing, through improved use of FHA single family and
multifamily mortgage products.
The funding provided will support the Local Initiatives
Fund, which will address the broader housing market, both
single and multifamily, by leveraging private sector financing
to stimulate the development of model residential energy
efficiency retrofit initiatives in specific markets. These
local initiatives may include streamlined delivery of energy
audits or start up of local energy retrofit funds. In addition,
in the single-family housing sector, the Energy Innovation Fund
will be used to develop an Energy Efficient Mortgage [EEM]
Innovation pilot program, which will extend the benefits of the
existing FHA EEM and title I Energy Efficient Property
Improvement loan programs to more homeowners. Funding will also
be used to develop a Multifamily Energy Pilot [MEP], which will
target borrowers in the following FHA Multifamily programs
seeking energy efficiency improvements in multifamily
rehabilitation projects.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $75,000,000
for the Energy Innovation Fund. The recommended level is
$25,000,000 less than the budget request and $100,000,000 more
than the fiscal year 2009 enacted level.
The funding provided for this initiative will support and
test three different ways to affect the presence and
accessibility of financing for energy efficiency upgrades to
both single and multifamily properties. The Local Initiatives
Fund will provide the necessary resources to support and test
various models of spurring residential energy efficiency
retrofits. In addition to increasing the energy efficiency of
homes, HUD also expects this initiative to provide a variety of
models that could be replicated in a variety of communities.
The Committee expects that in addition to seeking out a variety
of models, HUD will also seek to ensure geographic diversity
and a mix of urban and rural areas in order to develop multiple
best practices models that could be replicated in a variety of
markets.
In addition, the fund will support two pilot projects that
will test the best ways in which to increase and expand the use
of FHA loans for energy efficiency upgrades. The Energy
Efficient Mortgage Innovation pilot program will seek to make
energy efficiency mortgages attractive to consumers. In a
similar way, the Multifamily Energy Pilot seeks to target
owners participating in various FHA multifamily programs to
assist them in finding financing to make energy efficiency
improvements in multifamily rehabilitation projects.
The Committee supports the efforts of the Secretary to make
energy efficiency mortgages more affordable and attractive to
homeowners and property owners. Energy Efficiency upgrades can
be costly, and the benefits may not be realized by the
homeowner for many years. By addressing the cost issue the
Secretary is attempting to break down a barrier to energy-
efficiency rehabilitation projects. The Committee expects that
the energy improvements, especially in multifamily properties
will lead to cost savings for low-income residents living in
these properties.
The Committee directs the Department to submit a plan to
implement the Energy Innovation Fund within 120 days of
enactment. The plan shall identify how it will allocate funds,
including both loans and grants and how these funds will be
targeted. In addition, it is expected that HUD shall establish
a timeline for the use of the funds and benchmarks for success.
The Committee also expects HUD to continue to update the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriation on any successes or
challenges that are identified as the program is implemented.

OTHER ASSISTED HOUSING PROGRAMS

RENTAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE

Appropriations, 2009.................................... $27,600,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 40,000,000
House allowance......................................... 40,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 40,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $40,000,000 for HUD-assisted,
State-aided, noninsured rental housing projects which is the
same as the budget request and $12,400,000 more than the fiscal
year 2009 enacted level.

RENT SUPPLEMENT

(RESCISSION)

The Committee recommends a rescission of $27,600,000 for
section 236 payments to State-aided, noninsured projects which
is equal to the budget request and $10,000,000 less than the
2009 enacted level.

FLEXIBLE SUBSIDY FUND

(TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

MANUFACTURED HOUSING FEES TRUST FUND

Appropriations, 2009.................................... $16,000,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 16,000,000
House allowance......................................... 16,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 16,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $16,000,000 to support the
manufactured housing standards programs of which $7,000,000 is
expected to be derived from fees collected and deposited in the
Manufactured Housing Fees Trust Fund account and not more than
$10,000,000 shall be available from the general fund. The total
amount recommended is equal to the budget request and the
fiscal year 2009 enacted level.

Federal Housing Administration

mutual mortgage insurance program account

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation on Limitation on Administrative
direct loans guaranteed loans contract expenses Program costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2009............ $50,000,000 $315,000,000,000 $116,000,000 ..................
Budget estimate, 2010........... 50,000,000 400,000,000,000 188,900,000 $798,000,000
House allowance................. 50,000,000 400,000,000,000 188,900,000 ..................
Committee recommendation........ 50,000,000 400,000,000,000 188,900,000 288,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Administrative expenses for MMI are funded within the Office of Housing.

GENERAL AND SPECIAL RISK PROGRAM ACCOUNT

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation on Limitation on Administrative
direct loans guaranteed loans contract expenses Program costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2009............... $50,000,000 $45,000,000,000 $48,871,000 $8,600,000
Budget estimate, 2010.............. 20,000,000 15,000,000,000 .................. 8,600,000
House allowance.................... 20,000,000 15,000,000,000 .................. 8,600,000
Committee recommendation........... 20,000,000 15,000,000,000 .................. 8,600,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Administrative expenses for GSR are funded within the Office of Housing.

program description

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

committee recommendation

The Committee has included the following amounts for the
``Mutual Mortgage Insurance Program'' account: a limitation on
guaranteed loans of $400,000,000,000 a limitation on direct
loans of $50,000,000 and $188,900,000 for administrative
contract expenses of which up to $70,794,000 may be transferred
to the Working Capital Fund to be used solely for the
maintenance of FHA information technology systems. Of the
amount provided for administrative expenses $7,500,000 is to be
used for consumer education and outreach.
The Committee has also provided an appropriation of
$288,000,000 to support guaranteed loans under the Home Equity
Conversion Mortgage or reverse mortgage program. The HECM
program provides an opportunity for our Nation's elderly to
take equity out of their homes so they can pay for medicine or
other critical services while remaining in their homes. This
program is especially important for many elderly today who are
experiencing financial losses in their retirement accounts.
For the GI/SRI account, the Committee recommends
$15,000,000,000 as a limitation on guaranteed loans and a
limitation on direct loans of $20,000,000.
Since its inception in 1934, the FHA has played a critical
role in meeting the demands of borrowers that the private
market would not serve--creating housing products that have
insured over 34 million homes.
After many years of being crowded out of the market by
risky products, such as subprime mortgages, the FHA has once
again increased its share of the market from just 2 percent in
2006 to over 24 percent at the end of 2008. The FHA has resumed
its traditional role of providing mortgage options for
hardworking Americans. In addition, the FHA is a part of the
administration's efforts to assist Americans that are facing
unaffordable mortgages refinance into more affordable ones.
The Committee applauds the efforts of the administration to
use the FHA to provide Americans with mortgage options in the
absence of available credit in the private market. The FHA has
an important role to play in bringing stability to the housing
market. It is also an important alternative for many Americans
who still face predatory lenders with risky or fraudulent
mortgage products. However, it is also critical for HUD to
manage the risk that the FHA is taking on in its efforts to
assist Americans during this turbulent time in the housing
market. The American taxpayers must not assume all of the risk
of homeowners that are at increased risk of default or
foreclosure. As such it is critical that the Secretary remain
focus on the solvency of the Mutual Mortgage Insurance [MMI]
Fund.
In his testimony before the Committee on April 2, 2009, the
Secretary recognized the need for FHA to take additional steps
to protect the solvency of the MMI Fund. He stated:

``[W]e all know that the FHA team cannot sustain their
efforts and protect the programs over the long-term
without an infusion of resources: for new staffing with
new skills, investments in new state-of-the-art
technologies, and new efforts to reach out to
enforcement agencies at all levels of government to
better monitor FHA partners.''

The Committee agrees with the Secretary's assessment and
will continue to assist the Secretary in his efforts to improve
the FHA's systems and staffing.
In fiscal year 2010, the Committee has once again included
resources to increase staffing for the Office of Housing, and
has requested the Secretary to submit a staffing plan to the
Committees, in order to ensure that HUD is quickly getting
staff with the necessary expertise on board. Moreover, the
Committee has continued its support of the modernization of FHA
systems. As part of the administration's Transformation
Initiative, the Committee has directed that not less than
$100,000,000 shall be for the information technology systems
and expects a significant portion of these resources to be
spent on the modernization of the FHA's systems.
The Committee remains committed to the mission of FHA--to
provide hardworking Americans underserved by the private market
with the ability to achieve homeownership. The Committee will
work with the administration to ensure that FHA has the
necessary tools to fulfill its mission, while continuing to
provide the necessary oversight ensure the solvency of the MMI
Fund, and protect the interests of the taxpayers.

Government National Mortgage Association

guarantees of mortgage-backed securities loan guarantee program account

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2009: Limitation on guaranteed loans

$300,000,000,000

Budget estimate, 2010: Limitation on guaranteed loans

500,000,000,000

House allowance: Limitation on guaranteed loans

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

program description

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation on new commitments on
mortgage-backed securities of $500,000,000,000. This level is
the same as the budget request and the fiscal year 2008 level.

Policy Development and Research

research and technology

Appropriations, 2009.................................... $58,000,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 50,000,000
House allowance......................................... 50,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 48,000,000

program description

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

committee recommendation

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $48,000,000
for research, technology, and community development activities
in fiscal year 2009. This level is $10,000,000 less than the
fiscal year 2009 enacted level and $2,000,000 less than the
budget request.
The Committee has included significant new resources to
support increased data collection and research at the
Department. HUD is the Federal agency responsible for
developing and implementing the Nation's housing policy. In
order to address the housing needs of the country, it is
critical for HUD to have current and comprehensive data to
develop and support effective housing policies.
The effects of risky subprime mortgages on the housing
market, and the economy as a whole, have been devastating.
While HUD must continue to work to address the problems
stemming from the subprime crisis, HUD must also work to better
anticipate other areas of risk in the housing market. In order
to effectively do this, HUD must have the necessary information
on which to base policy decisions and resource allocation. The
Committee expects that the additional funding provided in
fiscal year 2010 will allow the Department to gather the data
necessary to track and evaluate trends in the housing market,
including better regional data. This information should allow
the agency to identify, among other things, the potential
impacts various mortgage products may have on the stability of
the housing market in different regions and across the entire
country. In particular, the Committee expects the Department to
gather better data on Alternative documentation or Alt-A loans,
a large number of which are going to reset in the near future.
HUD must seek to ensure that the Department has the necessary
tools to respond to any needs or problems associated with these
mortgages. The Committee encourages HUD to also collect data on
and consider how other areas of the economy are affecting
credit markets, access to credit for prospective homebuyers and
how deterioration in credit markets can affect homeownership,
foreclosure rates and the housing market overall.

Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity

fair housing activities

Appropriations, 2009.................................... $53,500,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 72,000,000
House allowance......................................... 72,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 72,000,000

program description

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

committee recommendation

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $72,000,000
for the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. Of the
amounts provided, $29,500,000 is for the fair housing
assistance program [FHAP] and $42,500,000 is for the fair
housing initiatives program [FHIP]. The total amount is equal
to the budget request and $18,500,000 more than the fiscal year
2009 enacted level.
The Committee applauds the administration's request to
increase funding for the Office of Fair Housing and Equal
Opportunity. A significant amount of the additional resources
provided will support the administration's Initiative to
Combating Mortgage Fraud and Abuse. This increase builds on the
additional resources that the Committee provided last year to
target and combat mortgage rescue scams. In addition to
traditional enforcement activities, the administration is
proposing to dedicate $4,500,000 for enforcement related to
mortgage rescue scams and other fraudulent or abusive lending
practices.
The increased funding will also support education and
outreach activities. The Committee notes that in fiscal year
2009, the Committee provided the Neighborhood Reinvestment
Corporation with $6,000,000 to develop an outreach and
education campaign to combat mortgage rescue scams. In order to
increase the effectiveness of combating these rescue scams, it
is important for the Federal Government to have one clear
message. Therefore, the Committee directs HUD to work with the
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation on outreach and education
efforts, so that all efforts and messages will be coordinated,
and resources can be used to most effectively inform the public
about mortgage rescue scams.
These additional resources for the Fair Housing Assistance
Program [FHAP] are necessary to help address and better respond
to the increased cases brought to fair housing agencies. In
addition to housing discrimination, the increased funding will
also help to respond to the increased complaints of lending
discrimination and mortgage abuse, including mortgage rescue
scams, which often target minority communities.
The Committee has also continued to include $500,000 for
HUD to continue the creation and promotion of translated
materials that support the assistance of persons with limited
English proficiency.

Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control

LEAD HAZARD REDUCTION

Appropriations, 2009.................................... \1\$240,000,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 140,000,000
House allowance......................................... 140,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 140,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Title X of the Housing and Community Development Act of
1992 established the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard
Reduction Act under which HUD is authorized to make grants to
States, localities, and Native American tribes to conduct lead-
based paint hazard reduction and abatement activities in
private low-income housing. This has become a significant
health hazard, especially for children. According to the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], some 434,000
children have elevated blood levels, down from 1.7 million in
the late 1980s. Despite this improvement, lead poisoning
remains a serious childhood environmental condition, with some
2.2 percent of all children aged 1 to 5 years having elevated
blood lead levels. This percentage is much higher for low-
income children living in older housing.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $140,000,000
for lead-based paint hazard reduction and abatement activities
for fiscal year 2010. This amount is equal to the budget
request and $100,000,000 less than the amount available in
fiscal year 2009, but equal to the amount of nonemergency
funding the program received in fiscal year 2009. Of this
amount, HUD may use up to $20,000,000 for the Healthy Homes
Initiative under which HUD conducts a number of activities
designed to identify and address housing-related illnesses. The
Committee includes bill language requiring $250,000 of the
total amount made available to the Lead Hazard Reduction
Program to be used in conducting communications and outreach
activities to potential applicants of the Lead Hazard Reduction
Demonstration Grant program.
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $48,000,000
for the lead hazard reduction program established in fiscal
year 2003 to focus on major urban areas where children are
disproportionately at risk for lead poisoning. These funds are
awarded on a competitive basis to the areas with the highest
lead abatement needs.
There remains significant lead risks in privately owned
housing, particularly in unsubsidized low-income units. For
that reason, approximately 1 million children under the age of
6 in the United States suffer from lead poisoning. While lead
poisoning crosses all socioeconomic, geographic, and racial
boundaries, the burden of this disease falls disproportionately
on low-income and minority families. In the United States,
children from poor families are eight times more likely to be
poisoned than those from higher income families. Nevertheless,
the risks associated with lead-based paint hazards can be
addressed fully over the next decade.
The Committee also encourages HUD to work with grantees on
its lead-based paint abatement hazards programs so that
information is disclosed to the public on lead hazard
abatements, risk assessment data and blood lead levels through
publications and Internet sites such as Lead-SafeHomes.info.

Management and Administration

WORKING CAPITAL FUND

Appropriations, 2009.................................... $224,000,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 200,000,000
House allowance......................................... 200,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 200,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $200,000,000
for the Working Capital Fund for fiscal year 2010. This level
of funding is $24,000,000 less than the fiscal year 2009
enacted level and equal to the budget request. The Working
Capital Fund is also supported with additional funding provided
through a transfer of $70,794,000 from the FHA's Mutual
Mortgage Insurance Fund as proposed by the President.
The Committee notes that HUD proposed, and the Committee
has approved, to address the major systems changes necessary at
HUD through the Transformation Initiative. As such the funding
provided to the Working Capital Fund will only be used to
support the maintenance and operations of HUD systems.

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2009.................................... \1\$135,000,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 120,000,000
House allowance......................................... 120,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 126,000,000

\1\Of the funds provided for this program for fiscal year 2009,
$15,000,000 was provided as emergency spending as part of the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Public Law 111-5).

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $126,000,000
for the Office of Inspector General [OIG]. The amount of
funding provided is $9,000,000 less than the amount provided in
fiscal year 2009, but equal to the amount of nonemergency
funding. The level provided is also $6,000,000 more than the
President's request.
The Committee expects the OIG to continue to monitor and
conduct oversight over HUD's programs. This is especially
important as HUD implements new initiatives funded in this
bill.
The Committee directs the HUD IG to use the additional
$6,000,000 above the budget request to target fraud and abuse
by lenders, sellers, mortgage bankers and brokers, and
homebuyers, including those seeking to refinance mortgages
under the FHA Mutual Mortgage Insurance program. The HUD IG
should seek to maximize its funding by partnering with other
Federal agencies and entities with similar programs, and take
advantage of individuals with financial expertise. FHA single
family mortgage has exploded as a share of the market, growing
from 2 percent in 2006 to nearly 24 percent at the end of 2008.
FHA is filling an important role in the market today, as credit
in the private market remains limited. However, the Committee
has provided the additional resources to the IG to ensure that
since FHA is growing exponentially, the FHA is not taking on
excessive risk, and has the necessary expertise to manage and
oversee the increased volume.

TRANSFORMATION INITIATIVE

Appropriations, 2009....................................................
Budget estimate, 2010................................... $20,000,000
House allowance......................................... 20,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 20,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee includes a recommended level of funding of up
to $228,601,060 for the Transformation Initiative. This level
of funding includes an appropriation of $20,000,000 for efforts
to combat mortgage fraud, which is equal to the President's
request. In addition, up to $208,601,060 is included by
transfer from other HUD accounts, to be available for 3 years.
The President's budget proposed transfers of up to $434,000,000
to be available for 5 years. No funding was provided for this
initiative in fiscal year 2009.
The inclusion of the transformation initiative in the
President's budget demonstrates the administration's commitment
to addressing the management and operational challenges that
have plagued HUD for far too long. The Department has
information technology [IT] systems that cannot perform at the
level necessary to appropriately manage and oversee its
programs. Moreover, the organizational structure has limited
collaboration and communication within the Department. In
addition, there have been limited efforts to think critically
about emerging problems or more adeptly respond to pressing
housing issues. Therefore, the Committee appreciates that this
initiative seeks to utilize a variety of tools, including
research, demonstrations and systems modernization to better
equip the Department to address the Nation's housing needs.
However, while the Committee is supportive of the
administration's efforts to think strategically about how to
create a more sophisticated and efficient HUD, the Committee
cannot provide the Secretary the amount of flexibility or
funding requested. The amount of funding recommended in the
bill represents the Committee's shared commitment to improving
HUD. The process of transforming HUD will take a great deal of
effort and this transformation will take time. As such, the
funding for these long-term investments is not required all at
once. It is important that funding transferred from HUD program
budgets to the transformation initiative is justified by near-
term investment and payoff. The Committee has chosen to limit
the amount of funding available from tenant-based rental
assistance, project-based rental assistance and the public
housing operating fund accounts to be more in line with
expected benefits.
The Committee notes that HUD is currently undergoing a
strategic planning effort. Upon its completion, HUD and
Congress will have a framework for the activities and
associated costs necessary to support its work each year. The
bill language requires that HUD submit a plan to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations 30 days after the enactment
of the act to be approved by the Committees detailing how HUD
intends to spend the funding provided under this heading. In
order to provide the flexibility necessary to allow the
Secretary to respond to emerging challenges, the Secretary may
also amend this plan as necessary with the approval of the
Committees.
The Committee applauds the Secretary's desire to change and
reinvigorate the Department. The Committee will work to provide
the Department with the necessary tools, as well as the
necessary oversight to ensure that HUD reaches it goals.
Technology.--Of the amount provided the Committee has set
at least $100,000,000 aside for information technology
investments. The Committee has placed the greatest priority on
this activity because it is elemental to improving the
operations of the Department and to protecting the taxpayer
dollars.
Out of this funding, the Committee directs HUD to move
forward with the modernization of the Federal Housing
Administration's [FHA] systems. The fiscal year 2009 Omnibus
Appropriations Act included language requiring HUD to develop a
plan to modernize FHA's systems, and take steps to procure new
technology in fiscal year 2010. The Committee understands that
the life-cycle cost of this modernization effort is likely to
exceed $100,000,000.
The Committee also supports the Department's goal to
modernize the voucher management system. HUD is responsible for
monitoring nearly 2,500 public housing authorities with section
8 vouchers, and ensuring that the funding provided is
sufficient to continue serving the individuals and families
with the vouchers. Current systems challenges hinder this
effort.
The Committee has been impressed with the Department's
efforts to date to conduct an assessment of the Department's
modernization, and to begin strategically planning for the
development of these new systems, including the identification
of related costs and staffing needs. However, since these
initiatives are critical and require substantial investment of
taxpayer resources, the Committee is requiring HUD to develop a
spend plan for its information technology projects. This plan
should include the identification of projects to be undertaken,
project goals and costs. In addition, the Committee directs the
Government Accountability Office [GAO] to evaluate this plan,
and monitor HUD's progress in achieving project goals and
staying on time and on budget. This plan may also include
additional IT system investments that will improve the
efficiency of HUD programs.
Technical Assistance.--The Committee has provided at least
$40,000,000 for technical assistance. The Committee supports
the Department's efforts to better deliver technical assistance
to HUD program participants. This effort could include
combining technical assistance for various programs to
encourage better program coordination by program participants.
The Committee directs to continue to provide technical
assistance to the following programs: CDBG, HOME Investment
Partnerships, homeless programs, HOPE VI, Choice Neighborhoods,
Public Housing, the Housing Choice Voucher Program, Fair
Housing Assistance Program, Housing Counseling, and Healthy
Homes. In addition, technical assistance will be necessary to
help ensure that new programs, such as Sustainable Communities
Initiative and Choice Neighborhoods are well understood and
executed.
Research, Demonstrations, and Evaluations.--The Committee
supports HUD's effort to fund important research that will
result in more informed and data-driven housing policies. The
Committee has provided the Secretary flexibility to determine
how much funding will be allocated to research and how much
will be allocated to demonstrations and evaluations. However,
the Secretary is directed to undertake a Native American
housing needs assessment. It is clear that the housing needs of
Native Americans living on reservations are substantial, but
better data is needed to quantify those needs in order for HUD
and Congress to better address them.
The Committee is also directing HUD to conduct a
demonstration on pre-purchase counseling as required by the
Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008. HUD must also
conduct an evaluation of the Moving to Work [MTW] Demonstration
program. The Committee expects HUD to move quickly to gather
data from PHAs participating in MTW, so that this evaluation
can be done in a timely manner. Such an evaluation can help to
inform the current debates on the program.
Finally, the Committee encourages the Secretary to plan or
begin a demonstration on the conversion of public housing to
Section 8 project-based vouchers. This research should include
and estimate of costs and benefits of such conversions.
Combating Mortgage Fraud Initiative.--In addition to
amounts transferred into this account, the President has
requested, and the Committee has included, and appropriation of
$20,000,000 to support the Combating Mortgage Fraud Initiative.
This funding is part of a Department-wide effort to address the
increasing problem of mortgage fraud. Activities for this
effort supported by the transformation initiative include, but
are not limited to, developing anti-fraud IT data tools and
providing technical assistance to assist housing counseling
agencies in combating fraud. In addition, new resources have
been provided to the Office of Fair Housing and Equal
Opportunity to assist consumers in avoiding mortgage fraud, as
well as take enforcement action in instances when fraud has
occurred. The Committee expects that the funding and activities
provided in different programs will be coordinated.

Administrative Provisions

The Committee recommends administrative provisions. A brief
description follows.
Sec. 201. This section promotes the refinancing of certain
housing bonds.
Sec. 202. This section clarifies a limitation on use of
funds under the Fair Housing Act.
Sec. 203. This section clarifies the allocation of HOPWA
funding for fiscal year 2006.
Sec. 204. This section requires HUD to award funds on a
competitive basis unless otherwise provided.
Sec. 205. This section allows funds to be used to reimburse
GSEs and other Federal entities for various administrative
expenses.
Sec. 206. This section limits HUD spending to amounts set
out in the budget justification.
Sec. 207. This section clarifies expenditure authority for
entities subject to the Government Corporation Control Act.
Sec. 208. This section requires quarterly reports on all
uncommitted, unobligated and excess funds associated with HUD
programs.
Sec. 209. This section makes a number of corrections to the
award of HOPWA funding.
Sec. 210. This section requires HUD to submit its fiscal
year 2011 budget justifications according to congressional
requirements.
Sec. 211. This section exempts Los Angeles County, Alaska,
Iowa, and Mississippi from the requirement of having a PHA
resident on the board of directors for fiscal year 2006.
Instead, the public housing agencies in these States are
required to establish advisory boards that include public
housing tenants and section 8 recipients.
Sec. 212. This section allows HUD to authorize the transfer
of existing project-based subsidies and liabilities from
obsolete housing to housing that better meets the needs of the
assisted tenants.
Sec. 213. This section provides allocation requirements for
Native Alaskans under the Native American Indian Housing Block
Grant program.
Sec. 214. This section exempts GNMA from certain
requirements of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990.
Sec. 215. This section reforms certain section 8 rent
calculations as to athletic scholarships.
Sec. 216. This section expands the availability of Home
Equity Conversion Mortgages during 2010.
Sec. 217. This section requires HUD to maintain section 8
assistance on HUD-held or owned multifamily housing.
Sec. 218. This section requires HUD to report quarterly to
the Appropriations Committees on the use of sole-source
contracting by HUD.
Sec. 219. This section allows the recipient of a section
202 grant to establish a single-asset nonprofit entity to own
the project and may lend the grant funds to such entity.
Sec. 220. This section clarifies the use of the 108 loan
guaranteed program for nonentitlement communities.
Sec. 221. This section extends the HOPE VI program until
September 30, 2010.
Sec. 222. This section allows public housing authorities
with less than 400 units to be exempt from management
requirements in the operating fund rule.
Sec. 223. This section restricts the Secretary from
imposing any requirement or guideline relating to asset
management that restricts or limits the use of capital funds
for central office costs, up to the limit established in QWHRA.
Sec. 224. This section requires the Secretary to report
quarterly on the status of all project-based section 8 housing.
Sec. 225. This section requires allotment holders to meet
certain criteria of the CFO.
Sec. 226. This section limits attorney fees.
Sec. 227. The section modifies the NOFA process to include
the Internet.
Sec. 228. This section would allow refinancing of certain
section 202 loans.
Sec. 229. The section makes reforms to the Federal Surplus
Property Program under the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance
Act.
Sec. 230. This section increases the aggregate number of
Moving-to-Work agencies by three public housing agencies.
Sec. 231. This section allows the Secretary to consider
industry standard appraisal practices, including the cost of
repairs when determining market value.
Sec. 232. This section allows the Secretary to transfer up
to 5 percent of funds among the accounts appropriated under the
title ``Personnel Compensation and Benefits.''
Sec. 233. This section allows the Disaster Housing
Assistance Programs to be considered a program of the
Department of Housing and Urban Development for the purpose of
income verification and matching.

TITLE III

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Access Board

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2009.................................... $6,550,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 7,000,000
House allowance......................................... 7,200,000
Committee recommendation................................ 7,400,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $7,400,000 for the operations of
the Access Board. This level of funding is $850,000 more than
the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and $400,000 more than the
President's request.
Across all levels of government, Access Board is regarded
as a leading source of information on accessible design, and as
an effective coordinating body. The Committee provides $400,000
more than the President's fiscal year 2010 request in order to
provide the Access Board with sufficient resources to manage
the expanded responsibilities described below.
Collaboration with Other Federal Agencies.--The Department
of Transportation [DOT], the Department of Housing and Urban
Development [HUD], and the Environmental Protection Agency
[EPA] are launching an interdepartmental initiative to promote
livability and sustainability. The Committee encourages DOT and
HUD to coordinate their discussions with Access Board to ensure
that this interdepartmental initiative prioritizes
accessibility and universal design as key tenets of livability.
As a Federal agency that directly represents the public,
particularly people with disabilities, Access Board is ideally
positioned to advise and provide technical assistance to DOT
and HUD regarding how to best include the needs of persons with
disabilities in all aspects of this initiative, including
proposal requirements, design criteria, and performance
measures. Accessibility and universal design serve all people,
not only those with disabilities. By requiring grantees to meet
the needs of persons with disabilities, the Departments will
simultaneously fund projects that will be safe, accessible and
flexible for all community members, regardless of ability, age,
and size, including pedestrians, bicyclists, older people, and
young people. Additionally, employing universal design
principles is known to generate lower total project costs, and
thereby promote more effective stewardship of Federal funds.
Additionally, the Committee encourages the Secretary of DOT
to coordinate discussions with Access Board as the Department
launches its high-speed rail initiative. Access Board is
ideally positioned to provide technical assistance about how to
best recognize and include the needs of persons with
disabilities in all aspects of the high speed rail initiative,
including proposal requirements, design criteria, and
performance measures.
Training and Technical Assistance.--The Committee
acknowledges that Access Board is a key provider of training
and technical assistance regarding accessibility matters. The
Committee recognizes that Access Board is providing timely and
important guidance to agencies that are implementing projects
funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Also
during fiscal year 2010, Access Board plans to engage in an
intensified rulemaking process, issuing one final guideline and
five proposed rules; in an average year, Access Board typically
issues up to two rules. These publications may increase the
demand for training and technical assistance. The additional
funding provided by the Committee will support a timely
rulemaking process, and accelerate the development and
deployment of training and technical assistance materials and
tools.

Federal Maritime Commission

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2009.................................... $22,800,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 24,558,000
House allowance......................................... 23,712,000
Committee recommendation................................ 24,558,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal Maritime Commission [FMC] is an independent
regulatory agency which administers the Shipping Act of 1984
(Public Law 98-237) as amended by the Ocean Shipping Reform Act
of 1998 (Public Law 105-258); section 19 of the Merchant Marine
Act, 1920 (41 Stat. 998); the Foreign Shipping Practices Act of
1988 (Public Law 100-418); and Public Law 89-777.
FMC regulates the international waterborne commerce of the
United States. In addition, the FMC has responsibility for
licensing and bonding ocean transportation intermediaries and
assuring that vessel owners or operators establish financial
responsibility to pay judgments for death or injury to
passengers, or nonperformance of a cruise, on voyages from U.S.
ports. Major program areas for fiscal year 2010 include
pursuing information technology initiatives to modernize core
business applications and processes and expand web-based
applications for FMC's stakeholders; supporting front-line
seaport security efforts; and studying two topics: passenger
vessel financial responsibility for non-performance, and the
impact of eliminating anti-trust immunity for ocean liner
operations.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee includes $24,558,000 for the salaries and
expenses of the Federal Maritime Commission for fiscal year
2010. This amount is $1,758,000 more than the fiscal year 2009
enacted level.

National Railroad Passenger Corporation

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2009....................................................
Budget estimate, 2010...................................................
House allowance......................................... $19,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 19,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation includes $19,000,000 for the
salaries and expenses of the Amtrak Office of Inspector
General. The Amtrak OIG has historically received its funding
from the amounts provided as grants to Amtrak, and the
President's budget request includes no separate funding level
for this office. However, the Committee believes that the
Amtrak OIG can no longer be dependent on Amtrak for its
funding. The budgets of these two entities must be separated in
order to support an independent and objective OIG for the
railroad.
The relationship between an inspector general and the
agency for which it works is a difficult one to navigate even
under the best circumstances, but the Committee has been
severely disappointed in the inability of the Amtrak OIG and
Amtrak to maintain even the facade of a professional and
productive interaction. As discussed earlier in this report,
the Committee is not interested in disentangling the different
stories coming from each agency. Instead, the Committee hopes
that Amtrak and its new inspector general will be able to find
a way to work productively with each other. A working
relationship between the two agencies is necessary for the
Committee to feel confident in the audit and investigative work
that informs congressional oversight.

National Transportation Safety Board

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2009.................................... $91,000,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 95,400,000
House allowance......................................... 99,200,000
Committee recommendation................................ 96,900,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $96,900,000 for the National
Transportation Safety Board, which is $1,500,000 more than the
budget request and $5,900,000 more than the fiscal year 2009
enacted level. Bill language is included that allows NTSB to
reimburse the DOT Inspector General up to $100,000 for costs
associated with audits and investigations. In addition, the
Committee has once again included language that allows NTSB to
continue to make payments on its lease for the NTSB training
facility with funding provided in the bill.
Modernization of the Data Recorder Lab.--The FAA requires
all large commercial aircraft and some small commercial,
corporate and private aircraft to be equipped with two
different kinds of data recorders. Cockpit voice recorders
create an archive of radio transmissions and other sounds made
during a flight, and flight data recorders monitor aspects of a
flight such as altitude, airspeed and heading. Immediately
after an accident, these data recorders are moved to the NTSB
data recorder laboratory, and the recorded information is
analyzed with computer and audio equipment.
These data recorders play an increasingly large role in
determining the probable cause of an accident, and they often
provide information that would otherwise be inaccessible to
NTSB investigators. The use of similar data recorders has also
become more common in other modes of transportation. The
Federal Railroad Administration requires railroad locomotives
to carry event recorders, and large ships and passenger ships
must have voyage data recorders as well. Today many automobiles
are now equipped with event data recorders that archive
information such as the vehicle's speed and whether an airbag
was deployed. In addition to growing use of data recorders, the
technology used in the recorders themselves has become more
sophisticated.
Unfortunately, the laboratory that the NTSB uses to analyze
the data recorded by these devises has become outdated. NTSB is
too often forced to turn to agencies outside of the United
States in order to perform data analysis that is essential to
its own investigations. Given the important role that the data
recorders 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 recorded during transportation
accidents. The Committee recommendation includes $1,000,000 for
the modernization of the NTSB data recorder laboratory.
Implementation of the Rail Safety Law.--The Rail Safety
Improvement Act of 2008, enacted in October of last year,
included a new requirement for the NTSB to provide family
assistance immediately following an accident that involves a
rail passenger carrier and a major loss of life. In the case of
such an accident, the NTSB will serve as an important point of
contact between the Federal Government and the families of
passengers who have been involved in the accident. NTSB will
serve as a liaison between the rail passenger carrier and the
families as well. In addition, the NTSB must facilitate the
recovery and identification of fatally injured passengers
involved in an accident, designate a nonprofit organization
that will provide for the emotional care and support of
families, and communicate to families what services are
available to them and the ongoing findings from the accident
investigation.
The Committee appreciates the importance of these new
responsibilities. Just over 10 years ago, the Aviation Disaster
Family Assistance Act of 1996 gave the same responsibilities to
the NTSB in response to aviation disasters. Since that time,
the NTSB has been able to provide essential services to the
victims of aviation disasters and their families. In order to
make sure that the NTSB is able to extend these services to the
victims of rail passenger accidents and their families, the
Committee has included an additional $500,000 to cover the cost
of three additional staff members, training activities, and
improved coordination with railroads.
Expiration of NTSB's Lease.--The lease that the NTSB holds
on its current office space is due to expire early in fiscal
year 2011. The agency has begun to work with the General
Services Administration on the search for a new headquarters
location, and if this process moves expeditiously, then it will
likely require the agency to incur costs over the next fiscal
year related to the agency's move. The Committee recommendation
includes $2,416,000 to cover these costs. However, because it
is unclear whether these costs will be incurred toward the end
of the fiscal year 2010 or towards the beginning of fiscal year
2011, the bill also includes language that makes these funds
available over the next 2 fiscal years.

Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation

PAYMENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT CORPORATION

Appropriations, 2009.................................... $181,000,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 166,800,000
House allowance......................................... 196,800,000
Committee recommendation................................ 243,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $243,000,000
for the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation [NRC] for fiscal
year 2010. This amount is $76,200,000 more than the budget
request and $62,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2009 enacted
level. The Committee continues to support the set-aside of
$5,000,000 for the multifamily rental housing initiative, which
has been successful in developing innovative approaches to
producing mixed-income affordable housing throughout the
Nation. The Committee directs NRC to provide a status report on
this initiative in its fiscal year 2011 budget justifications.
Housing Counseling Assistance.--The Committee has included
$65,000,000 to continue the National Foreclosure Mitigation
Counseling Program initiated by Congress in fiscal year 2008.
To date, the NFMC program has allowed nearly 400,000
families facing foreclosure to receive counseling. In addition,
NRC has also used the funding provided by Congress to train
over 4,400 counselors. The program has been successful in
reaching hard-hit areas, as well as low-income and minority
communities. Overall, 76 percent of clients who received
counseling had not entered foreclosure.
While the number of foreclosures resulting from subprime
mortgages may be going down, the total number of foreclosures
continues to climb. Recent information from RealtyTrac
indicates that the number of foreclosures increased by 15
percent in the first half of 2009 compared with 2008. More and
more, these foreclosures are the result of a job loss or loss
of income. In an attempt to stem the number of foreclosures,
the administration proposed the Making Home Affordable program,
which assists homeowners facing foreclosure to refinance or
modify their mortgages in order to reduce the amount of their
income they pay toward their mortgage. Counseling is an
important element of this plan in order to increase success,
and counselors receiving NFMC funding have already begun to
counsel homeowners participating in the Making Home Affordable
Program. In order to address the increasing number of
foreclosures and meet the demand of homeowners participating in
the Making Home Affordable Program, the Committee has included
$65,000,000 for the NFMC program in fiscal year 2010. This is
$31,200,000 more than the level requested by the President.
Capital Assistance To Create or Sustain Affordable
Housing.--The Committee has included an additional $45,000,000
for capital grants to assist NeighborWorks organizations in
creating or rehabilitating affordable housing, as well as
creating financing or lending tools. The Committee has included
this additional funding in order to assist communities that
have been adversely impacted by the foreclosure crisis and the
economic recession.
The Committee expects that this additional funding will aid
the efforts of communities that received Neighborhood
Stabilization Program [NSP] funding. However, the Committee
also expects that a significant amount of the additional
funding provided will assist smaller and rural communities that
have affordable housing needs, including those that may not
have received NSP funding. The Committee directs the NRC to
include information in its fiscal year 2011 budget describing
how this additional funding was used to assist communities in
their efforts to create or sustain affordable housing.
Rural Areas.--The Committee also continues to support
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation's efforts in building
capacity in rural areas. The Committee urges the Corporation to
continue its efforts in addressing the needs of rural
communities.

United States Interagency Council on Homelessness

OPERATING EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2009.................................... $2,333,000
Budget estimate, 2010................................... 2,680,000
House allowance......................................... 2,400,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,680,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,680,000 for
the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness [ICH].
This amount is $347,000 more than the fiscal year 2009 enacted
level and equal to the budget request.
The primary mission of the United States Interagency
Council on Homelessness [ICH] is to coordinate the Federal
response to homelessness. The ICH was recently reauthorized as
part of the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition
to Housing Act of 2009 [HEARTH]. The act added new members to
the council, including the Director of the Office of Management
and Budget, and also increased the frequency of ICH meetings.
These actions reaffirmed the important role that the ICH must
play in improving Federal collaboration around ending
homelessness.
In recent years, the ICH has focused its efforts on ending
chronic homelessness. These efforts to assist State and local
governments in creating and implementing plans to end chronic
homelessness have resulted in reductions in chronic
homelessness. However, while the Committee shares the goal of
ending chronic homelessness, it is time for the ICH to redefine
both its role and its focus in order to better reflect its
broader mission of ending homelessness for all persons.
This re-evaluation and reassessment should be reflected in
the ICH's performance budget for fiscal year 2011. All of the
performance goals and measures included in the fiscal year 2010
budget relate to chronic homelessness. Moreover, these goals
are more focused on outcomes related to city and State
performance than on outcomes on the Federal level. The
performance goals for the 2011 budget must include measures of
success in reviewing and recommending changes to Federal
programs or activities; how the ICH's actions will result in
improved collaborative efforts between Federal agencies; and
how the ICH will remove barriers to collaboration or create new
ways for Federal agencies to partner in efforts to end
homelessness.
Federal Collaboration and Joint Training.--Recent data from
HUD indicate that homelessness among families increased by 9
percent from 2007 to 2008. The effects of homelessness on
children can be long-term and devastating. According to a 2005
study funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, children who are homeless are sick at twice the rate
of other children. They also have twice the rate of learning
disabilities and are twice as likely to repeat a grade as other
children.
Since the problems with homelessness may only increase as
unemployment remains high and the country works to recover from
the recession, it is imperative to work across Federal
departments and programs to prevent or end homelessness for
children. As part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
of 2009 [ARRA], Congress included significant resources within
HUD to prevent homelessness or reduce the amount of time
individuals or families are homeless. By moving children
quickly out of shelters, or helping them avoid shelter stays
all together, some of the harmful effects of homelessness can
be minimized. It is also critical for children to continue
attending school. In addition to the obvious educational
benefits of remaining in school, it can also provide children
with some stability and routine at a time of great uncertainty
or upheaval.
While the Committee is pleased that HUD and the Department
of Education [DOE] coordinated their efforts around the
homeless education and homelessness and rapid rehousing funding
included in ARRA, this coordination must continue beyond ARRA.
Moreover, the ICH must take on a greater role in facilitating
and improving Federal coordination around ending homelessness.
The Committee directs the ICH to work with the HUD, DOE, and
other appropriate agencies on how to effectively deliver
housing, education and related services to children that are
homeless or at-risk of homelessness. This should include
identifying barriers to program coordination as well as
recommending solutions. In addition, the ICH is directed to
conduct joint training between service providers participating
in HUD's homeless programs and homeless education liaisons on
how to better coordinate housing and education services for
children that are homeless or at-risk of homelessness. This
training should provide participants in both housing and
education programs with a better understanding of the full
range of services available to these children, as well as
better ways to identify children who are homeless or at-risk in
order to ensure that they have the support and services
necessary to help prevent or end their homelessness.

TITLE IV

GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS ACT

Section 401 requires pay raises to be absorbed within
appropriated levels in this act or previous appropriations
acts.
Section 402 prohibits pay and other expenses for non-
Federal parties in regulatory or adjudicatory proceedings
funded in this act.
Section 403 prohibits obligations beyond the current fiscal
year and prohibits transfers of funds unless expressly so
provided herein.
Section 404 limits expenditures for consulting service
through procurement contracts where such expenditures are a
matter of public record and available for public inspection.
Section 405 authorizes the reprogramming of funds and
specifies the reprogramming procedures for agencies funded by
this act.
Section 406 ensures that 50 percent of unobligated balances
may remain available for certain purposes.
Section 407 requires departments and agencies under this
act to report information regarding all sole-source contracts.
Section 408 prohibits the use of funds for employee
training unless such training bears directly upon the
performance of official duties.
Section 409 continues the provision prohibiting the use of
funds for eminent domain unless such taking is employed for
public use.
Section 410 prohibits funds in this act to be transferred
without express authority.
Section 411 protects employment rights of Federal employees
who return to their civilian jobs after assignment with the
Armed Forces.
Section 412 prohibits the use of funds for activities not
in compliance with the Buy American Act.
Section 413 prohibits funding for any person or entity
convicted of violating the Buy American Act.
Section 414 requires all departments, agencies, or Federal
entities funded under this act to notify the Committees 7 days
in advance of any announcement of a new program or authority.

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

Paragraph 7 of rule XVI requires that Committee reports on
general appropriations bills identify each Committee amendment
to the House bill ``which proposes an item of appropriation
which is not made to carry out the provisions of an existing
law, a treaty stipulation, or an act or resolution previously
passed by the Senate during that session.''
The Committee is filing an original bill, which is not
covered under this rule, but reports this information in the
spirit of full disclosure.
The Committee recommends funding for the following programs
or activities which currently lack authorization for fiscal
year 2010:

Title I--Department of Transportation

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

Title II--Department of Housing and Urban Development

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

Title III--Related Agencies

National Transportation Safety Board

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

Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on July 30, 2009,
the Committee ordered reported H.R. 3288, making appropriations
for the Departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban
Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2010, and for other purposes, with an amendment
in the nature of a substitute, with the bill subject to further
amendment and consistent with the budget allocation, by a
recorded vote of 30-0, a quorum being present. The vote was as
follows:
Yeas Nays
Chairman Inouye
Mr. Byrd
Mr. Leahy
Mr. Harkin
Ms. Mikulski
Mr. Kohl
Mrs. Murray
Mr. Dorgan
Mrs. Feinstein
Mr. Durbin
Mr. Johnson
Ms. Landrieu
Mr. Reed
Mr. Lautenberg
Mr. Nelson
Mr. Pryor
Mr. Tester
Mr. Specter
Mr. Cochran
Mr. Bond
Mr. McConnell
Mr. Shelby
Mr. Gregg
Mr. Bennett
Mrs. Hutchison
Mr. Brownback
Mr. Alexander
Ms. Collins
Mr. Voinovich
Ms. Murkowski

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

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

TITLE 23--HIGHWAYS

Chapter 1--Federal-Aid Highways

Sec. 127. Vehicle weight limitations--Interstate System

(a) In General.--
(1) No funds shall be apportioned in any fiscal
year under section 104(b)(1) of this title to any State
which does not permit the use of The Dwight D.
Eisenhower System of Interstate and Defense Highways
within its boundaries by vehicles with a weight of
twenty thousand pounds carried on any one axle,
including enforcement tolerances, or with a tandem axle
weight of thirty-four thousand pounds, including
enforcement tolerances, or a gross weight of at least
eighty thousand pounds for vehicle combinations of five
axles or more.

* * * * * * *

(11) With respect to [that portion of the Maine
Turnpike designated Route 95 and 495, and that portion
of Interstate Route 95 from the southern terminus of
the Maine Turnpike to the New Hampshire State line,
laws (including regulations)]\1\ all portions of the
Interstate Highway Sysytem in the State, laws
(including regulations) of the State of Maine
concerning vehicle weight limitations that were in
effect on October 1, 1995, and are applicable to State
highways other than the Interstate System, shall be
applicable in lieu of the requirements of this
subsection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The changes to current law made by this section would be
effective for a period of 365 days, after which time the law would
revert back to current law.

* * * * * * *

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

TITLE 42--THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE

Chapter 8--Low-Income Housing

Subchapter I--General Program of Assisted Housing

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

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(m) Funding

(1) Authorization of appropriations

There are authorized to be appropriated for grants
under this section $574,000,000 for fiscal year [2009]
2010.

* * * * * * *

(o) Sunset

No assistance may be provided under this section after
[September 30, 2009] September 30, 2010.

* * * * * * *

Chapter 90--Neighborhood and City Reinvestment, Self-Help and
Revitalization

Subchapter I--Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation

Sec. 8104. Officers and employees

(a) Employment, compensation and benefits

The board shall have power to select, employ, and fix the
salary and benefits of such officers, employees, attorneys, and
agents as shall be necessary for the performance of its duties
under this subchapter, without regard to the provisions of
title 5 governing appointments in the competitive service,
classification, and General Schedule pay rates, except that no
officer, employee, attorney, or agent of the corporation may be
paid salary at a rate in excess of the rate for level IV of the
Executive Schedule. The Corporation shall also apply the
provisions of section 5307(a)(1), (b)(1) and (b)(2) of title 5
governing limitations on certain pay as if its employees were
Federal employees receiving payments under title 5, except that
the board-appointed officers may be paid salary at a rate not
to exceed level II of the Executive Schedule.

* * * * * * *

TITLE 46--SHIPPING

Subtitle V--MERCHANT MARINE

PART C--FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

Chapter 535--Capital Construction Funds

Sec. 51314. Limitation on charges and fees for attendance

(a) Prohibition.-- * * *
(b) Exception.--The prohibition specified in subsection (a)
does not apply with respect to any item or service provided to
cadets for which a charge or fee is imposed as of October 5,
1994. The Secretary of Transportation shall notify Congress of
any change made by the Academy in the amount of a charge or fee
authorized under this subsection. Such fees shall be credited
to the Maritime Administration's Operations and Training
appropriation, to remain available until expended, for those
expenses directly related to the purposes of the fees. Fees
collected in excess of actual expenses may be refunded to the
Midshipmen through a mechanism approved by the Secretary. The
Academy shall maintain a separate and detailed accounting of
fee revenue and all associated expenses.

* * * * * * *

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

TITLE I--FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

Subtitle G--High Priority Projects

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....................

* * * * * *
*
3137 PA I-70/I-79 South Interchange $1,600,000
Redesign and Upgrade......
3138 KS [Elimination of highway- $4,584,000
railway crossings at the
City of Pittsburg Port
Authority to increase
safety and reduce
congestion] Elimination of
highway-railway crossings
and rehabilitation of rail
along the KO railroad to
Osborne...................

* * * * * *
*
3922 FL West Palm Beach, $2,000,000
Construction of U.S. 1,
Flagler Drive Waterfront
Redevelopment and Traffic
Calming Project...........
3923 FL Leon County FL: Capital $7,000,000
Circle, NW/SW, widen
Capital Circle, NW/SW [to
4 lanes from I-10 to West
U.S. 90]..................

* * * * * *
*
4572 NV Transportation improvements $3,000,000
on Laughlin-Bullhead City
Colorado Bridge...........
4573 NV [Transportation $8,000,000
improvements for Mesquite
Airport Access] Design and
construct interchange on I-
15 in Mesquite............

* * * * * *
*
4866 RI Replace Warren Bridge in $11,000,000
Warren....................
4866A RI [Repair and restore] $11,000,000
Removal of and
enhancements around
railroad bridge in
Westerly..................

* * * * * *
*
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * * *
BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL

PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93-344, AS
AMENDED
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget authority Outlays
---------------------------------------------------
Committee Amount of Committee Amount of
allocation bill allocation bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations
to its subcommittees of amounts in the budget resolution
for 2010: Subcommittee on Transportation and Housing and
Urban Development, and related agencies:
Mandatory............................................... ........... ........... ........... (\1\)
Discretionary........................................... 67,700 67,700 134,469 \1\134,461
Projection of outlays associated with the recommendation:
2010.................................................... ........... ........... ........... \2\48,130
2011.................................................... ........... ........... ........... 34,876
2012.................................................... ........... ........... ........... 16,420
2013.................................................... ........... ........... ........... 7,606
2014 and future years................................... ........... ........... ........... 9,903
Financial assistance to State and local governments for NA 34,198 NA 29,912
2010.......................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
\2\Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.

NA: Not applicable.

DISCLOSURE OF CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS

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

PRESIDENTIALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency Account Project Amount
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Transit Administration.... Capital Investment Grants..... ARC/THE Tunnel, New Jersey Trans-Hudson Midtown Corridor, NJ........ $200,000,000
Federal Transit Administration.... Capital Investment Grants..... Bellevue to Redmond Bus Rapid Transit, WA........................... $9,368,193
Federal Transit Administration.... Capital Investment Grants..... Central Florida Commuter Rail Transit, FL........................... $35,000,000
Federal Transit Administration.... Capital Investment Grants..... Central Phoenix/East Valley Light Rail, AZ.......................... $61,249,903
Federal Transit Administration.... Capital Investment Grants..... Commuter Rail Improvements, MA...................................... $32,000,000
Federal Transit Administration.... Capital Investment Grants..... Dulles Corridor Rail Project, VA.................................... $85,000,000
Federal Transit Administration.... Capital Investment Grants..... Houston North Corridor LRT, TX...................................... $75,000,000
Federal Transit Administration.... Capital Investment Grants..... Houston Southeast Corridor LRT, TX.................................. $75,000,000
Federal Transit Administration.... Capital Investment Grants..... Hudson-Bergen MOS-2, NJ............................................. $11,039
Federal Transit Administration.... Capital Investment Grants..... Largo Metrorail Extension, Washington, DC........................... $347,000
Federal Transit Administration.... Capital Investment Grants..... Livermore/Amador Route 10 BRT, CA................................... $79,900
Federal Transit Administration.... Capital Investment Grants..... Long Island Rail Road East Side Access, NY.......................... $193,500,000
Federal Transit Administration.... Capital Investment Grants..... Mason Corridor BRT, CO.............................................. $48,000,000
Federal Transit Administration.... Capital Investment Grants..... Metro Express--Airport Way Corridor BRT Project, CA................. $2,808,825
Federal Transit Administration.... Capital Investment Grants..... Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension, Los Angeles, CA................. $9,582,551
Federal Transit Administration.... Capital Investment Grants..... Metro Rapid Bus System Gap Closure, CA.............................. $23,326
Federal Transit Administration.... Capital Investment Grants..... Monterey Bay Rapid Transit, CA...................................... $2,830,042
Federal Transit Administration.... Capital Investment Grants..... Mountain Links BRT, AZ.............................................. $681,942
Federal Transit Administration.... Capital Investment Grants..... North Shore LRT Connector, PA....................................... $6,153
Federal Transit Administration.... Capital Investment Grants..... Northstar Corridor Rail Project, MN................................. $711,661
Federal Transit Administration.... Capital Investment Grants..... Northwest/Southeast LRT MOS, TX..................................... $86,249,717
Federal Transit Administration.... Capital Investment Grants..... Pacific Highway South BRT, WA....................................... $6,815
Federal Transit Administration.... Capital Investment Grants..... Ravenswood Extension Line, IL....................................... $304,744
Federal Transit Administration.... Capital Investment Grants..... Roaring Fork Valley, BRT Project, CO................................ $810,000
Federal Transit Administration.... Capital Investment Grants..... RTD West Corridor, CO............................................... $100,000,000
Federal Transit Administration.... Capital Investment Grants..... Salt Lake City--Mid Jordan LRT, UT.................................. $100,000,000
Federal Transit Administration.... Capital Investment Grants..... San Bernardino, E Street Corridor sbX BRT, CA....................... $20,000,000
Federal Transit Administration.... Capital Investment Grants..... Second Avenue Subway Phase I, NY.................................... $177,463,000
Federal Transit Administration.... Capital Investment Grants..... Sound Transit--Central Link Initial Segment, WA..................... $3,144,294
Federal Transit Administration.... Capital Investment Grants..... Sound Transit--University Link LRT Extension, WA.................... $110,000,000
Federal Transit Administration.... Capital Investment Grants..... South Corridor I-205/Portland Mall LRT, OR.......................... $74,229,000
Federal Transit Administration.... Capital Investment Grants..... South Sacramento Light Rail Extension, CA........................... $40,000,000
Federal Transit Administration.... Capital Investment Grants..... Weber County to Salt Lake City Commuter Rail, UT.................... $80,000,000
Federal Transit Administration.... Capital Investment Grants..... Wilshire Boulevard Bus Only Lane, CA................................ $13,558,474
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS--DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency Account Project Amount Member
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Transportation, Transportation Planning, Research, and Freight Policy Transportation Institute, WA..................... $750,000 Senator Murray
Office of the Secretary [OST]. Development [TPR&D].
Department of Transportation, Transportation Planning, Research, and Hampton Roads-Crater Multimodal Transportation and Distribution $250,000 Senator Warner
Office of the Secretary [OST]. Development [TPR&D]. Study, VA.
Department of Transportation, Transportation Planning, Research, and Vehicle Research Institute--Advanced Materials Transit Vehicle $750,000 Senators Murray, Cantwell
Office of the Secretary [OST]. Development [TPR&D]. Design, WA.
Department of Transportation, Transportation Planning, Research, and Whatcom Smart Trips, WA......................................... $750,000 Senator Murray
Office of the Secretary [OST]. Development [TPR&D].
Federal Aviation Administration Airport Improvement Program [AIP]............. Aircraft Rescue Fire Fighting Building Construction--Southern $800,000 Senator Durbin
[FAA]. Illinois Airport, Carbondale, IL.
Federal Aviation Administration Airport Improvement Program [AIP]............. Burlington International Airport Taxiway and Apron Improvements, $1,000,000 Senator Leahy
[FAA]. VT.
Federal Aviation Administration Airport Improvement Program [AIP]............. Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport, KY.......... $1,500,000 Senator McConnell
[FAA].
Federal Aviation Administration Airport Improvement Program [AIP]............. Devils Lake Regional, ND........................................ $500,000 Senators Conrad, Dorgan
[FAA].
Federal Aviation Administration Airport Improvement Program [AIP]............. Eagle River Union Airport, WI................................... $895,000 Senator Kohl
[FAA].
Federal Aviation Administration Airport Improvement Program [AIP]............. Golden Triangle Regional Airport, MS............................ $2,000,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker
[FAA].
Federal Aviation Administration Airport Improvement Program [AIP]............. Grand Forks International, ND................................... $2,500,000 Senators Conrad, Dorgan
[FAA].
Federal Aviation Administration Airport Improvement Program [AIP]............. Gulfport-Biloxi Airport, MS..................................... $2,500,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker
[FAA].
Federal Aviation Administration Airport Improvement Program [AIP]............. Jackson-Evers International Airport, MS......................... $2,000,000 Senator Cochran
[FAA].
Federal Aviation Administration Airport Improvement Program [AIP]............. Lamar Municipal Airport, MO..................................... $2,750,000 Senator Bond
[FAA].
Federal Aviation Administration Airport Improvement Program [AIP]............. Lanett Municipal Airport, AL.................................... $5,000,000 Senator Shelby
[FAA].
Federal Aviation Administration Airport Improvement Program [AIP]............. Louisville International Airport, KY............................ $750,000 Senator McConnell
[FAA].
Federal Aviation Administration Airport Improvement Program [AIP]............. Mid Delta Regional, MS.......................................... $1,000,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker
[FAA].
Federal Aviation Administration Airport Improvement Program [AIP]............. Nashville International Airport, TN............................. $1,500,000 Senator Alexander, Corker
[FAA].
Federal Aviation Administration Airport Improvement Program [AIP]............. Niagara Falls International Airport Runway 10L-28R Mill and $400,000 Senator Gillibrand
[FAA]. Overlay, NY.
Federal Aviation Administration Airport Improvement Program [AIP]............. Oakland County International Airport Terminal Building, Pontiac, $750,000 Senators Stabenow, Levin
[FAA]. MI.
Federal Aviation Administration Airport Improvement Program [AIP]............. Runway reconstruction--Quad Cities International Airport, $500,000 Senator Durbin
[FAA]. Moline, IL.
Federal Aviation Administration Airport Improvement Program [AIP]............. San Marcos Municipal Airport, TX................................ $1,000,000 Senator Hutchison
[FAA].
Federal Aviation Administration Airport Improvement Program [AIP]............. Sheboygan County Memorial Airport, WI........................... $950,000 Senator Kohl
[FAA].
Federal Aviation Administration Airport Improvement Program [AIP]............. Sikeston Memorial Municipal Airport, MO......................... $1,700,000 Senator Bond
[FAA].
Federal Aviation Administration Facilities and Equipment [F&E]................ Air Traffic Control Facility, Palm Springs International $2,000,000 Senators Boxer, Feinstein
[FAA]. Airport, CA.
Federal Aviation Administration Facilities and Equipment [F&E]................ Air Traffic Control Facility, Nantucket Memorial Airport, MA.... $1,000,000 Senators Kennedy, Kerry
[FAA].
Federal Aviation Administration Facilities and Equipment [F&E]................ Juneau International Airport MALSR Lighting, AK................. $1,000,000 Senator Murkowski
[FAA].
Federal Aviation Administration Facilities and Equipment [F&E]................ NextGen Integrated Airport Project, FL.......................... $850,000 Senators Bill Nelson,
[FAA]. Martinez
Federal Aviation Administration Facilities and Equipment [F&E]................ Piedmont Triad International Airport Instrument Landing System, $1,250,000 Senator Burr
[FAA]. NC.
Federal Aviation Administration Facilities and Equipment [F&E]................ Rutland-Southern Vermont Regional Airport, VT................... $250,000 Senator Leahy
[FAA].
Federal Aviation Administration Facilities and Equipment [F&E]................ TOPIA--Mobile Object Infrastructure Technology, WA.............. $2,000,000 Senator Murray
[FAA].
Federal Aviation Administration Operations (Ops).............................. Alien Species Action Plan Inspection Facility, HI............... $900,000 Senator Inouye
[FAA].
Federal Aviation Administration Operations (Ops).............................. St. Louis University Center for Aviation Safety Research, MO.... $2,000,000 Senator Bond
[FAA].
Federal Aviation Administration Research, Engineering, and Development [RED]. Advanced Materials in Transport Aircraft Structures, WA......... $500,000 Senators Murray, Cantwell
[FAA].
Federal Aviation Administration Research, Engineering, and Development [RED]. Advanced Materials Research, KS................................. $1,500,000 Senators Brownback, Roberts
[FAA].
Federal Aviation Administration Research, Engineering, and Development [RED]. Center of Excellence for Commercial Space Transportation, FL.... $1,000,000 Senator Bill Nelson
[FAA].
Federal Aviation Administration Research, Engineering, and Development [RED]. Nondestructive Inspection [NDI] Training for Composite Airframe $250,000 Senators Brownback, Roberts
[FAA]. Structures, KS.
Federal Highway Administration Delta Regional................................ Capitol Street Renaissance Project--Transportation Improvements, $1,150,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker
[FHWA]. MS.
Federal Highway Administration Delta Regional................................ Interstate 55 Interchange Lighting, MS.......................... $600,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Delta Regional................................ Interstate 55 Interchange, MO................................... $1,000,000 Senator Bond
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Delta Regional................................ Jonestown Bypass, MS............................................ $1,250,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Delta Regional................................ Poplar Bluff Industrial Park Bypass, MO......................... $2,000,000 Senator Bond
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Delta Regional................................ Route 34, MO.................................................... $1,150,000 Senator Bond
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Delta Regional................................ Statesman Boulevard and Trail, MS............................... $1,500,000 Senator Cochran
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Federal lands (Public Lands Highways)......... Boulder City Bypass, NV......................................... $1,000,000 Senator Reid
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Federal lands................................. BRAC-Related Improvements, Anne Arundel County, MD.............. $2,300,000 Senators Mikulski, Cardin
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Federal lands (Public Lands Highways)......... BRAC-Related Improvements, Harford County, MD................... $2,300,000 Senators Mikulski, Cardin
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Federal lands (Public Lands Highways)......... BRAC-Related Improvements, Montgomery County, MD................ $2,300,000 Senators Mikulski, Cardin
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Federal lands (Public Lands Highways)......... Choctaw Lake-Bluff Lake Route, MS............................... $1,500,000 Senator Cochran
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Federal lands (Public Lands Highways)......... CR 97, Nicolls Road Highway Improvements, NY.................... $400,000 Senator Gillibrand
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Federal lands (Public Lands Highways)......... FH-24, Banks to Lowman, ID...................................... $2,000,000 Senators Crapo, Risch
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Federal lands (Public Lands Highways)......... Federal Lands Improvement Project, HI........................... $4,000,000 Senator Inouye
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Federal lands (Public Lands Highways)......... Flight 93 National Memorial, PA................................. $1,400,000 Senators Specter, Casey
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Federal lands (Public Lands Highways)......... Forest Road Upgrade, MS......................................... $500,000 Senator Wicker
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Federal lands (Public Lands Highways)......... Hoover Dam Bypass Bridge, AZ.................................... $4,250,000 Senator Kyl
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Federal lands (Public Lands Highways)......... Kalispel Tribe Road Development from Sprague Avenue to US 2, WA $1,300,000 Senator Murray
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Federal lands (Public Lands Highways)......... Navajo Route 42, Oljeto Road Resurfacing Project, UT............ $1,000,000 Senator Bennett, Hatch
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Federal lands (Public Lands Highways)......... Pyramid Highway Corridor, NV.................................... $1,100,000 Senators Reid, Ensign
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Federal lands (Public Lands Highways)......... Reconstruction of BIA Route 7 on the Turtle Mountain $1,200,000 Senators Conrad, Dorgan
[FHWA]. Reservation, ND.
Federal Highway Administration Federal lands (Public Lands Highways)......... Repairs to Waterville Road, TN.................................. $200,000 Senator Alexander
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Federal lands (Public Lands Highways)......... SD Highway 63 Resurfacing, SD................................... $3,000,000 Senator Thune
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Federal lands (Public Lands Highways)......... South Access to the Golden Gate Bridge, Doyle Drive, City and $2,750,000 Senators Feinstein, Boxer
[FHWA]. County of San Francisco, CA.
Federal Highway Administration Federal lands (Public Lands Highways)......... Southern Nevada Beltway Interchanges, NV........................ $2,250,000 Senators Reid, Ensign
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Federal lands (Public Lands Highways)......... SR-160 Nevada Expansion, NV..................................... $2,250,000 Senators Reid, Ensign
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Federal lands (Public Lands Highways)......... Standing Rock Sioux Tribe--Community Streets Project--Bear $600,000 Senator Johnson
[FHWA]. Soldier South, SD.
Federal Highway Administration Federal lands (Public Lands Highways)......... West River Trail Bridge, VT..................................... $170,000 Senator Sanders
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Federal lands (Public Lands Highways) (Public BRAC-Related Improvements, Prince George's County, MD........... $2,300,000 Senators Mikulski, Cardin
[FHWA]. Lands Highways).
Federal Highway Administration Ferry Boats and Terminal Facilities........... New Vessel Program--Propulsion System Acquisition, WA........... $3,000,000 Senators Murray, Cantwell
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Interstate Maintenance [IM]................... 24th Street/I-15 Interchange, UT................................ $2,000,000 Senators Bennett, Hatch
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Interstate Maintenance [IM]................... I-10 Interchange at Pecue Lane, LA.............................. $1,100,000 Senators Vitter, Landrieu
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Interstate Maintenance [IM]................... I-12 Interchange at LA-16, Denham Springs, LA................... $650,000 Senators Landrieu, Vitter
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Interstate Maintenance [IM]................... I-15 Corridor of the Future, NV................................. $1,000,000 Senators Reid, Ensign
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Interstate Maintenance [IM]................... I-15 Custer Avenue Interchange, MT.............................. $3,000,000 Senators Tester, Baucus
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Interstate Maintenance [IM]................... I-235/US 54 and Central Ave Interchange, KS..................... $500,000 Senators Brownback, Roberts
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Interstate Maintenance [IM]................... I-29 Fargo North to Sheyenne River, ND.......................... $1,000,000 Senators Conrad, Dorgan
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Interstate Maintenance [IM]................... I-5 Columbia River Crossing, WA................................. $2,000,000 Senators Murray, Wyden,
[FHWA]. Merkley
Federal Highway Administration Interstate Maintenance [IM]................... I-70 Viaduct Realignment, KS.................................... $500,000 Senators Brownback, Roberts
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Interstate Maintenance [IM]................... I-85 Widening in Davidson and Rowan Counties, NC................ $1,700,000 Senator Burr
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Interstate Maintenance [IM]................... I-90 Belgrade East Interchange, MT.............................. $1,500,000 Senators Tester, Baucus
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Interstate Maintenance [IM]................... I-95 Interchange with SR 202 (Butler Boulevard), FL............. $1,000,000 Senator Martinez
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Interstate Maintenance [IM]................... I-95 Pawtucket River Bridge Replacement, RI..................... $1,800,000 Senators Reed, Whitehouse
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Interstate Maintenance [IM]................... IH-35W Congestion Relief, Fort Worth, TX........................ $2,000,000 Senators Hutchison, Cornyn
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Interstate Maintenance [IM]................... Interstate 280: Interchange Improvements, Harrison, NJ.......... $2,000,000 Senators Menendez,
[FHWA]. Lautenberg
Federal Highway Administration Interstate Maintenance [IM]................... Interstate 29: Reconstruction and Utility Relocation Project, IA $1,000,000 Senators Grassley, Harkin
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Interstate Maintenance [IM]................... Interstate 40: New Conway South Interchange, AR................. $800,000 Senators Pryor, Lincoln
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Interstate Maintenance [IM]................... Interstate 430/630: Interchange Modification, AR................ $3,000,000 Senators Pryor, Lincoln
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Interstate Maintenance [IM]................... Interstate 540: Fayetteville-North, AR.......................... $3,000,000 Senators Pryor, Lincoln
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Interstate Maintenance [IM]................... Interstate 81 Exit 3 Interchange Improvements, PA............... $1,000,000 Senators Specter, Casey
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Interstate Maintenance [IM]................... Interstate 95/Fairfax County Parkway Interchange at Newington $1,000,000 Senators Webb, Warner
[FHWA]. Road, VA.
Federal Highway Administration Interstate Maintenance [IM]................... Kapolei Interchange Complex, HI................................. $3,000,000 Senator Inouye
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Interstate Maintenance [IM]................... Marion Road Interchange, SD..................................... $1,000,000 Senator Thune
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Interstate Maintenance [IM]................... Meadowood Interchange, NV....................................... $1,000,000 Senator Reid
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Interstate Maintenance [IM]................... Starr Road Interchange, NV...................................... $3,000,000 Senator Reid
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Interstate Maintenance [IM]................... Turnpike Improvement Project: SR-1 & I-95, DE................... $1,500,000 Senators Carper, Kaufman
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... 10th Avenue South Corridor Extension, Waverly, IA............... $500,000 Senators Grassley, Harkin
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... 4th Street Improvement Project, City of Moro, OR................ $126,076 Senators Merkley, Wyden
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... 53rd Ave. Bridge and Roadway Extension Project, OR.............. $300,000 Senators Wyden, Merkley
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... 70th Avenue and Valley Avenue East Corridor Project, WA......... $1,500,000 Senator Murray
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Airport Road Replacement, TN.................................... $1,000,000 Senator Alexander
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... ADHS Corridor H, WV............................................. $4,500,000 Senator Byrd
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Anchor Lake Interchange and Service Road, MS.................... $500,000 Senator Cochran
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Arterial Road and Bridge Improvements, Matanuska-Susitna $1,000,000 Senators Murkowski, Begich
[FHWA]. Borough, AK.
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Artesia Road Bypass, MS......................................... $1,000,000 Senator Cochran
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Bergen County Specialized Bus Transit, NJ....................... $1,000,000 Senators Menendez,
[FHWA]. Lautenberg
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Blair Bypass--South Corridor, NE................................ $1,000,000 Senator Ben Nelson
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Blue Earth CSAH 12 Extension/TH 14 Interchange, MN.............. $600,000 Senator Klobuchar
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Bonneville Clark Couplet, NV.................................... $500,000 Senator Reid
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Bossier Parish Congestion Relief Plan, Bossier Parish, LA....... $850,000 Senators Landrieu, Vitter
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Brett Way Extension, OR......................................... $300,000 Senators Wyden, Merkley
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Broad Street Parkway/Nashua River Bridge Enhancements, NH....... $500,000 Senator Shaheen
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Broadway Bridge Replacement Project, WA......................... $3,200,000 Senator Murray
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Brush Creek--Troost Avenue Streetscape Improvements, MO......... $1,000,000 Senator Bond
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Byram-Clinton/Norrell Parkway, MS............................... $1,500,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Cannon AFB BRAC County Road Improvements, NM.................... $1,000,000 Senators Bingaman, Tom Udall
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Cape Girardeau Riverwalk Trail, MO.............................. $1,600,000 Senator Bond
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Carson City Freeway--Phase II, NV............................... $800,000 Senator Reid
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Central City, Trinity River Vision, Fort Worth, TX.............. $500,000 Senators Hutchison, Cornyn
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... East Loop, Brownsville, TX...................................... $500,000 Senator Hutchison
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Church Street Marketplace and Side Streets Improvements, VT..... $1,000,000 Senator Leahy
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... City of Hines Street Rehabilitation Project, OR................. $300,000 Senators Merkley, Wyden
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... City of Providence Street Paving, RI............................ $800,000 Senators Reed, Whitehouse
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... City of Tuscaloosa Streetscape, AL.............................. $2,000,000 Senator Shelby
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Coalfields Expressway, WV....................................... $2,000,000 Senator Byrd
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Collins Road Improvements, Cedar Rapids, IA..................... $1,000,000 Senators Harkin, Grassley
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Construction of Four Lane Highway on US 69 in Crawford, Bourbon, $1,500,000 Senator Brownback
[FHWA]. and Cherokee Counties, KS.
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Countywide Regional Loop Trail, Mount Clemens, MI............... $2,000,000 Senators Stabenow, Levin
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Defense Access Road, MS......................................... $1,000,000 Senator Cochran
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Denali Commission Transportation Program, AK.................... $1,000,000 Senators Begich, Murkowski
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... East Chester Street Improvement, TN............................. $785,000 Senator Alexander
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... East Metropolitan Corridor, MS.................................. $2,000,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Emergency Access Ramp to Interstate 84, NY...................... $1,000,000 Senator Schumer
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Fairfax County Parkway Interchange Improvements at Fair Lakes $600,000 Senators Warner, Webb
[FHWA]. Boulevard and Monument Drive, VA.
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... FNSB Road and Bridge Improvements, AK........................... $1,000,000 Senator Murkowski
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Gluckstadt Road and Interchange, MS............................. $1,500,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Golden Gate Bridge Seismic Retrofit Construction Project, CA.... $2,000,000 Senators Boxer, Feinstein
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Greensboro Greenway, NC......................................... $500,000 Senator Hagan
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Hardy County Complex Access Road, WV............................ $1,500,000 Senator Byrd
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Hastings Bridge/Highway 61 Right-of-Way and construction, MN.... $500,000 Senator Klobuchar
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Hattiesburg Longleaf Trace Rails To Trails, MS.................. $500,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Henry Avenue Bridge Reconstruction, WI.......................... $1,000,000 Senator Kohl
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... High Bridge Renovation, MT...................................... $300,000 Senator Tester
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Highway 226: Highway 67 to Highway 49, AR....................... $1,000,000 Senators Pryor, Lincoln
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Highway 63: Interchange Improvements, AR........................ $2,000,000 Senators Pryor, Lincoln
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Hogan Road Traffic Improvements, ME............................. $550,000 Senators Collins, Snowe
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Holly Springs Road, MS.......................................... $1,500,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Hutchins Street Reconstruction, Berlin, NH...................... $800,000 Senator Shaheen
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Highway 167: Louisiana State Line to Sheridan, AR............... $1,400,000 Senators Pryor, Lincoln
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Hybrid Composite-Concrete Bridges, ME........................... $2,000,000 Senators Collins, Snowe
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... I-40 Boulevard Construction, OK................................. $1,000,000 Senator Inhofe
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... I-44 Range Line Road Interchange, MO............................ $1,000,000 Senator Bond
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... I-69, TX........................................................ $500,000 Senators Hutchison, Cornyn
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Improvement of the South Connector Street, SD................... $1,250,000 Senator Thune
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Improvements to 159th Street, KS................................ $2,000,000 Senators Brownback, Roberts
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Indian River Inlet Bridge, DE................................... $800,000 Senators Carper, Kaufman
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Infrastructure Improvement at Height of Land, ME................ $2,900,000 Senators Collins, Snowe
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... International Railway Station/Intermodal Transportation Center, $800,000 Senators Schumer, Gillibrand
[FHWA]. NY.
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Interstate 69/Great River Bridge: Highway 65-MS Highway 1, AR... $2,000,000 Senators Pryor, Lincoln
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Iowa Highway 14-57 Complete Streets Corridor Improvements, $2,000,000 Senators Grassley, Harkin
[FHWA]. Parkersburg, IA.
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Jenny Barker Road/K-156/Mary St. Reconfiguration, KS............ $500,000 Senators Brownback, Roberts
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Kettering Gateway Project, Flint, MI............................ $1,200,000 Senators Levin, Stabenow
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... King Coal Highway, WV........................................... $2,000,000 Senator Byrd
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Kittitas Highway Safety Improvements, WA........................ $2,000,000 Senator Murray
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Knoxville Road Reconstruction, Mercer County, IL................ $500,000 Senator Durbin
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... LA 1 Goldenmeadow to Port Fourchon, Lafourche Parish, LA........ $1,000,000 Senators Landrieu, Vitter
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Lafayette Interchange, MO....................................... $1,000,000 Senator Bond
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Lake Harbour Drive, MS.......................................... $1,500,000 Senator Cochran
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Lake Merritt Improvement Project, CA............................ $850,000 Senator Boxer
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Lesner Bridge Replacement, VA................................... $500,000 Senators Webb, Warner
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Lewis and Clark Legacy Trail, ND................................ $700,000 Senators Conrad, Dorgan
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Longfellow Bridge Approach and Gateway, MA...................... $1,000,000 Senators Kennedy, Kerry
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Lower Main Street Infrastructure Project, Claremont, NH......... $500,000 Senator Shaheen
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Lowry Avenue Bridge Replacement, MN............................. $500,000 Senator Klobuchar
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Mahoning Road Infrastructure and Economic Development Project, $1,000,000 Senator Voinovich
[FHWA]. OH.
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... MD 404 Improvements in Caroline, Talbot, and Queen Anne's $400,000 Senator Mikulski
[FHWA]. Counties, MD.
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Missouri River Freight Corridor Development Study, MO........... $900,000 Senator Bond
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... MLK-Lincoln Avenue Railroad Grade Separation, WA................ $2,000,000 Senators Murray, Cantwell
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... MO-13 and MO-82 Interchange, MO................................. $1,000,000 Senator Bond
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Naugatuck River Greenway, CT.................................... $1,000,000 Senators Dodd, Lieberman
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Nevada Pacific Parkway, WV...................................... $550,000 Senator Reid
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... New York State Route 12, NY..................................... $500,000 Senator Schumer
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Newberg-Dundee Transportation Improvement Project, OR........... $400,000 Senators Wyden, Merkley
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Newport Cliff Walk Restoration, RI.............................. $500,000 Senators Reed, Whitehouse
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... North Broad Street Redevelopment Project, NJ.................... $500,000 Senators Lautenberg,
[FHWA]. Menendez
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Northern Avenue Bridge Rehabilitation, MA....................... $1,300,000 Senators Kennedy, Kerry
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Northwest 66th Avenue Reconstruction, IA........................ $600,000 Senators Harkin, Grassley
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Ohio Hub Plan, OH............................................... $700,000 Senator Brown
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Oktibbeha County Southern Bypass, MS............................ $500,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Old Taylor Road Roundabouts, MS................................. $500,000 Senator Cochran
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Ontario Oregon Railroad Underpass Rehabilitation and $300,000 Senators Wyden, Merkley
[FHWA]. Reconstruction, OR.
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Park Road Bridge Replacement and Dubuque Street Elevation $1,500,000 Senator Grassley
[FHWA]. Project, Iowa City, IA.
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Pioneer Street Rail Overpass Safety Improvement Project, WA..... $1,000,000 Senator Murray
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Pony Express Boulevard, Herriman, UT............................ 1,000,000 Senators Bennett, Hatch
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Port of Everett Infrastructure Improvement Project, WA.......... $1,200,000 Senator Murray
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... R-170 Landslide Road Replacement, WA............................ $2,000,000 Senators Murray, Cantwell
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Reconstruction and Upgrade of 2300 West between 1900 South and $1,500,000 Senators Bennett, Hatch
[FHWA]. the Interstate 15 West Frontage Road in Lehi, UT.
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Regional East-West Trail and Bikeway, Albuquerque, NM........... $1,000,000 Senators Bingaman, Tom Udall
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Remediation and Reuse of Reclaimed Port Land, DE................ $750,000 Senators Carper, Kaufman
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Replacement and Rehabilitation of Municipal Bridges and $500,000 Senators Murkowski, Begich
[FHWA]. Trestles, City of Ketchican, AK.
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Reunion Interchange, MS......................................... $1,500,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Rickenbacker Intermodal East-West Connector, OH................. $2,000,000 Senator Voinovich
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Road Improvements from 57th Street North to 1000ft South of 26th $1,500,000 Senator Johnson
[FHWA]. Street, Sioux Falls, SD.
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Route 1/Route 123 Interchange Improvements, VA.................. $600,000 Senators Webb, Warner
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Route 160 and Route 60 Interchange Improvements, MO............. $1,000,000 Senator Bond
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Route 27 Renaissance 2000 Project, NJ........................... $1,000,000 Senators Lautenberg,
[FHWA]. Menendez
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Route 60/422 Interchange, PA.................................... $500,000 Senators Specter, Casey
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Rutland Center Street Marketplace Improvements, VT.............. $1,000,000 Senator Leahy
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... San Bernardo Avenue Restoration, Laredo, TX..................... $500,000 Senator Hutchison
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... San Jose Boulevard Improvements, Carlsbad, NM................... $750,000 Senators Tom Udall, Bingaman
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Sellwood Bridge Replacement Project, OR......................... $1,300,000 Senators Merkley, Wyden
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Sitka Waterfront Development, AK................................ $500,000 Senator Begich
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... South Street Reconstruction and Streetscape Improvements, NY.... $1,000,000 Senator Schumer
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Southeast Connector, IA......................................... $2,000,000 Senators Harkin, Grassley
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Southwest Arterial Project, IA.................................. $400,000 SenatorsHarkin, Grassley
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... St. John's Heritage Parkway Interchanges, Cities of Melbourne $2,000,000 Senator Bill Nelson
[FHWA]. and Palm Bay, Brevard County, FL.
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... State Route 24/48, MS........................................... $1,900,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Street and Utility Reconstruction--Main Avenue, Park Rapids, MN. $750,000 Senator Klobuchar
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Sue Ann Big Crow and Oglala Trail and Bike Path enhancement, $500,000 Senator Johnson
[FHWA]. Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, SD.
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Thetford Village Pedestrian Improvements, VT.................... $450,000 Senator Leahy
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Tupelo Thoroughfare Northern Loop, MS........................... $1,500,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... U.S. 195 Safety Improvements, Cheney-Spokane Road Interchange, $2,000,000 Senator Murray
[FHWA]. WA.
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... U.S. Highway 97 and J Street Intersection Project, OR........... $700,000 Senators Wyden, Merkley
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... U.S. Route 35, WV............................................... $2,000,000 Senator Byrd
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... U.S. Route 422 Westbound Off-Ramp Improvements at the Oaks $1,300,000 Senator Specter
[FHWA]. Interchange, PA.
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... United States Route 17/Dominion Boulevard, VA................... $500,000 Senators Webb, Warner
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... University of Kentucky Academy for Community Transportation $1,000,000 Senator McConnell
[FHWA]. Innovation, KY.
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Urban Collector Road, MS........................................ $2,000,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... US 16B Improvements near US 16 to near SD 79, SD................ $500,000 Senator Thune
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... US 395 from Moana to Stead, NV.................................. $700,000 Senator Reid
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... US 70 Bridge Repairs, TN........................................ $1,500,000 Senator Alexander
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... US 93 Corridor and Kalispell Bypass, MT......................... $3,000,000 Senators Baucus, Tester
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... US-63, MO....................................................... $1,000,000 Senator Bond
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Vidalia Port Access Road, Vidalia, LA........................... $1,500,000 Senator Landrieu
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Wadhams Road Bridge over Black River, St. Clair, MI............. $3,000,000 Senators Levin, Stabenow
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... Waterfront Redevelopment Access Project, WA..................... $2,000,000 Senators Murray, Cantwell
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... West County Line Road, MS....................................... $1,500,000 Senator Cochran
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... West Haven Rail Passenger Station, CT........................... $1,000,000 Senators Lieberman, Dodd
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Priorities [STP]....... West Virginia Route 10, WV...................................... $2,000,000 Senator Byrd
[FHWA].
Federal Highway Administration Transportation & Community & System 5th and 6th Street Reconstruction, OR........................... $800,000 Senators Wyden, Merkley
[FHWA]. Preservation [TCSP].
Federal Highway Administration Transportation & Community & System 7th Street Gateway Streetscape Enhancement Project, NJ.......... $500,000 Senators Menendez,
[FHWA]. Preservation [TCSP]. Lautenberg
Federal Highway Administration Transportation & Community & System Access Road to Melbourne International Airport, FL.............. $800,000 Senator Bill Nelson
[FHWA]. Preservation [TCSP].
Federal Highway Administration Transportation & Community & System Autumn Street Parkway, San Jose, CA............................. $1,000,000 Senator Feinstein
[FHWA]. Preservation [TCSP].
Federal Highway Administration Transportation & Community & System Beaudry Road Crossing and Pathway Project, WA................... $600,000 Senator Murray
[FHWA]. Preservation [TCSP].
Federal Highway Administration Transportation & Community & System Camden Waterfront Neighborhood Development Initiative, NJ....... $500,000 Senators Lautenberg,
[FHWA]. Preservation [TCSP]. Menendez
Federal Highway Administration Transportation & Community & System Completion of future I-99, US Route 15 in Steuben County, NY.... $1,000,000 Senator Schumer
[FHWA]. Preservation [TCSP].
Federal Highway Administration Transportation & Community & System Downtown Development Authority Streetscape, Dahlonega, GA....... $392,000 Senator Chambliss
[FHWA]. Preservation [TCSP].
Federal Highway Administration Transportation & Community & System El Camino East/West Corridor, AL................................ $1,500,000 Senator Sessions
[FHWA]. Preservation [TCSP].
Federal Highway Administration Transportation & Community & System Fish Lake Trail Completion, WA.................................. $2,000,000 Senator Murray
[FHWA]. Preservation [TCSP].
Federal Highway Administration Transportation & Community & System Freeways and Arterial System of Transportation [FAST], NV....... $700,000 Senator Reid
[FHWA]. Preservation [TCSP].
Federal Highway Administration Transportation & Community & System Hamilton Street Overpass Safety Project, WA..................... $1,000,000 Senators Murray, Cantwell
[FHWA]. Preservation [TCSP].
Federal Highway Administration Transportation & Community & System I-84, Broadway Avenue to Gowen Road Widening, ID................ $400,000 Senators Crapo, Risch
[FHWA]. Preservation [TCSP].
Federal Highway Administration Transportation & Community & System I-84, Caldwell to Nampa Widening, ID............................ $1,000,000 Senators Crapo, Risch
[FHWA]. Preservation [TCSP].
Federal Highway Administration Transportation & Community & System Interchange design and construction Kansas Highway10 and Lone $500,000 Senator Roberts
[FHWA]. Preservation [TCSP]. Elm Interchange, Lenexa, KS.
Federal Highway Administration Transportation & Community & System Interstate 579 Cap--Urban Green Space & Park Plaza, Pittsburgh, $1,000,000 Senator Casey
[FHWA]. Preservation [TCSP]. PA.
Federal Highway Administration Transportation & Community & System Iowa Technology Corridor West Grand Avenue Extension, IA........ $600,000 Senator Harkin, Grassley
[FHWA]. Preservation [TCSP].
Federal Highway Administration Transportation & Community & System Loop 82 Railroad Overpass, TX................................... $700,000 Senator Cornyn
[FHWA]. Preservation [TCSP].
Federal Highway Administration Transportation & Community & System Midtown Transportation Infrastructure, NY....................... $1,400,000 Senator Schumer
[FHWA]. Preservation [TCSP].
Federal Highway Administration Transportation & Community & System Monongalia Health Systems Access Road, WV....................... $1,000,000 Senator Byrd
[FHWA]. Preservation [TCSP].
Federal Highway Administration Transportation & Community & System New Hanover Greenway System, NC................................. $250,000 Senator Hagan
[FHWA]. Preservation [TCSP].
Federal Highway Administration Transportation & Community & System New Orleans City Park Infrastructure Improvements, New Orleans, $2,000,000 Senator Landrieu
[FHWA]. Preservation [TCSP]. LA.
Federal Highway Administration Transportation & Community & System Ninth Street Island Bridge Project, MT.......................... $625,000 Senator Tester
[FHWA]. Preservation [TCSP].
Federal Highway Administration Transportation & Community & System Pedestrian Safety Improvement Project, NY....................... $300,000 Senator Gillibrand
[FHWA]. Preservation [TCSP].
Federal Highway Administration Transportation & Community & System Riggin Road at the Walnut Street Intersection, IN............... $1,000,000 Senator Lugar
[FHWA]. Preservation [TCSP].
Federal Highway Administration Transportation & Community & System Salters Road Expansion Along I-85, Greenville, SC............... $300,000 Senator Graham
[FHWA]. Preservation [TCSP].
Federal Highway Administration Transportation & Community & System South Lawrence Trafficway, KS................................... $1,250,000 Senator Roberts
[FHWA]. Preservation [TCSP].
Federal Highway Administration Transportation & Community & System State Road 133 from Albany to Moultrie, GA...................... $800,000 Senator Chambliss
[FHWA]. Preservation [TCSP].
Federal Highway Administration Transportation & Community & System Town of Lexington Unified Traffic Plan--Phase I, SC............. $1,000,000 Senator Graham
[FHWA]. Preservation [TCSP].
Federal Highway Administration Transportation & Community & System Union Crossing, MA.............................................. $400,000 Senators Kennedy, Kerry
[FHWA]. Preservation [TCSP].
Federal Highway Administration Transportation & Community & System US 113 Improvements in Worcester County, MD..................... $400,000 Senator Mikulski
[FHWA]. Preservation [TCSP].
Federal Highway Administration Transportation & Community & System US 41/Cobb Parkway Expansion and Bridge Replacement, GA......... $500,000 Senator Isakson
[FHWA]. Preservation [TCSP].
Federal Highway Administration Transportation & Community & System US 78 Upgrade to Interstate Standards, MS....................... $1,000,000 Senator Wicker
[FHWA]. Preservation [TCSP].
Federal Highway Administration Transportation & Community & System US Highway 169 Widening Project, OK............................. $500,000 Senator Inhofe
[FHWA]. Preservation [TCSP].
Federal Highway Administration Transportation & Community & System US-95, Thorncreek to Moscow, ID................................. $400,000 Senators Crapo, Risch
[FHWA]. Preservation [TCSP].
Federal Highway Administration Transportation & Community & System Wetzel Street Bridge Replacement, WV............................ $500,000 Senator Byrd
[FHWA]. Preservation [TCSP].
Federal Highway Administration Transportation & Community & System Widen Hwy 99W between SPRR overpass and NW Circle Boulevard, OR. $300,000 Senators Wyden, Merkley
[FHWA]. Preservation [TCSP].
Federal Highway Administration Transportation & Community & System Scoping Study on Audubon and Natcher Parkways in Western $375,000 Senator Bunning
[FHWA]. Preservation (Transportation & Community & Kentucky, KY.
System Preservation [TCSP]).
Federal Railroad Administration Grade Crossings on Designated High-speed Rail 55th Street East Grade Separation, ND........................... $1,900,000 Senators Conrad, Dorgan
[FRA]. Corridors.
Federal Railroad Administration Grade Crossings on Designated High-speed Rail Alameda Corridor East Grade Separations, CA..................... $2,000,000 Senators Feinstein, Boxer
[FRA]. Corridors.
Federal Railroad Administration Grade Crossings on Designated High-speed Rail Livingston Railroad Grade Separation Undercrossing, MT.......... $600,000 Senators Baucus
[FRA]. Corridors.
Federal Railroad Administration Grade Crossings on Designated High-speed Rail Railway-Highway Grade Crossing Mitigation, Northeastern IL...... $2,000,000 Senator Durbin
[FRA]. Corridors.
Federal Railroad Administration Rail Line Relocation and Improvement Pro- Grade Crossing Mitigation, Galesburg, IL........................ $3,000,000 Senator Durbin
[FRA]. gram.
Federal Railroad Administration Rail Line Relocation and Improvement Pro- Port of Alexandria Rail Spur, City of Alexandria, LA............ $500,000 Senator Landrieu
[FRA]. gram.
Federal Railroad Administration Rail Line Relocation and Improvement Pro- Shelby Intermodal Hub, MT....................................... $1,000,000 Senators Baucus, Tester
[FRA]. gram.
Federal Railroad Administration Rail Line Relocation and Improvement Pro- Southern Rail Corridor, MN...................................... $500,000 Senator Klobuchar
[FRA]. gram.
Federal Railroad Administration Rail Line Relocation and Improvement Pro- Waterfront Rail Reconstruction Project: Kawasaki SWIMO, NY...... $800,000 Senator Schumer
[FRA]. gram.
Federal Railroad Administration Rail Line Relocation and Improvement Pro- West Freight Access Project, WA................................. $3,000,000 Senators Murray, Cantwell
[FRA]. gram.
Federal Railroad Administration Research and Development [R&D]................ Caltrain--Positive Train Control, CA............................ $500,000 Senator Feinstein
[FRA].
Federal Railroad Administration Research and Development [R&D]................ Constructed Facilities Center at West Virginia University, WV... $250,000 Senator Byrd
[FRA].
Federal Railroad Administration Research and Development [R&D]................ Metrolink--Positive Train Control, CA........................... $500,000 Senators Feinstein, Boxer
[FRA].
Federal Railroad Administration Research and Development [R&D]................ PEERS Rail Grade Crossing Safety, Statewide, IL................. $500,000 Senator Durbin
[FRA].
Federal Transit Administration Alternatives Analysis [AA].................... C-TRAN High Capacity Transit--Alternatives Analysis, WA......... $1,750,000 Senator Murray
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Alternatives Analysis [AA].................... Naval Station Norfolk/Virginia Beach Light Rail Study, VA....... $1,000,000 Senators Warner, Webb
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Alternatives Analysis [AA].................... New Haven-Hartford-Springfield Rail Line Improvements, CT....... $4,000,000 Senator Dodd
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Alternatives Analysis [AA].................... Northwest New Jersey--Northeast Pennsylvania Passenger Rail $1,000,000 Senator Specter
[FTA]. Project, NJ/PA.
Federal Transit Administration Alternatives Analysis [AA].................... Puyallup Bus Rapid Transit Project--Alternatives Analysis, WA... $1,500,000 Senator Murray
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus & Bus Facilities.......................... 40' Fixed Route Transit Buses, DE............................... $1,000,000 Senators Carper, Kaufman
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus & Bus Facilities.......................... ACE Boulder Highway Rapid Transit Project, NV................... $750,000 Senators Ensign, Reid
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus & Bus Facilities.......................... Albany Transit Multimodal Transportation Center, GA............. $1,500,000 Senator Chambliss
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus & Bus Facilities.......................... Automotive-Based Fuel Cell Hybrid Bus Program, DE............... $500,000 Senators Carper, Kaufman
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus & Bus Facilities.......................... Benzie Transportation Authority Bus and Bus Facilities, Honor, $1,000,000 Senators Levin, Stabenow
[FTA]. MI.
Federal Transit Administration Bus & Bus Facilities.......................... Bridgeport Intermodal Transportation Center, CT................. $2,500,000 Senators Dodd, Lieberman
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus & Bus Facilities.......................... Cache Valley Transit District Expansion, UT..................... $2,000,000 Senators Hatch, Bennett
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus & Bus Facilities.......................... Capital Metro--Bus and Bus Facilities, TX....................... $2,000,000 Senators Cornyn, Hutchison
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus & Bus Facilities.......................... Cedar Avenue Bus Rapid Transit, Phase I, Dakota County, MN...... $700,000 Senator Klobuchar
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus & Bus Facilities.......................... Chittenden County Transportation Authority Buses, Equipment, and $2,000,000 Senators Leahy, Sanders
[FTA]. Facilities, Including Downtown Burlington Transit Center
Design, VT.
Federal Transit Administration Bus & Bus Facilities.......................... City of Dinuba CNG Fueling Station Expansion, CA................ $800,000 Senator Boxer
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus & Bus Facilities.......................... Colorado Transit Coalition Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities, CO. $2,500,000 Senators Bennet, Mark Udall
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus & Bus Facilities.......................... Coralville Intermodal Facility, Coralville, IA.................. $750,000 Senators Grassley, Harkin
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus & Bus Facilities.......................... C-TRAN Transit Vehicle Replacement, WA.......................... $1,900,000 Senator Murray
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus & Bus Facilities.......................... Deerfield Valley Transit Association Facilities, Buses, and $600,000 Senator Leahy
[FTA]. Equipment, VT.
Federal Transit Administration Bus & Bus Facilities.......................... City of Imperial Downtown Transportation Park, CA............... $1,000,000 Senator Boxer
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus & Bus Facilities.......................... Electric Hybrid Bus Upgrade Grants, IN.......................... $2,400,000 Senator Lugar
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus & Bus Facilities.......................... Great Falls Transit District Bus Replacements, MT............... $1,000,000 Senators Baucus, Tester
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus & Bus Facilities.......................... Harbor Point Bus Expansion, CT.................................. $500,000 Senators Dodd, Lieberman
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus & Bus Facilities.......................... Harrison County Multimodal, MS.................................. $2,000,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus & Bus Facilities.......................... Hobbs Transit Intermodal Facility, NM........................... $800,000 Senators Tom Udall, Bingaman
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus & Bus Facilities.......................... Idaho Transit Coalition Bus and Bus Facilities, ID.............. $1,000,000 Senators Crapo, Risch
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus & Bus Facilities.......................... Intercity Transit Vehicle Acquisition, WA....................... $1,800,000 Senator Murray
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus & Bus Facilities.......................... Jamaica Intermodal Station Plaza, NY............................ $600,000 Senator Gillibrand
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus & Bus Facilities.......................... JATRAN Fleet Replacement, MS.................................... $500,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus & Bus Facilities.......................... KCATA Bus Replacement, MO....................................... $2,000,000 Senator Bond
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus & Bus Facilities.......................... Link Transit Vehicle Acquisition, WA............................ $2,300,000 Senator Murray
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus & Bus Facilities.......................... llinois Downstate Bus and Bus Facilities, IL.................... $4,000,000 Senators Durbin, Burris
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus & Bus Facilities.......................... Lufkin VA Clinic Shuttle, TX.................................... $300,000 Senator Cornyn
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus & Bus Facilities.......................... LYNX Buses, Orlando, FL......................................... $1,500,000 Senator Martinez
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus & Bus Facilities.......................... Marble Valley Regional Transit District Buses, Facilities, and $1,500,000 Senator Leahy
[FTA]. Equipment, VT.
Federal Transit Administration Bus & Bus Facilities.......................... MARTA Acquisition of Clean Fuel Buses, GA....................... $4,000,000 Senator Isakson
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus & Bus Facilities.......................... Metro St. Louis--Downtown Transfer Center, MO................... $1,150,000 Senator Bond
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus & Bus Facilities.......................... Newark Penn Station Intermodal Improvements, NJ................. $2,000,000 Senators Lautenberg,
[FTA]. Menendez
Federal Transit Administration Bus & Bus Facilities.......................... North Dakota Statewide Transit, ND.............................. $1,500,000 Senators Conrad, Dorgan
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus & Bus Facilities.......................... Northstar Phase II Commuter Buses, MN........................... $100,000 Senator Klobuchar
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus & Bus Facilities.......................... Pierce Transit Diesel-Electric Bus Acquisition, WA.............. $1,300,000 Senator Murray
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus & Bus Facilities.......................... Port of Anchorage Intermodal Expansion Project, AK.............. $500,000 Senator Begich
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus & Bus Facilities.......................... Purchase Hybrid Buses, Lehigh and Northampton Transportation $500,000 Senator Specter
[FTA]. Authority [LANTA] PA.
Federal Transit Administration Bus & Bus Facilities.......................... Reconstruction of the University Circle Rapid Station, OH....... $2,000,000 Senator Voinovich
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus & Bus Facilities.......................... Rural Bus Program for Hawaii, Maui and Kauai, HI................ $3,500,000 Senators Inouye, Akaka
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus & Bus Facilities.......................... Senior Transportation Program, AL............................... $2,000,000 Senator Shelby
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus & Bus Facilities.......................... Silverton Senior and Disabled Transportation Service, OR........ $39,429 Senators Wyden, Merkley
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus & Bus Facilities.......................... Spokane Transit Diesel-Electric Hybrid Bus Acquisition, WA...... $1,300,000 Senator Murray
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus & Bus Facilities.......................... State of Arkansas--Bus and Bus Facilities for Urban, Rural, and $500,000 Senators Pryor, Lincoln
[FTA]. Elderly and Disabled Agencies, AR.
Federal Transit Administration Bus & Bus Facilities.......................... Staten Island Ferry Campus Shuttle Bus Service, NY.............. $260,000 Senator Schumer
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus & Bus Facilities.......................... Statewide (Rural and Urban) Bus and Bus Facilities, KS.......... $2,000,000 Senators Brownback, Roberts
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus & Bus Facilities.......................... Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities for Commuter Choice, NM........ $2,000,000 Senators Bingaman, Tom Udall
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus & Bus Facilities.......................... Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities, IA............................ $3,450,000 Senators Harkin, Grassley
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus & Bus Facilities.......................... Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities, MO............................ $2,000,000 Senator Bond
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus & Bus Facilities.......................... Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities, SD............................ $500,000 Senator Johnson
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus & Bus Facilities.......................... Statewide Bus Replacement, RI................................... $500,000 Senator Reed
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus & Bus Facilities.......................... Tacoma Intermodal Transit Center, WA............................ $1,000,000 Senator Murray
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus & Bus Facilities.......................... Tennessee Statewide Bus Program, TN............................. $6,000,000 Senators Alexander, Corker
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus & Bus Facilities.......................... The Clean and Green Bus Replacements Initiative, OH............. $500,000 Senators Brown, Voinovich
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus & Bus Facilities.......................... The Rapid, Wealthy Operations Center Expansion Project, Grand $2,000,000 Senators Stabenow, Levin
[FTA]. Rapids, MI.
Federal Transit Administration Bus & Bus Facilities.......................... Thompsonville Intermodal Transportation Center, CT.............. $1,000,000 Senators Dodd, Lieberman
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus & Bus Facilities.......................... Transit Authority of Northern Kentucky Bus Replacement Project, $1,600,000 Senator McConnell
[FTA]. KY.
Federal Transit Administration Bus & Bus Facilities.......................... Transit Maintenance Garage Initiative, IA....................... $700,000 Senators Harkin, Grassley
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus & Bus Facilities.......................... Transit Vehicle and Related Equipment, MO....................... $1,000,000 Senator Bond
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus & Bus Facilities.......................... Washoe County Bus and Bus Facilities, NV........................ $500,000 Senator Reid
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus & Bus Facilities.......................... Western Kentucky University Shuttle Bus Improvement Project, KY. $1,075,000 Senator McConnell
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus & Bus Facilities.......................... Whatcom Transportation Authority Fleet Replacement Project, WA.. $1,000,000 Senator Murray
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Bus & Bus Facilities.......................... Wisconsin Bus Capital on Behalf of Transit Agencies Statewide, $3,500,000 Senator Kohl
[FTA]. WI.
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..................... AC Transit BRT Corridor, CA..................................... $2,000,000 Senator Feinstein
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..................... Ann Arbor--Detroit Regional Rail Project, Detroit, MI........... $5,000,000 Senators Stabenow, Levin
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..................... ARC/THE Tunnel (New Jersey Trans-Hudson Midtown Corridor)....... $200,000,000 Senators Lautenberg,
[FTA]. Menendez
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..................... Baltimore Red Line, MD.......................................... $4,000,000 Senators Cardin, Mikulski
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..................... Bellevue to Redmond Bus Rapid Transit, WA....................... $9,368,193 Senators Murray, Cantwell
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..................... Central Corridor Light Rail Transit Project, MN................. $3,500,000 Senator Klobuchar
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..................... City of Charlotte, Charlotte Area Transit System's [CATS] Blue $24,000,000 Senators Burr, Hagan
[FTA]. Line Extension--Northeast Corridor Project, NC.
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..................... CTA Chicago Hub (Circle Line), IL............................... $2,000,000 Senators Durbin, Burris
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..................... CTA Red Line North Station, Track, Viaduct and Station $10,000,000 Senator Durbin
[FTA]. Rehabilitation, IL.
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..................... Draper Light Rail, UT........................................... $10,000,000 Senators Bennett, Hatch
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..................... Dulles Corridor Rail Project, VA................................ $85,000,000 Senators Webb, Warner
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..................... Fort Lauderdale, The Downtown Transit Corridor Program, Downtown $1,000,000 Senators Bill Nelson,
[FTA]. Transit Circulator, FL. Martinez
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..................... Galveston-Houston Commuter Rail, TX............................. $2,000,000 Senator Hutchison
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..................... HART Light Rail Preliminary Engineering, FL..................... $3,000,000 Senators Bill Nelson,
[FTA]. Martinez
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..................... Honolulu High Capacity Transit Corridor Project, HI............. $30,000,000 Senators Inouye, Akaka
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..................... Houston North Corridor LRT, TX.................................. $75,000,000 Senator Hutchison
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..................... Houston Southeast Corridor LRT, TX.............................. $75,000,000 Senator Hutchison
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..................... Improvements to the Rosslyn Metro Station, VA................... $2,000,000 Senators Webb, Warner
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..................... Lackawanna Cut-Off Restoration Project, PA/NJ................... $2,000,000 Senator Casey
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..................... Metra Connects, IL.............................................. $2,000,000 Senators Burris, Durbin
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..................... Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension, Los Angeles, CA............. $9,582,551 Senator Feinstein
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..................... Metrorail Orange Line Extension, FL............................. $20,000,000 Senator Martinez
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..................... Mid-Jordan Light Rail, UT....................................... $100,000,000 Senators Bennett, Hatch
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..................... Northstar Corridor Rail Project, MN............................. $711,661 Senator Klobuchar
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..................... Northstar Phase II--Extension of Northstar Commuter Rail to the $4,000,000 Senator Klobuchar
[FTA]. St. Cloud Area, MN.
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..................... Northwest/Southeast Light Rail MOS, TX.......................... $86,249,717 Senators Hutchison, Cornyn
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..................... Purple Line, MD................................................. $4,000,000 Senators Cardin, Mikulski
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..................... Route 1 Bus Rapid Transit, Potomac Yard-Crystal City, VA........ $2,000,000 Senators Warner, Webb
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..................... RTD East Corridor, CO........................................... $5,500,000 Senators Bennet, Mark Udall
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..................... RTD Gold Corridor, CO........................................... $5,000,000 Senators Mark Udall, Bennet
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..................... RTD West Corridor, CO........................................... $100,000,000 Senators Bennet, Mark Udall
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..................... San Francisco Muni Third St. Light Rail--Central Subway Project, $2,000,000 Senator Feinstein
[FTA]. CA.
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..................... Seattle Pacific Highway South Bus Rapid Transit, WA............. $6,815 Senator Murray
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..................... Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit, CA.............................. $1,000,000 Senators Boxer, Feinstein
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..................... Sound Transit--Central Link Initial Segment, WA................. $3,144,294 Senator Murray
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..................... Sound Transit--University Link LRT Extension, WA................ $110,000,000 Senator Murray
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..................... South Sacramento Light Rail Extension, CA....................... $40,000,000 Senator Feinstein
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..................... Stamford Urban Transitway, CT................................... $4,500,000 Senators Lieberman, Dodd
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..................... Virginia Railway Express Rolling Stock, VA...................... $4,000,000 Senators Webb, Warner
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..................... Weber County to Salt Lake City Commuter Rail, UT................ $80,000,000 Senator Bennett
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..................... Wilmington to Newark Commuter Rail Improvement Program, DE...... $5,000,000 Senators Carper, Kaufman
[FTA].
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants..................... Wilshire Boulevard Bus-Only Lane, CA............................ $13,558,474 Senator Feinstein
[FTA].
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS--ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency Account Recipient and location Project purpose Amount Member
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Abused Women's Aid in Crisis; Anchorage, For infrastructure improvements at a $200,000 Senator Murkowski
[HUD]. Initiatives. AK. center to serve victims of domestic
violence.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Ada Public Works Authority, Ada, OK..... For construction of a water tower....... $400,000 Senator Inhofe
[HUD]. Initiatives.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Albany, GA.............................. For the transformation of real estate $450,000 Senator Chambliss
[HUD]. Initiatives. property and infrastructure into a
Certified Industrial Park.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development American Red Cross of Northeast Indiana, For expansion of an existing facility... $200,000 Senator Lugar
[HUD]. Initiatives. IN.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Amos House, Providence, RI.............. For construction of a training and $750,000 Senators Reed, Whitehouse
[HUD]. Initiatives. support center to serve low-income
individuals.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Anchorage Community Land Trust, For rehabilitation and renewal of key $400,000 Senator Begich
[HUD]. Initiatives. Anchorage, AK. blighted property along Mountain View
Drive.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Androscoggin Valley Council of For restoration of the historic Camden $600,000 Senators Collins, Snowe
[HUD]. Initiatives. Governments, ME. Yarns Mill building in downtown
Lewiston would rehabilitate a blighted
mill on the river.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Appalachia Service Project, Brenton, WV For a home repair program for low-income $750,000 Senator Byrd
[HUD]. Initiatives. families in Southern West Virginia.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Appalachia Service Project, Chavies, KY. To serve families below the Federal $460,000 Senator Bunning
[HUD]. Initiatives. poverty level through a variety of
means, such as financial assistance and
equipping homes with running water.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Appleton Housing Authority, Appleton, For construction and preservation of low- $420,000 Senator Kohl
[HUD]. Initiatives. WI. income elderly housing.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Architectural Heritage Foundation, For construction of a mixed-use urban $200,000 Senators Kennedy, Kerry
[HUD]. Initiatives. Lowell, MA. development including space for
affordable housing.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Ardmore Development Authority, Ardmore, For infrastructure improvements......... $600,000 Senator Inhofe
[HUD]. Initiatives. OK.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Argentine Neighborhood Development For property acquisition, infrastructure $1,000,000 Senator Brownback
[HUD]. Initiatives. Association, Kansas City, KS. improvements, and housing construction.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Arkansas Food Bank Network, AR.......... For establishment of a new facility..... $200,000 Senators Pryor, Lincoln
[HUD]. Initiatives.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Automation Alley, Troy, MI.............. For construction of the Automation Alley $300,000 Senators Levin, Stabenow
[HUD]. Initiatives. International Business Center.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Blair County, PA........................ For acquisition, demolition, and site $250,000 Senators Casey, Specter
[HUD]. Initiatives. preparation within Blair County's
blighted urban core areas, including
downtown Altoona.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Bolivar County, MS...................... For the renovation and repair of a $350,000 Senator Cochran
[HUD]. Initiatives. historic courthouse.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Boyle County Fiscal Court, Danville, KY. For upgrades to current building and $500,000 Senator Bunning
[HUD]. Initiatives. infrastructure in Boyle County.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Boys and Girls Club of Greater For renovation and expansion of a youth $300,000 Senators Kennedy, Kerry
[HUD]. Initiatives. Westfield, Westfield, MA. facility.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Boys and Girls Clubs of Southwest For expansion of the existing youth $1,000,000 Senator Murray
[HUD]. Initiatives. Washington, WA. facility.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Bristol Bay Borough, AK................. For infrastructure expansion at the Port $1,000,000 Senator Murkowski
[HUD]. Initiatives. of Bristol Bay.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Buena Vista Charter Township, MI........ For redevelopment of blighted property.. $400,000 Senators Levin, Stabenow
[HUD]. Initiatives.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Calhoun County, MS...................... For renovation and construction of a $900,000 Senator Cochran
[HUD]. Initiatives. historic courthouse.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Chippewa-Luce-Mackinac Community Action For construction of a new service center $400,000 Senators Stabenow, Levin
[HUD]. Initiatives. Human Resources Authority, Luce County, to house all the agency's programs,
MI. which benefit low income county
residents.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of Anderson, IN.................... For technology and building $200,000 Senator Lugar
[HUD]. Initiatives. infrastructure improvements, tenant
build-out and enhancements, and
laboratory development.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of Billings, MT.................... For purchase of generators to provide $1,000,000 Senator Tester
[HUD]. Initiatives. emergency power to critical water
facilities.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of Bozeman, MT..................... For reconstruction following an $1,000,000 Senator Baucus
[HUD]. Initiatives. explosion in a downtown historic
district.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of Cincinnati, OH.................. For redevelopment of Brownfield property $600,000 Senator Voinovich
[HUD]. Initiatives. into a new light industrial and service
center business park.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of Council Bluffs, IA.............. For development of low and moderate $350,000 Senators Harkin, Grassley
[HUD]. Initiatives. income housing.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of Danville, IL.................... For acquisition, demolition and $350,000 Senator Durbin
[HUD]. Initiatives. redevelopment of dilapidated and
abandoned structures.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of Dells Rapids, SD................ For restoration, renovation and $500,000 Senator Johnson
[HUD]. Initiatives. modernization of an historic public
library.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of Desert Hot Springs, CA.......... For development of a community facility $300,000 Senator Boxer
[HUD]. Initiatives. to address a serious health and public
safety problems in a low-income area.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of Forsyth, GA..................... For renovations of the former Tift $650,000 Senator Chambliss
[HUD]. Initiatives. College to house the Georgia Department
of Corrections; buildings are in
disrepair and must be brought up to the
code.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of Gig Harbor, WA.................. For construction of a multi-use facility $750,000 Senator Murray
[HUD]. Initiatives. for the Boys and Girls Club.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of Greenville, MS.................. For renovations and infrastructure $300,000 Senator Cochran
[HUD]. Initiatives. enhancements for a youth wellness
project.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of Hattiesburg, MS................. For renovations and replacement of $500,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker
[HUD]. Initiatives. buildings and equipment in a park in a
blighted neighborhood.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of Hopkinsville, KY................ For infrastructure improvements at the $3,000,000 Senator McConnell
[HUD]. Initiatives. Hopkinsville-Christian County
Industrial Mega Site.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of Hyden, KY....................... For construction and development of a $500,000 Senator Bunning
[HUD]. Initiatives. community wellness facility to serve
southeastern Kentucky.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of Jackson, MS..................... For property improvements related to the $805,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker
[HUD]. Initiatives. Capitol Street Renaissance Project.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of Jackson, MS..................... For renovation and rehabilitation of the $550,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker
[HUD]. Initiatives. City of Jackson's Public Facilities for
the Cultural Arts and Science.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of Lewiston, ME.................... For the City of Lewiston's ongoing $900,000 Senators Collins, Snowe
[HUD]. Initiatives. efforts to revitalize its riverfront.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of Midland, TX..................... For renovations to 30-year-old $500,000 Senator Cornyn
[HUD]. Initiatives. facilities which serve the Midland
community.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of North Adams, MA................. For renovation and restoration of a $200,000 Senators Kennedy, Kerry
[HUD]. Initiatives. downtown historic building in order to
reduce blight and attract private
investment.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of Oxford, MS...................... For renovation of a historical structure $400,000 Senator Cochran
[HUD]. Initiatives.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of Pascagoula, MS.................. For construction of City of Pascagoula $500,000 Senators Wicker, Cochran
[HUD]. Initiatives. beach park promenade.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of Pawtucket, RI................... For repair and renovation of a historic $250,000 Senator Reed
[HUD]. Initiatives. public library.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of Peoria, IL...................... For critical public infrastructure $250,000 Senator Durbin
[HUD]. Initiatives. improvements around the Glen Oak and
Harriston Community Schools.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of Philadelphia, PA................ For mixed-use, transit-oriented $500,000 Senator Casey
[HUD]. Initiatives. development in the area around the 9th
and Berks rail station.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of Piedmont, OK.................... For the construction of a municipal $1,000,000 Senator Inhofe
[HUD]. Initiatives. building.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of Quincy, IL...................... For the acquisition of blighted $200,000 Senator Durbin
[HUD]. Initiatives. residential properties to create
affordable housing and facilitate mixed-
use development.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of Rochester, NY................... For environmental mediation, demolition, $350,000 Senator Gillibrand
[HUD]. Initiatives. and other site preparation for
revitalization.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of Rockford, IL.................... For capital costs associated with the $250,000 Senator Durbin
[HUD]. Initiatives. city's mixed-use development plans.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of Ruston, LA...................... For purchase of equipment needed to $200,000 Senator Landrieu
[HUD]. Initiatives. construct a city-wide broadband network
to be managed and maintained by the
City of Ruston.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of Springfield, IL................. For acquisition of abandoned properties $350,000 Senator Durbin
[HUD]. Initiatives. and upgrades to infrastructure.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of Taunton, MA..................... For safety and access improvements at a $200,000 Senators Kennedy, Kerry
[HUD]. Initiatives. low-income senior center.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of Tuscaloosa, AL.................. For a downtown revitalization project... $5,000,000 Senator Shelby
[HUD]. Initiatives.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of Waterbury, CT................... For redevelopment of Brownfields and $500,000 Senators Lieberman, Dodd
[HUD]. Initiatives. blighted properties.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of Wenatchee, WA................... For property acquisition and renovation $1,500,000 Senator Murray
[HUD]. Initiatives. of Wenatchee Pybus Food Bank and
Distribution Center.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of Winston-Salem, NC............... For creation of office space to recruit $500,000 Senator Hagan
[HUD]. Initiatives. businesses to a Winston-Salem, as part
of the revitalization of a blighted
area.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development City of York, PA........................ For restoration and preservation of $800,000 Senator Casey
[HUD]. Initiatives. historic central market.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Community Area Resource Enterprise [CARE For development of up to 60 units of $500,000 Senators Bingaman, Tom Udall
[HUD]. Initiatives. 66], Gallup, NM. affordable housing.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Community Chest, Virginia City, NV...... For construction of a multi-use $200,000 Senator Reid
[HUD]. Initiatives. community center in Storey County.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development County Commissioners of Charles County, For installation of plumbing in low- $300,000 Senator Mikulski
[HUD]. Initiatives. MD. income housing.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development County of Kauai, HI..................... For on-site infrastructure improvements $250,000 Senator Inouye
[HUD]. Initiatives. to enable the construction of 36
residential homes for low-income
households.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development County of Minnehaha, SD................. For construction of a facility to house $350,000 Senator Johnson
[HUD]. Initiatives. chronically homeless persons.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Covenant House Alaska, Anchorage, AK.... For the relocation of a crisis center $500,000 Senator Murkowski
[HUD]. Initiatives. facility.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Crossroads, North Kingstown, RI......... For the development and construction of $750,000 Senator Whitehouse
[HUD]. Initiatives. a Child Care and Community Center.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Delaware Children's Museum, DE.......... For the construction of the Delaware $200,000 Senators Carper, Kaufman
[HUD]. Initiatives. Children's Museum in Wilmington,
Delaware, as part of a community
revitalization effort.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Detroit Institute of Arts, Detroit, MI.. For removal and replacement of the roof $650,000 Senators Levin, Stabenow
[HUD]. Initiatives. on an historic building.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Divide County, Crosby, ND............... For reclamation of a former Air Force $300,000 Senators Dorgan, Conrad
[HUD]. Initiatives. base site for redevelopment.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development East Central Community Center, Spokane, For design and construction of a $350,000 Senator Murray
[HUD]. Initiatives. WA. community facility.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development East Orange Division of Senior Services, For renovation of a senior citizen cen- $200,000 Senators Lautenberg,
[HUD]. Initiatives. East Orange, NJ. ter. Menendez
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development El Centro de Servicios Sociales, Lorain, For construction and renovations of an $600,000 Senator Brown
[HUD]. Initiatives. OH. aging structure.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Emergency Shelter of the Fox Valley, For acquisition and rehabilitation of $350,000 Senator Kohl
[HUD]. Initiatives. Appleton, WI. permanent supportive housing for
chronically homeless persons.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Esperanza, Philadelphia, PA............. For the planning, design, rehabilitation $200,000 Senator Specter
[HUD]. Initiatives. and construction of affordable housing
in the Hunting Park neighborhood.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Eva's Village, Paterson, NJ............. For renovation of the center's $800,000 Senators Lautenberg,
[HUD]. Initiatives. facilities. Menendez
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development First Steps Primeros Pasos, Georgetown, For construction and start-up costs for $200,000 Senators Kaufman, Carper
[HUD]. Initiatives. DE. a bilingual early care and education
facility to help children of non-
English-speaking families develop
skills needed to succeed.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Food Bank of Delaware, Newark, DE....... For expansion of a commercial kitchen, a $200,000 Senators Kaufman, Carper
[HUD]. Initiatives. volunteer room, a culinary training
facility, a retail area and additional
office space to allow the food bank to
meet growing demand in Kent and Sussex
counties.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Freestore Foodbank, Cincinnati, OH...... For major renovations on two heavily $550,000 Senator Brown
[HUD]. Initiatives. used food bank facilities.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Garrard County Fiscal Court, Lancaster, For renovation and expansion of the $200,000 Senator Bunning
[HUD]. Initiatives. KY. Garrard County EMS building in
Lancaster, KY.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Georgia International and Maritime Trade For site preparation in accordance with $900,000 Senator Chambliss
[HUD]. Initiatives. Center Authority, Savannah, GA. the Parcel 7/Riverwalk Civic Master
Plan, including planning and
preparation work, and the design and
construction of a public access
floating dock system to accommodate
traffic flow to/from the site.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Greater Boston Food Bank, Boston, MA.... For construction of a regional food $600,000 Senators Kennedy, Kerry
[HUD]. Initiatives. distribution center.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Hampshire County Special Services For the acquisition of an additional $1,000,000 Senator Byrd
[HUD]. Initiatives. Center, WV. facility to provide services and
employment to individuals with
developmental disabilities.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Hawaii Public Housing Authority, For code enforcement and renovation of $400,000 Senator Inouye
[HUD]. Initiatives. Honolulu, HI. 24 housing units for very low- to low-
income elderly individuals at the
Pahala Elderly Housing Project.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Hawaii Public Housing Authority, For renovation of 25 housing units for $400,000 Senator Inouye
[HUD]. Initiatives. Honolulu, HI. low income individuals at Kahale Mua
Public Housing.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Heritage Services, Omaha, NE............ For construction of an 80,000 square $800,000 Senator Ben Nelson
[HUD]. Initiatives. foot, multi-level facility that will
accommodate an education and
interactive learning center.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Homeward, Inc., Clarion, IA............. For expansion of a construction finance $200,000 Senators Harkin, Grassley
[HUD]. Initiatives. program to develop housing in rural
communities for low income individuals.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Housing Vermont, Burlington, VT......... For construction and improvement of $250,000 Senator Sanders
[HUD]. Initiatives. housing stock.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Howard County, MD....................... For rehabilitation and equipment $500,000 Senator Mikulski
[HUD]. Initiatives. purchase for community and wellness
rooms in low- and moderate-income
elderly housing community.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Iowa Department of Economic Development, For rehabilitation of buildings and $1,000,000 Senator Harkin
[HUD]. Initiatives. Des Moines, IA. areas.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Jackson County Commission, WV........... For expansion of the drill hall and $1,500,000 Senator Byrd
[HUD]. Initiatives. supporting facilities at the proposed
Spencer-Ripley Armed Forces Reserve
Center.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Jackson County, MS...................... For Phase I of construction and $500,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker
[HUD]. Initiatives. renovation Walter Anderson Arts
Pavilion.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Kansas City Parks and Recreation For the construction of new community $2,000,000 Senator Bond
[HUD]. Initiatives. Department, Kansas City, MO. center.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Kids Come First, Columbus, OH........... For construction of a child care $500,000 Senator Voinovich
[HUD]. Initiatives. facility.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development King County Housing Authority, King For renovation and expansion of three $1,000,000 Senators Murray, Cantwell
[HUD]. Initiatives. County, WA. youth community centers located in
three public housing sites.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Lanakila Rehabilitation Center, For renovation and expansion of the $300,000 Senator Inouye
[HUD]. Initiatives. Honolulu, HI. Wahiawa Training and Support Complex,
which will double capacity to provide
training and employment opportunities
for people with disabilities and other
low-income individuals.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Longview Housing Authority, Longview, WA For rehabilitation of an historic $500,000 Senators Murray, Cantwell
[HUD]. Initiatives. building into a veterans housing and
service center.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule, For purchase of new playground equipment $200,000 Senator Johnson
[HUD]. Initiatives. SD. and upgrades to a kitchen and learning
areas of a daycare facility to improve
safety for children.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule, For upgrades to a community center...... $350,000 Senator Johnson
[HUD]. Initiatives. SD.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Luna County Community Recreation For the renovation of the old Pepsi $410,000 Senators Bingaman, Tom Udall
[HUD]. Initiatives. Facility, NM. building to house dedicated youth
activities, practice space, and
community meeting rooms.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Maryland Department of Natural For restoration and preservation of $475,000 Senators Cardin, Mikulski
[HUD]. Initiatives. Resources, Annapolis, MD. properties to alleviate economic
distress through stimulation of private
investment and community revitalization.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Maryland Food Bank, Halethorpe, MD...... For infrastructure improvements to a $400,000 Senators Mikulski, Cardin
[HUD]. Initiatives. distribution facility and purchase of
equipment.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Maui Economic Concerns of the Community, For rehabilitation and improvement of a $500,000 Senator Inouye
[HUD]. Initiatives. Wailuku, HI. homeless resource center and affordable
housing for low-income residents.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Mid Plains Community College, McCook, NE For construction of a new events center $500,000 Senator Ben Nelson
[HUD]. Initiatives. that supports rural economic
development and activity in
southwestern Nebraska.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Middlesex Community College, Lowell, MA For redevelopment of an underutilized $200,000 Senators Kennedy, Kerry
[HUD]. Initiatives. historic building to expand community
services.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Military Business Park, City of For construction of a military business $600,000 Senator Hagan
[HUD]. Initiatives. Fayetteville, NC. park.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Ministry of Caring, Wilmington, DE...... For renovations to the Josephine Bakhita $200,000 Senators Kaufman, Carper
[HUD]. Initiatives. House to serve as residence for young
adults who are committed to social
responsibility and volunteer service.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, For redevelopment of a Superfund site $750,000 Senator Baucus
[HUD]. Initiatives. and Parks, MT. and a State park.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Mookini Luakini Foundation, North For construction and renovation of a $200,000 Senator Inouye
[HUD]. Initiatives. Kohala, HI. cultural education center for low-
income youth.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Mount Washington Community Development For planning, design, site preparation, $200,000 Senator Specter
[HUD]. Initiatives. Corporation, Pittsburgh, PA. demolition, and construction associated
with Brownfield redevelopment.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Multi-Disciplinary Combined Facility for For construction of a facility.......... $1,000,000 Senator Murkowski
[HUD]. Initiatives. the Copper River Native Association,
Cantwell, AK.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Navajo Technical College, Crownpoint, NM For construction of a regional health $400,000 Senators Bingaman, Tom Udall
[HUD]. Initiatives. center located on the campus of the
Navajo Technical College.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Nevada Housing and Neighborhood For development of an assisted living $700,000 Senator Reid
[HUD]. Initiatives. Development [HAND], Las Vegas, NV. facility for low income seniors.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development New Futures, Seattle, WA................ For the planning, design and $450,000 Senator Murray
[HUD]. Initiatives. construction of a community center.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Noble County Health Department, For the rehabilitation of a 30-year old $400,000 Senator Brown
[HUD]. Initiatives. Caldwell, OH. building to increase functionality and
energy efficiency.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development North Olympic Regional Housing Network, For the purchase and conversion of a $500,000 Senators Murray, Cantwell
[HUD]. Initiatives. Forks, WA. building into transitional and
permanent supportive housing for
homeless veterans and their families.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Northeast Iowa Food Bank, Waterloo, IA.. For construction of a food warehouse and $350,000 Senator Harkin
[HUD]. Initiatives. distribution center.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Northern Community Investment For expansion of high-speed broadband $1,000,000 Senator Gregg
[HUD]. Initiatives. Corporation, St. Johnsbury, VT. connectivity to New Hampshire's North
Country.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Northside Community Housing, Inc., St. For renovations to preserve affordable $1,000,000 Senator Bond
[HUD]. Initiatives. Louis, MO. housing units for low- and moderate-
income seniors, individuals, and
families.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Our City Reading, Reading, PA........... For rehabilitation of abandoned houses $200,000 Senator Specter
[HUD]. Initiatives. and provision of down payment
assistance to home buyers.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Panhandle Area Development District, For remodel of an existing building into $300,000 Senator Ben Nelson
[HUD]. Initiatives. Gering, NE. a physical and virtual small business
incubator to serve the Panhandle of
Nebraska.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Parish of Ascension, LA................. For acquisition of the multi-purpose $700,000 Senator Landrieu
[HUD]. Initiatives. center.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Pendleton Round-Up Foundation, For reconstruction and construction $500,000 Senators Wyden, Merkley
[HUD]. Initiatives. Pendleton, OR. needs of facilities which are critical
to the local economy.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Pocahontas County Commission, Marlinton, For construction of a multipurpose $3,000,000 Senator Byrd
[HUD]. Initiatives. WV. community center, to promote health and
wellness of county residents, and
provide youth and adult alcohol and
drug prevention programs.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Port of Coos Bay, Coos Bay, OR.......... For purchase of critical dock equipment $350,000 Senators Wyden, Merkley
[HUD]. Initiatives. essential to local economic survival.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Portsmouth Music Hall, Portsmouth, NH... For repairs, restoration and $1,000,000 Senator Gregg
[HUD]. Initiatives. modernization of a theater and
construction of an additional space.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Redevelopment Authority of the City of For site acquisition, demolition, $300,000 Senator Kohl
[HUD]. Initiatives. Milwaukee, WI. remediation and redevelopment of
priority sites in the 30th Street
Industrial Corridor.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Riverfront, Inc., La Crosse, WI......... For expansion of a training facility for $300,000 Senator Kohl
[HUD]. Initiatives. vocational and independent living
services.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Rockland Housing Action Coalition, For construction of permanent, $1,000,000 Senator Schumer
[HUD]. Initiatives. Nanuet, NY. supportive rental housing for existing
and returning disabled veterans and
their families.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Rocky Mountain Youth Corps, Rancho de For preconstruction costs of a youth $300,000 Senators Tom Udall, Bingaman
[HUD]. Initiatives. Taos, NM. facility.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Saginaw County, MI...................... For an energy efficient infrastructure $350,000 Senators Stabenow, Levin
[HUD]. Initiatives. demonstration project to support the
renaissance of downtown Saginaw.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Scranton City, PA....................... For elimination of slum and blight...... $300,000 Senator Casey
[HUD]. Initiatives.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Self-Help Housing Corporation of Hawaii, For the construction of 76-lot $500,000 Senator Inouye
[HUD]. Initiatives. Honolulu, HI. subdivision for self-help housing
project for low income families.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Silver Stage Youth Organization, Silver For design and construction of a youth $200,000 Senator Reid
[HUD]. Initiatives. Springs, NV. facility.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Snohomish County, Everett, WA........... For acquisition and renovation of a new $1,000,000 Senator Murray
[HUD]. Initiatives. facility for use by Dawson's Place
Child Advocacy Center.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Spirit Lake Nation, Fort Totten, ND..... For construction of low-income senior $750,000 Senators Dorgan, Conrad
[HUD]. Initiatives. housing units.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Squamscott Community Commons, Exeter, NH For the construction of a new community $1,000,000 Senators Gregg, Shaheen
[HUD]. Initiatives. center.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development St. Louis County Economic Council, St. For the final design and construction of $2,250,000 Senator Bond
[HUD]. Initiatives. Louis, MO. Wellston Child Care Center.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Starr Commonwealth, Battle Creek, MI.... For renovations to facilities serving at- $900,000 Senators Levin, Stabenow
[HUD]. Initiatives. risk youth.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Tallahatchie County, MS................. For renovation of the Emmett Till $195,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker
[HUD]. Initiatives. Memorial Complex.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development The Arc of Spokane, Spokane, WA......... For capital costs and equipment $1,000,000 Senator Murray
[HUD]. Initiatives. acquisition for renovation of the Arc
of Spokane's Indiana building.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development The Institute for Human Services, For construction of a job and skills $200,000 Senator Inouye
[HUD]. Initiatives. Honolulu, HI. training center at Hawaii's oldest and
largest emergency homeless shelter.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development The Old Slater Mill Association, For completion of the historic $200,000 Senator Whitehouse
[HUD]. Initiatives. Pawtucket, RI. restoration project at the Historic
Slater Mill.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Theodore Roosevelt Medora Foundation, For restoration and expansion of $300,000 Senator Conrad
[HUD]. Initiatives. Medora, ND. historic property.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Tides Family Services, West Warwick, RI For renovation and expansion a center $350,000 Senator Reed
[HUD]. Initiatives. for at-risk youth of Providence RI.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority, For purchase and remediation of the 110- $1,300,000 Senator Voinovich
[HUD]. Initiatives. Toledo, OH. acre former Jeep Parkway property.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Town of Gorham, NH...................... For renovation of a community facility $200,000 Senator Shaheen
[HUD]. Initiatives. to house programs serving children,
youth and families in Coos County.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Town of Greenville, ME.................. For the completion of the Greenville $250,000 Senator Snowe
[HUD]. Initiatives. Junction Wharf.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Town of North Kingstown, RI............. For construction of a new senior center. $300,000 Senators Reed, Whitehouse
[HUD]. Initiatives.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Town of Silver City, NM................. For construction of Vistas de Plata, a $600,000 Senators Tom Udall, Bingaman
[HUD]. Initiatives. 56-unit affordable housing project.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Tundra Women's Coalition, Bethel, AK.... For replacement of a women's facility... $500,000 Senator Begich
[HUD]. Initiatives.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development United Way of Dave County, Madison, WI. For acquisition and redevelopment of $200,000 Senator Kohl
[HUD]. Initiatives. apartment units in order to provide
supportive housing for homeless
families.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development United Way of Kitsap County, Bremerton, For capital costs related to the $500,000 Senator Murray
[HUD]. Initiatives. WA. development of the United Way Non-
profit Community Center.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Utah Food Bank Services, Utah........... For expanding the capacity to collect $250,000 Senator Bennett
[HUD]. Initiatives. and distribute food to low-income
individuals and families.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Vermont Association of Area Agencies on For improvements to facilities for sen- $500,000 Senator Sanders
[HUD]. Initiatives. Aging, Barre, VT. iors.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Vermont Division for Historic For preservation of historic assets..... $200,000 Senator Sanders
[HUD]. Initiatives. Preservation, Montpelier, VT.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Vermont Foodbank, Barre, Vermont........ For energy efficiency improvements...... $200,000 Senator Sanders
[HUD]. Initiatives.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Vermont Housing and Conservation Board, For enhancement of affordable housing $4,000,000 Senator Leahy
[HUD]. Initiatives. Montpelier, VT. and community development linked with
land conservation and historic
preservation.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Vermont Housing and Conservation Board, For the construction and improvement of $250,000 Senator Sanders
[HUD]. Initiatives. Montpelier, VT. housing stock.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Volunteers of America Michigan, Lansing, For expansion of housing shelters and $400,000 Senators Levin, Stabenow
[HUD]. Initiatives. MI. community access to medical, social,
civic, and economic services.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Waipa Foundation, Hanalei, HI........... For construction, renovation, and $400,000 Senator Inouye
[HUD]. Initiatives. equipment purchase for a State-
certified commercial kitchen, food
mill, and underground oven, for
vocational training and processing of
value-added agricultural products in
low-income and farming communities.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Watson's Children's Shelter, Missoula, For construction of an emergency $250,000 Senators Tester, Baucus
[HUD]. Initiatives. MT. children's shelter.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Wayne State College, Wayne, Nebraska.... For construction of a new collaborative $300,000 Senator Ben Nelson
[HUD]. Initiatives. education center.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development West Columbia, SC....................... To establish an enrichment complex for $250,000 Senator Graham
[HUD]. Initiatives. families and children.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development West Valley City, UT.................... For the construction of City Center $1,000,000 Senator Hatch
[HUD]. Initiatives. Plaza in a blighted area, a critical
element of a major redevelopment
project with a planned intermodal
center.
Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Westerly Area Rest Meals [WARM, Inc.], For expansion and renovation of a $300,000 Senators Reed, Whitehouse
[HUD]. Initiatives. Westerly, RI. community soup kitchen.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS--NEIGHBORHOOD INITIATIVES
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency Account Recipient and location Project purpose Amount Member
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Housing and Urban Development Neighborhood Initiatives...... Capitol Hill Housing, Seattle, WA....... For construction of affordable housing.. $725,000 Senator Murray
[HUD].
Housing and Urban Development Neighborhood Initiatives...... Center for Planning Excellence, Baton For provision of technical assistance to $1,000,000 Senator Landrieu
[HUD]. Rouge, LA. a community regarding sustainable
development, neighborhood
revitalization, housing and land use
planning.
Housing and Urban Development Neighborhood Initiatives...... City of Gig Harbor, WA.................. For improved physical access to area $1,500,000 Senator Murray
[HUD]. businesses.
Housing and Urban Development Neighborhood Initiatives...... City of Olympia, WA..................... For downtown revitalization and business $1,100,000 Senator Murray
[HUD]. access improvements.
Housing and Urban Development Neighborhood Initiatives...... Consumer Credit Counseling Service, Las For foreclosure prevention efforts...... $500,000 Senator Reid
[HUD]. Vegas, NV.
Housing and Urban Development Neighborhood Initiatives...... Growing Places, Centralia, WA........... For facility and infrastructure $500,000 Senator Murray
[HUD]. improvements to an education and job
training facility serving at-risk youth.
Housing and Urban Development Neighborhood Initiatives...... Holyoke Community College, Holyoke, MA. For completion of construction of a one- $250,000 Senators Kennedy, Kerry
[HUD]. stop education, social services, and
job training center serving low-income
persons.
Housing and Urban Development Neighborhood Initiatives...... homeWORD, Missoula, MT.................. For development of rental housing that $500,000 Senators Tester, Baucus
[HUD]. is affordable to working families.
Housing and Urban Development Neighborhood Initiatives...... Jacksonville Area Legal Aid, For foreclosure prevention training and $400,000 Senator Bill Nelson
[HUD]. Jacksonville, FL. other legal services.
Housing and Urban Development Neighborhood Initiatives...... Jefferson County, CO.................... For the housing authority to establish a $500,000 Senators Mark Udall, Bennet
[HUD]. new program of housing and supportive
services for homeless veterans over age
50.
Housing and Urban Development Neighborhood Initiatives...... Kitsap Community Resources, Bremerton, For the construction of an early $750,000 Senators Murray, Cantwell
[HUD]. WA. learning center.
Housing and Urban Development Neighborhood Initiatives...... Lighthouse for the Blind, Seattle, WA... For the improved accessibility of $550,000 Senator Murray
[HUD]. community and transit services for
blind, low vision, and deaf-blind
individuals in King, Pierce, and
Spokane counties in Washington State.
Housing and Urban Development Neighborhood Initiatives...... Mississippi State University, For community planning and development.. $500,000 Senator Cochran
[HUD]. Starkville, MS.
Housing and Urban Development Neighborhood Initiatives...... NeighborWorks Lincoln, Lincoln, NE...... For neighborhood revitalization $500,000 Senator Ben Nelson
[HUD]. including elimination of blight,
construction of single family homes,
rehabilitation and repairs.
Housing and Urban Development Neighborhood Initiatives...... North End Action Team, Middletown, CT... For foreclosure prevention assistance... $200,000 Senator Dodd
[HUD].
Housing and Urban Development Neighborhood Initiatives...... Northern Community Investment For capitalization of a revolving loan $500,000 Senator Shaheen
[HUD]. Corporation, Berlin, NH. fund to support businesses in New
Hampshire's North Country.
Housing and Urban Development Neighborhood Initiatives...... South Dakota Science and Technology For infrastructure improvements to the $400,000 Senators Johnson, Thune
[HUD]. Authority, Lead, SD. Homestake Mine.
Housing and Urban Development Neighborhood Initiatives...... Southeastern Connecticut Housing For programs to increase affordable $200,000 Senator Dodd
[HUD]. Alliance, Norwich, CT. housing.
Housing and Urban Development Neighborhood Initiatives...... Technology Access Foundation, White For the construction of the TAF $500,000 Senator Murray
[HUD]. Center, WA. Community Learning Space facility.
Housing and Urban Development Neighborhood Initiatives...... Town of Huntington, NY.................. For construction of a state-of-the-art $800,000 Senator Schumer
[HUD]. community center for veterans.
Housing and Urban Development Neighborhood Initiatives...... Urban League of Southern Connecticut, For homeowneship and foreclosure $300,000 Senator Dodd
[HUD]. Stamford, CT. prevention counseling.
Housing and Urban Development Neighborhood Initiatives...... YWCA of Yakima, Yakima, WA.............. For upgrades to the YWCA's Bringing It $300,000 Senator Murray
[HUD]. Home supportive housing project for
victims of domestic violence.
Housing and Urban Development Neighborhood Initiatives...... YWCA Southeastern Massachusetts, New For construction of a community center $200,000 Senators Kennedy, Kerry
[HUD]. Bedford, MA. and women's transitional housing
facility.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Committee recommendation compared with (+ or
)
Item 2009 Budget estimate House allowance Committee -----------------------------------------------------
appropriation recommendation 2009
appropriation Budget estimate House allowance
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Salaries and expenses............................................. 98,248 103,184 102,306 100,975 +2,727 -2,209 -1,331
Immediate Office of the Secretary............................. (2,400) ................ (2,631) (2,631) (+231) (+2,631) ................
Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary...................... (759) ................ (986) (986) (+227) (+986) ................
Office of the General Counsel................................. (19,838) ................ (20,359) (20,359) (+521) (+20,359) ................
Office of the Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy.... (10,107) ................ (11,100) (10,107) ................ (+10,107) (-993)
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs..... (10,200) ................ (10,559) (10,559) (+359) (+10,559) ................
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs.... (2,400) ................ (2,440) (2,400) ................ (+2,400) (-40)
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration.......... (26,000) ................ (25,520) (26,265) (+265) (+26,265) (+745)
Office of Public Affairs...................................... (2,020) ................ (2,055) (2,123) (+103) (+2,123) (+68)
Office of the Executive Secretariat........................... (1,595) ................ (1,658) (1,711) (+116) (+1,711) (+53)
Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization........ (1,369) ................ (1,433) (1,499) (+130) (+1,499) (+66)
Office of Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response...... (8,675) ................ (10,600) (9,072) (+397) (+9,072) (-1,528)
Office of the Chief Information Officer....................... (12,885) ................ (13,215) (13,263) (+378) (+13,263) (+48)
National infrastructure investment................................ ................ ................ ................ 1,100,000 +1,100,000 +1,100,000 +1,100,000

Supplemental discretionary grants for national service 1,500,000 ................ ................ ................ -1,500,000 ................ ................
transportation system (emergency) (Public Law 111-5).............

Financial management capital...................................... 5,000 5,000 2,000 5,000 ................ ................ +3,000
Office of Civil Rights............................................ 9,384 9,667 9,667 9,667 +283 ................ ................
Rescission of excess compensation for air carriers................ -848 ................ ................ ................ +848 ................ ................
Transportation planning, research, and development................ 18,300 10,233 14,733 8,233 -10,067 -2,000 -6,500
Maritime Study (sec. 195)......................................... ................ ................ ................ 2,000 +2,000 +2,000 +2,000
Working capital fund.............................................. (128,094) ................ (147,596) (147,500) (+19,406) (+147,500) (-96)
Minority business resource center program......................... 912 912 912 923 +11 +11 +11
(Limitation on guaranteed loans).............................. (18,367) (18,367) (18,367) (18,367) ................ ................ ................
Minority business outreach........................................ 3,056 3,074 3,074 3,074 +18 ................ ................
Payments to air carriers (Airport & Airway Trust Fund)............ 73,013 125,000 125,000 125,000 +51,987 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Office of the Secretary.............................. 1,707,065 257,070 257,692 1,354,872 -352,193 +1,097,802 +1,097,180
Appropriations.......................................... (207,913) (257,070) (257,692) (1,354,872) (+1,146,959) (+1,097,802) (+1,097,180)
Rescissions............................................. (-848) ................ ................ ................ (+848) ................ ................
Emergency appropriations................................ (1,500,000) ................ ................ ................ (-1,500,000) ................ ................

Federal Aviation Administration

Operations........................................................ 9,042,467 9,335,798 9,347,168 9,359,131 +316,664 +23,333 +11,963
Air traffic organization...................................... (7,099,019) ................ (7,300,739) (7,305,902) (+206,883) (+7,305,902) (+5,163)
Aviation safety............................................... (1,164,597) ................ (1,231,765) (1,236,565) (+71,968) (+1,236,565) (+4,800)
Commercial space transportation............................... (14,094) ................ (14,737) (14,737) (+643) (+14,737) ................
Financial services............................................ (111,004) ................ (113,681) (113,681) (+2,677) (+113,681) ................
Human resource management..................................... (96,091) ................ (100,428) (100,428) (+4,337) (+100,428) ................
Region and center operations.................................. (331,000) ................ (341,977) (341,977) (+10,977) (+341,977) ................
Staff offices................................................. (180,859) ................ (196,063) (196,063) (+15,204) (+196,063) ................
Information services.......................................... (46,500) ................ (49,778) (49,778) (+3,278) (+49,778) ................

Facilities & equipment (Airport & Airway Trust Fund).............. 2,742,095 2,925,202 2,925,202 2,942,352 +200,257 +17,150 +17,150

Supplemental funding for facilities and equipment (emergency) 200,000 ................ ................ ................ -200,000 ................ ................
(Public Law 111-5)...............................................

Research, engineering, and development (Airport & Airway Trust 171,000 180,000 195,000 175,000 +4,000 -5,000 -20,000
Fund)............................................................

Grants-in-aid for airports (Airport and Airway Trust Fund) (3,600,000) (3,000,000) (3,000,000) (3,000,000) (-600,000) ................ ................
(Liquidation of contract authorization)..........................
(Limitation on obligations)................................... (3,514,500) (3,515,000) (3,515,000) (3,515,000) (+500) ................ ................
Small community air service development program............... (8,000) ................ ................ (8,000) ................ (+8,000) (+8,000)
Administration................................................ (87,454) (93,422) (93,422) (93,422) (+5,968) ................ ................
Airport Cooperative Research Program.......................... (15,000) (15,000) (15,000) (15,000) ................ ................ ................
Airport technology research................................... (19,348) (22,472) (22,472) (22,472) (+3,124) ................ ................
Rescission of contract authority (BY AIP)..................... -80,000 ................ ................ -392,960 -312,960 -392,960 -392,960
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................... (3,434,500) (3,515,000) (3,515,000) (3,122,040) (-312,460) (-392,960) (-392,960)

Supplemental discretionary grants for airport investment 1,100,000 ................ ................ ................ -1,100,000 ................ ................
(emergency) (Public Law 111-5)...................................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Federal Aviation Administration...................... 13,175,562 12,441,000 12,467,370 12,083,523 -1,092,039 -357,477 -383,847
Appropriations.......................................... (11,955,562) (12,441,000) (12,467,370) (12,476,483) (+520,921) (+35,483) (+9,113)
Rescissions of contract authority....................... (-80,000) ................ ................ (-392,960) (-312,960) (-392,960) (-392,960)
Emergency appropriations................................ (1,300,000) ................ ................ ................ (-1,300,000) ................ ................
(Limitations on obligations)................................ (3,514,500) (3,515,000) (3,515,000) (3,515,000) (+500) ................ ................

Total budgetary resources less emergencies.................. (15,390,062) (15,956,000) (15,982,370) (15,598,523) (+208,461) (-357,477) (-383,847)

Federal Highway Administration

Limitation on administrative expenses............................. (390,000) (415,396) (413,533) (415,396) (+25,396) ................ (+1,863)

Federal-aid highways (Highway Trust Fund):
(Liquidation of contract authorization)....................... (41,439,000) (33,000,000) (41,846,000) (41,846,000) (+407,000) (+8,846,000) ................
(Limitation on obligations)............................... (40,700,000) (5,000,000) (41,107,000) (41,107,000) (+407,000) (+36,107,000) ................
(Exempt contract authority)............................... (739,000) (739,000) (739,000) (739,000) ................ ................ ................
General Fund share............................................ ................ 36,107,000 ................ ................ ................ -36,107,000 ................
Additional highway investment (sec. 123).......................... ................ ................ ................ 1,400,000 +1,400,000 +1,400,000 +1,400,000

Appalachian development highway system............................ 9,500 ................ ................ ................ -9,500 ................ ................
Denali Access System.............................................. 5,700 ................ ................ ................ -5,700 ................ ................
Surface transportation projects................................... 161,327 ................ 125,700 165,000 +3,673 +165,000 +39,300
Additional TCSP (subject to limitation)........................... 143,031 ................ ................ ................ -143,031 ................ ................
Rescission of contract authority (Highway Trust Fund)............. -3,150,000 ................ ................ ................ +3,150,000 ................ ................
Administration (rescission of contract authority)................. -33,401 ................ ................ ................ +33,401 ................ ................
Research (rescission of contract authority)....................... -11,757 ................ ................ ................ +11,757 ................ ................
Sec. 130 project corrections...................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
Highway infrastructure investment (emergency) (Public Law 111-5).. 27,500,000 ................ ................ ................ -27,500,000 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Federal Highway Administration....................... 24,624,400 36,107,000 125,700 1,565,000 -23,059,400 -34,542,000 +1,439,300
Appropriations.......................................... (319,558) (36,107,000) (125,700) (1,565,000) (+1,245,442) (-34,542,000) (+1,439,300)
Rescissions of contract authority....................... (-3,195,158) ................ ................ ................ (+3,195,158) ................ ................
Emergency appropriations................................ (27,500,000) ................ ................ ................ (-27,500,000) ................ ................
(Limitations on obligations)................................ (40,700,000) (5,000,000) (41,107,000) (41,107,000) (+407,000) (+36,107,000) ................
(Exempt contract authority)................................. (739,000) (739,000) (739,000) (739,000) ................ ................ ................

Total budgetary resources less emergencies.................. (38,563,400) (41,846,000) (41,971,700) (43,411,000) (+4,847,600) (+1,565,000) (+1,439,300)

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

Motor carrier safety operations and programs (general fund)....... ................ ................ ................ 1,328 +1,328 +1,328 +1,328
Motor carrier safety operations and programs (Highway Trust Fund) (234,000) (234,000) (239,828) (238,500) (+4,500) (+4,500) (-1,328)
(Liquidation of contract authorization)..........................
(Limitation on obligations)................................... (234,000) (239,828) (239,828) (238,500) (+4,500) (-1,328) (-1,328)
Motor carrier safety grants (Highway Trust Fund) (Liquidation of (307,000) (289,000) (310,070) (310,070) (+3,070) (+21,070) ................
contract authorization)..........................................
(Limitation on obligations)................................... (307,000) (310,070) (310,070) (310,070) (+3,070) ................ ................
National motor carrier safety program (HTF) (rescission of -19,572 ................ ................ -400 +19,172 -400 -400
contract authority)..............................................
Motor carrier safety (HTF) (rescission of contract authority)..... -2,231 ................ ................ -3,400 -1,169 -3,400 -3,400
Motor carrier safety grants (HTF) (rescission of contract -6,503 ................ ................ -1,530 +4,973 -1,530 -1,530
authority).......................................................
Motor carrier safety operations and programs (HTF) (rescission of -4,839 ................ ................ ................ +4,839 ................ ................
contract authority)..............................................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Admin................... -33,145 ................ ................ -4,002 +29,143 -4,002 -4,002
Rescissions of contract authority....................... -33,145 ................ ................ -5,330 +27,815 -5,330 -5,330
(Limitations on obligations)................................ (541,000) (549,898) (549,898) (548,570) (+7,570) (-1,328) (-1,328)

Total budgetary resources................................... (507,855) (549,898) (549,898) (544,568) (+36,713) (-5,330) (-5,330)

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Operations and research (general fund)............................ 127,000 129,774 131,986 135,803 +8,803 +6,029 +3,817
Operations and research (Highway Trust Fund) (Liquidation of (105,500) (82,000) (108,642) (105,500) ................ (+23,500) (-3,142)
contract authorization)..........................................
(Limitation on obligations)................................... (105,500) (107,329) (108,642) (105,500) ................ (-1,829) (-3,142)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Operations and research........................... (232,500) (237,103) (240,628) (241,303) (+8,803) (+4,200) (+675)

National driver register (Highway Trust Fund) (Liquidation of (4,000) (4,078) (4,000) (4,000) ................ (-78) ................
contract authorization)..........................................
(Limitation on obligations)................................... (4,000) (4,078) (4,000) (4,000) ................ (-78) ................
General fund contribution......................................... ................ ................ 3,350 3,350 +3,350 +3,350 ................

Highway traffic safety grants (Highway Trust Fund) (Liquidation of (619,500) (626,047) (619,500) (619,500) ................ (-6,547) ................
contract authorization)..........................................
(Limitation on obligations)................................... ................ (626,047) (619,500) (619,500) (+619,500) (-6,547) ................
Highway safety programs (23 USC 402)...................... (235,000) ................ (235,000) ................ (-235,000) ................ (-235,000)
Occupant protection incentive grants (23 USC 405)......... (25,000) ................ (25,000) ................ (-25,000) ................ (-25,000)
Safety belt performance grants (23 USC 406)............... (124,500) ................ (124,500) ................ (-124,500) ................ (-124,500)
State traffic safety information system improvement grants (34,500) ................ (34,500) ................ (-34,500) ................ (-34,500)
(23 USC 408).............................................
Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures grants (23 USC (139,000) ................ (139,000) ................ (-139,000) ................ (-139,000)
410).....................................................
High visibility enforcement............................... (29,000) ................ (29,000) ................ (-29,000) ................ (-29,000)
Child safety and booster seat grants...................... (7,000) ................ (7,000) ................ (-7,000) ................ (-7,000)
Motorcyclist safety....................................... (7,000) ................ (7,000) ................ (-7,000) ................ (-7,000)
Grant administration...................................... (18,500) ................ (18,500) ................ (-18,500) ................ (-18,500)

Operations and research (rescission of contract authority)........ -10,900 ................ ................ -2,299 +8,601 -2,299 -2,299

National driver register (rescission of contract authority)....... -544 ................ ................ -14,004 -13,460 -14,004 -14,004

Highway traffic safety grants (rescission of contract authority).. -60,200 ................ ................ ................ +60,200 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................... (551,856) (630,125) (1,246,350) (610,547) (+58,691) (-19,578) (-635,803)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, National Highway Traffic Safety Admin................ 55,356 129,774 135,336 122,850 +67,494 -6,924 -12,486
Appropriations.......................................... (127,000) (129,774) (135,336) (139,153) (+12,153) (+9,379) (+3,817)
Rescissions of contract authority....................... (-71,644) ................ ................ (-16,303) (+55,341) (-16,303) (-16,303)
(Limitations on obligations)................................ (729,000) (737,454) (1,351,642) (729,000) ................ (-8,454) (-622,642)

Total budgetary resources................................... (784,356) (867,228) (1,486,978) (851,850) (+67,494) (-15,378) (-635,128)

Federal Railroad Administration

Safety and operations............................................. 159,445 168,770 172,533 171,770 +12,325 +3,000 -763
Railroad research and development................................. 33,950 34,145 37,145 34,145 +195 ................ -3,000
Capital assistance to States--Intercity Passenger Rail Service.... 90,000 ................ ................ ................ -90,000 ................ ................
Capital assistance for high speed rail corridors and intercity ................ 1,000,000 4,000,000 1,200,000 +1,200,000 +200,000 -2,800,000
passenger rail service...........................................
Emergency appropriations (Public Law 111-5)................... 8,000,000 ................ ................ ................ -8,000,000 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................... 8,000,000 1,000,000 4,000,000 1,200,000 -6,800,000 +200,000 -2,800,000

Rail line relocation and improvement program...................... 25,000 ................ 40,000 25,000 ................ +25,000 -15,000
Railroad safety technology........................................ ................ ................ ................ 50,000 +50,000 +50,000 +50,000

National Railroad Passenger Corporation

Operating grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation... 550,000 572,348 553,348 553,348 +3,348 -19,000 ................
Office of Inspector General....................................... ................ ................ 19,000 ................ ................ ................ -19,000
Capital grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation..... 940,000 929,625 929,625 1,001,625 +61,625 +72,000 +72,000
Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (emergency) 1,300,000 ................ ................ ................ -1,300,000 ................ ................
(Public Law 111-5)...............................................
Efficiency incentive grants to the National Railroad Passenger -36,834 ................ ................ ................ +36,834 ................ ................
Corporation (rescission).........................................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, National Railroad Passenger Corporation.............. 2,753,166 1,501,973 1,501,973 1,554,973 -1,198,193 +53,000 +53,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Federal Railroad Administration...................... 11,061,561 2,704,888 5,751,651 3,035,888 -8,025,673 +331,000 -2,715,763
Appropriations.......................................... (1,798,395) (2,704,888) (5,751,651) (3,035,888) (+1,237,493) (+331,000) (-2,715,763)
Rescissions............................................. (-36,834) ................ ................ ................ (+36,834) ................ ................
Emergency appropriations................................ (9,300,000) ................ ................ ................ (-9,300,000) ................ ................

Federal Transit Administration

Administrative expenses........................................... 94,413 97,478 97,478 97,478 +3,065 ................ ................
Formula and Bus Grants (Hwy Trust Fund, Mass Transit Account) (8,670,000) (8,852,000) (8,852,000) (9,400,000) (+730,000) (+548,000) (+548,000)
(Liquidation of contract authorization)..........................
(Limitation on obligations)................................... (8,260,565) (5,000,000) (8,343,171) (8,343,171) (+82,606) (+3,343,171) ................
General Fund share............................................ ................ 3,343,171 ................ ................ ................ -3,343,171 ................
Rescission of current year contract authority................. -100,000 ................ ................ ................ +100,000 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................... (8,160,565) (8,343,171) (8,343,171) (8,343,171) (+182,606) ................ ................

Research and University Research Centers.......................... 67,000 67,670 65,670 67,670 +670 ................ +2,000
Capital investment grants......................................... 1,809,250 1,827,343 1,827,343 2,307,343 +498,093 +480,000 +480,000
Emergency appropriations (Public Law 111-5)................... 750,000 ................ ................ ................ -750,000 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................... 2,559,250 1,827,343 1,827,343 2,307,343 -251,907 +480,000 +480,000

Grants to WMATA................................................... ................ ................ 150,000 150,000 +150,000 +150,000 ................
Energy efficiency and greenhouse gas reduction grants............. ................ ................ ................ 100,000 +100,000 +100,000 +100,000
Transit capital assistance (emergency) (Public Law 111-5)......... 6,900,000 ................ ................ ................ -6,900,000 ................ ................
Fixed guideway infrastructure investment (emergency) (Public Law 750,000 ................ ................ ................ -750,000 ................ ................
111-5)...........................................................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Federal Transit Administration....................... 10,270,663 5,335,662 2,140,491 2,722,491 -7,548,172 -2,613,171 +582,000
Appropriations.......................................... (1,970,663) (5,335,662) (2,140,491) (2,722,491) (+751,828) (-2,613,171) (+582,000)
Rescissions of contract authority....................... (-100,000) ................ ................ ................ (+100,000) ................ ................
Emergency appropriations................................ (8,400,000) ................ ................ ................ (-8,400,000) ................ ................
(Limitations on obligations)................................ (8,260,565) (5,000,000) (8,343,171) (8,343,171) (+82,606) (+3,343,171) ................

Total budgetary resources less emergencies.................. (10,131,228) (10,335,662) (10,483,662) (11,065,662) (+934,434) (+730,000) (+582,000)

Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation

Operations and maintenance (Harbor Maintenance TF)................ 31,842 32,324 32,324 32,324 +482 ................ ................

Maritime Administration

Maritime security program......................................... 174,000 174,000 174,000 174,000 ................ ................ ................
Operations and training........................................... 123,360 152,900 140,900 154,900 +31,540 +2,000 +14,000
Ship disposal..................................................... 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 ................ ................ ................
Assistance to small shipyards..................................... 17,500 ................ ................ 17,500 ................ +17,500 +17,500
Emergency appropriations (Public Law 111-5)................... 100,000 ................ ................ ................ -100,000 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................... 117,500 ................ ................ 17,500 -100,000 +17,500 +17,500

Vessel operations revolving fund.................................. ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
War risk insurance revolving fund................................. ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................

Maritime Guaranteed Loan (Title XI) Program Account:
Administrative expenses....................................... 3,531 3,630 3,630 4,000 +469 +370 +370
Guaranteed loans subsidy...................................... ................ ................ ................ 10,000 +10,000 +10,000 +10,000
Ship construction (rescission).................................... -1,383 ................ ................ ................ +1,383 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Maritime Administration.............................. 432,008 345,530 333,530 375,400 -56,608 +29,870 +41,870
Appropriations.......................................... (333,391) (345,530) (333,530) (375,400) (+42,009) (+29,870) (+41,870)
Rescissions............................................. (-1,383) ................ ................ ................ (+1,383) ................ ................

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Hazardous materials safety........................................ 32,000 35,500 36,500 35,500 +3,500 ................ -1,000

Administrative expenses:
General Fund.................................................. 18,491 18,329 19,329 19,329 +838 +1,000 ................
Pipeline Safety Fund.......................................... 639 639 639 639 ................ ................ ................
Pipeline Safety information grants to communities............. (1,000) ................ (1,000) (1,000) ................ (+1,000) ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................... (19,130) (18,968) (19,968) (19,968) (+838) (+1,000) ................

Pipeline safety:
Pipeline Safety Fund.......................................... 74,481 86,334 86,334 86,334 +11,853 ................ ................
Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund................................ 18,810 18,905 18,905 18,905 +95 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................... (93,291) (105,239) (105,239) (105,239) (+11,948) ................ ................

Emergency preparedness grants:
Emergency preparedness fund................................... 188 188 188 188 ................ ................ ................
Limitation on emergency preparedness fund..................... (28,318) (28,318) (28,318) (28,318) ................ ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administra- 172,927 188,213 190,213 189,213 +16,286 +1,000 -1,000
tion.......................................................

Research and Innovative Technology Administration

Research and development.......................................... 12,900 13,179 12,834 13,179 +279 ................ +345

Office of Inspector General

Salaries and expenses............................................. 71,400 74,839 74,839 75,389 +3,989 +550 +550
Emergency appropriations (Public Law 111-5)................... 20,000 ................ ................ ................ -20,000 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................. 91,400 74,839 74,839 75,389 -16,011 +550 +550

Surface Transportation Board

Salaries and expenses............................................. 26,847 27,032 29,800 28,332 +1,485 +1,300 -1,468
Offsetting collections........................................ -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 ................ ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Surface Transportation Board......................... 25,597 25,782 28,550 27,082 +1,485 +1,300 -1,468
=============================================================================================================================
Total, title I, Department of Transportation................ 61,599,818 57,626,943 21,522,212 21,564,891 -40,034,927 -36,062,052 +42,679
Appropriations.......................................... (16,998,830) (57,626,943) (21,522,212) (21,979,484) (+4,980,654) (-35,647,459) (+457,272)
Rescissions............................................. (-39,065) ................ ................ ................ (+39,065) ................ ................
Rescission of contract authority........................ (-3,479,947) ................ ................ (-414,593) (+3,065,354) (-414,593) (-414,593)
Emergency appropriations................................ (48,120,000) ................ ................ ................ (-48,120,000) ................ ................
(Limitations on obligations)............................ (53,745,065) (14,802,352) (54,866,711) (54,242,741) (+497,676) (+39,440,389) (-623,970)
(Exempt contract authority)............................. (739,000) (739,000) (739,000) (739,000) ................ ................ ................

Total budgetary resources without emergencies............... (67,224,883) (72,429,295) (76,388,923) (75,807,632) (+8,582,749) (+3,378,337) (-581,291)
=============================================================================================================================
TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Management and Administration

Executive direction............................................... 23,799 25,969 25,969 25,969 +2,170 ................ ................
Administration, operations, and management........................ 527,434 537,897 537,897 537,897 +10,463 ................ ................

Personnel compensation and benefits:
Public and Indian Housing..................................... 190,390 197,074 197,074 197,074 +6,684 ................ ................
Community Planning and Development............................ 94,234 98,989 98,989 98,989 +4,755 ................ ................
Housing....................................................... 363,198 374,887 374,887 374,887 +11,689 ................ ................
Office of the Government National Mortgage Association........ 10,000 11,095 11,095 11,095 +1,095 ................ ................
Policy Development and Research............................... 18,071 21,138 21,138 21,138 +3,067 ................ ................
Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity............................ 69,021 71,800 71,800 71,800 +2,779 ................ ................
Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control............... 6,728 7,151 7,151 7,151 +423 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................... 751,642 782,134 782,134 782,134 +30,492 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Management and Administration........................ 1,302,875 1,346,000 1,346,000 1,346,000 +43,125 ................ ................

Public and Indian Housing

Tenant-based rental assistance:
Renewals...................................................... 15,200,000 16,189,200 16,387,200 16,339,200 +1,139,200 +150,000 -48,000
Tenant protection vouchers.................................... 150,000 103,000 120,000 103,000 -47,000 ................ -17,000
Family self-sufficiency coordinators.......................... ................ 50,000 60,000 50,000 +50,000 ................ -10,000
Administrative fees........................................... 1,500,000 1,493,800 1,600,000 1,550,000 +50,000 +56,200 -50,000
Incremental family unification vouchers....................... 20,000 ................ ................ 20,000 ................ +20,000 +20,000
Veterans affairs supportive housing........................... 75,000 ................ 75,000 75,000 ................ +75,000 ................
Nonelderly disabled incremental vouchers...................... 30,000 ................ ................ ................ -30,000 ................ ................
Working capital fund (transfer out)........................... (-7,929) ................ ................ ................ (+7,929) ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................... 16,975,000 17,836,000 18,242,200 18,137,200 +1,162,200 +301,200 -105,000

Advance appropriations........................................ 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 ................ ................ ................
Less appropriations from prior year advances.................. -4,158,000 -4,000,000 -4,000,000 -4,000,000 +158,000 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Tenant-based rental assistance....................... 16,817,000 17,836,000 18,242,200 18,137,200 +1,320,200 +301,200 -105,000

Public Housing Capital Fund....................................... 2,450,000 2,244,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 +50,000 +256,000 ................
Emergency appropriations (Public Law 111-5)................... 4,000,000 ................ ................ ................ -4,000,000 ................ ................
Working capital fund (transfer out)........................... (-14,577) ................ ................ ................ (+14,577) ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................... 6,450,000 2,244,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 -3,950,000 +256,000 ................

Public Housing Operating Fund..................................... 4,455,000 4,600,000 4,800,000 4,750,000 +295,000 +150,000 -50,000
Revitalization of severely distressed public housing.............. 120,000 ................ 250,000 ................ -120,000 ................ -250,000
Choice neighborhoods.............................................. ................ 250,000 ................ 250,000 +250,000 ................ +250,000

Native American housing block grants.............................. 645,000 645,000 750,000 670,000 +25,000 +25,000 -80,000
Emergency appropriations (Public Law 111-5)................... 510,000 ................ ................ ................ -510,000 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................... 1,155,000 645,000 750,000 670,000 -485,000 +25,000 -80,000

Indian housing loan guarantee fund program account................ 9,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 -2,000 ................ ................
(Limitation on guaranteed loans).............................. (420,000) (919,000) (919,000) (919,000) (+499,000) ................ ................
Native Hawaiian housing block grant............................... 10,000 10,000 12,000 13,000 +3,000 +3,000 +1,000

Native Hawaiian loan guarantee fund program account............... 1,044 1,044 1,044 1,044 ................ ................ ................
(Limitation on guaranteed loans).............................. (41,504) (41,504) (41,504) (41,504) ................ ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Public and Indian Housing............................ 29,017,044 25,593,044 26,562,244 26,328,244 -2,688,800 +735,200 -234,000
Appropriations.......................................... (24,507,044) (25,593,044) (26,562,244) (26,328,244) (+1,821,200) (+735,200) (-234,000)
Emergency appropriations................................ (4,510,000) ................ ................ ................ (-4,510,000) ................ ................

Community Planning and Development

Housing opportunities for persons with AIDS....................... 310,000 310,000 350,000 320,000 +10,000 +10,000 -30,000
Working capital fund (transfer out)........................... (-1,750) ................ ................ ................ (+1,750) ................ ................
Rural housing and economic development............................ 26,000 ................ ................ ................ -26,000 ................ ................

Community development fund........................................ 3,900,000 4,450,000 4,598,607 4,450,000 +550,000 ................ -148,607
Emergency appropriations (Public Law 111-5)................... 3,000,000 ................ ................ ................ -3,000,000 ................ ................
Working capital fund (transfer out)........................... (-3,175) ................ ................ ................ (+3,175) ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................... 6,900,000 4,450,000 4,598,607 4,450,000 -2,450,000 ................ -148,607

Section 108 loan guarantees:
(Limitation on guaranteed loans).............................. (275,000) (275,000) (275,000) (275,000) ................ ................ ................
Credit subsidy................................................ 6,000 ................ 6,000 ................ -6,000 ................ -6,000
Brownfields redevelopment......................................... 10,000 ................ 25,000 ................ -10,000 ................ -25,000

HOME investment partnerships program.............................. 1,825,000 1,825,000 2,000,000 1,825,000 ................ ................ -175,000
Emergency appropriations (Public Law 111-5)................... 2,250,000 ................ ................ ................ -2,250,000 ................ ................
Working capital fund (transfer out)........................... (-4,200) ................ ................ ................ (+4,200) ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................... 4,075,000 1,825,000 2,000,000 1,825,000 -2,250,000 ................ -175,000

Self-help homeownership opportunity program....................... 64,000 77,000 85,000 85,000 +21,000 +8,000 ................

Homeless assistance grants........................................ 1,677,000 1,793,715 1,850,000 1,875,000 +198,000 +81,285 +25,000
Working capital fund (transfer out)........................... (-2,675) ................ ................ ................ (+2,675) ................ ................
Emergency appropriations (Public Law 111-5)................... 1,500,000 ................ ................ ................ -1,500,000 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Community Planning and Development................... 14,568,000 8,455,715 8,914,607 8,555,000 -6,013,000 +99,285 -359,607
Appropriations.......................................... 7,818,000 8,455,715 8,914,607 8,555,000 +737,000 +99,285 -359,607
Emergency appropriations................................ 6,750,000 ................ ................ ................ -6,750,000 ................ ................

Housing Programs

Project-based rental assistance:
Renewals...................................................... 6,868,000 7,868,000 8,474,328 7,868,000 +1,000,000 ................ -606,328
Contract administrators....................................... 232,000 232,000 232,000 232,000 ................ ................ ................
Working capital fund (transfer out)........................... (-10,000) ................ ................ ................ (+10,000) ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................... 7,100,000 8,100,000 8,706,328 8,100,000 +1,000,000 ................ -606,328

Advance appropriations........................................ 400,000 400,000 393,672 400,000 ................ ................ +6,328
Less appropriations from prior year advances.................. ................ -400,000 -400,000 -400,000 -400,000 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Project-based rental assistance...................... 7,500,000 8,100,000 8,700,000 8,100,000 +600,000 ................ -600,000

Housing for the elderly........................................... 765,000 765,000 1,000,000 785,000 +20,000 +20,000 -215,000
Working capital fund (transfer out)........................... (-1,600) ................ ................ ................ (+1,600) ................ ................
Housing for persons with disabilities............................. 250,000 250,000 350,000 265,000 +15,000 +15,000 -85,000
Working capital fund (transfer out)........................... (-1,600) ................ ................ ................ (+1,600) ................ ................
Housing counseling assistance..................................... 65,000 100,000 70,000 100,000 +35,000 ................ +30,000
Manufactured housing fees trust fund.............................. 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 ................ ................ ................
Offsetting collections........................................ -10,600 -7,000 -7,000 -7,000 +3,600 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................... 5,400 9,000 9,000 9,000 +3,600 ................ ................

Green retrofit program for multifamily housing (emergency) (Public 2,250,000 ................ ................ ................ -2,250,000 ................ ................
Law 111-5).......................................................

Energy Innovation Fund............................................ ................ 100,000 50,000 75,000 +75,000 -25,000 +25,000

Rental housing assistance......................................... 27,600 40,000 40,000 40,000 +12,400 ................ ................
Rent supplement (rescission).................................. -37,600 -27,600 -27,600 -27,600 +10,000 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Housing Programs..................................... 10,825,400 9,336,400 10,191,400 9,346,400 -1,479,000 +10,000 -845,000
Appropriations.......................................... (8,623,600) (9,371,000) (10,226,000) (9,381,000) (+757,400) (+10,000) (-845,000)
Rescissions............................................. (-37,600) (-27,600) (-27,600) (-27,600) (+10,000) ................ ................
Emergency appropriations................................ (2,250,000) ................ ................ ................ (-2,250,000) ................ ................
Offsetting collections.................................. (-10,600) (-7,000) (-7,000) (-7,000) (+3,600) ................ ................

Federal Housing Administration

FHA--Mutual mortgage insurance program account:
(Limitation on guaranteed loans).............................. (315,000,000) (400,000,000) (400,000,000) (400,000,000) (+85,000,000) ................ ................
(Limitation on direct loans).................................. (50,000) (50,000) (50,000) (50,000) ................ ................ ................
Offsetting receipts (HECM).................................... -391,000 ................ ................ ................ +391,000 ................ ................
Positive credit subsidy....................................... ................ 798,000 ................ 288,000 +288,000 -510,000 +288,000
Administrative contract expenses.............................. 116,000 181,400 181,400 181,400 +65,400 ................ ................
Additional contract expenses.................................. 25,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 -11,000 ................ ................
Working capital fund (transfer out)........................... (-46,794) (-70,794) (-70,794) (-70,794) (-24,000) ................ ................
Consumer education and outreach............................... ................ 7,500 7,500 7,500 +7,500 ................ ................

FHA--General and special risk program account:
(Limitation on guaranteed loans).............................. (45,000,000) (15,000,000) (15,000,000) (15,000,000) (-30,000,000) ................ ................
(Limitation on direct loans).................................. (50,000) (20,000) (20,000) (20,000) (-30,000) ................ ................
Offsetting receipts........................................... -140,000 -140,000 -140,000 -140,000 ................ ................ ................
Credit subsidy................................................ 8,600 8,600 8,600 8,600 ................ ................ ................
Right of first refusal (sec. 237)............................. 5,000 ................ ................ 5,000 ................ +5,000 +5,000
rescission of prior year balances......................... -5,000 ................ ................ ................ +5,000 ................ ................
Administrative contract expenses.............................. 47,871 ................ ................ ................ -47,871 ................ ................
Consumer education and outreach............................... 1,000 ................ ................ ................ -1,000 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Federal Housing Administration....................... -332,529 869,500 71,500 364,500 +697,029 -505,000 +293,000

Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA)

Guarantees of mortgage-backed securities loan guarantee program
account:
(Limitation on guaranteed loans).............................. (300,000,000) (500,000,000) (500,000,000) (500,000,000) (+200,000,000) ................ ................
Offsetting receipts........................................... -170,000 -720,000 -720,000 -718,000 -548,000 +2,000 +2,000
Additional offsetting receipts................................ -23,000 ................ ................ ................ +23,000 ................ ................
Additional contract expenses.................................. 12,000 ................ ................ ................ -12,000 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Gov't National Mortgage Association................ -181,000 -720,000 -720,000 -718,000 -537,000 +2,000 +2,000

Policy Development and Research

Research and technology........................................... 58,000 50,000 50,000 48,000 -10,000 -2,000 -2,000

Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity

Fair housing activities........................................... 53,500 72,000 72,000 72,000 +18,500 ................ ................

Office of Lead Hazard Control

Lead hazard reduction............................................. 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 ................ ................ ................
Emergency appropriations (Public Law 111-5)................... 100,000 ................ ................ ................ -100,000 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................... 240,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 -100,000 ................ ................

Management and Administration

Working capital fund.............................................. 224,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 -24,000 ................ ................
(By transfer)................................................. (94,300) (70,794) (70,794) (70,794) (-23,506) ................ ................

FHA combating mortgage fraud...................................... ................ 20,000 20,000 20,000 +20,000 ................ ................

Office of Inspector General....................................... 120,000 120,000 120,000 126,000 +6,000 +6,000 +6,000
Emergency appropriations (Public Law 111-5)................... 15,000 ................ ................ ................ -15,000 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................... 135,000 120,000 120,000 126,000 -9,000 +6,000 +6,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Management and Administration........................ 359,000 340,000 340,000 346,000 -13,000 +6,000 +6,000
Appropriations.......................................... (344,000) (340,000) (340,000) (346,000) (+2,000) (+6,000) (+6,000)
Emergency appropriations................................ (15,000) ................ ................ ................ (-15,000) ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Grand total, Management and Administration, less (1,646,875) (1,686,000) (1,686,000) (1,692,000) (+45,125) (+6,000) (+6,000)
emergencies)...............................................

GSE conforming loan limits (emergency) (Public Law 111-5)......... 37,000 ................ ................ ................ -37,000 ................ ................
Extension of GSE conforming loan limits........................... ................ ................ 80,000 ................ ................ ................ -80,000

Rescissions:
Fiscal year 2008 advance appropriation (rescission)........... -750,000 ................ ................ ................ +750,000 ................ ................
=============================================================================================================================
Total, title II, Department of Housing and Urban Develop- 55,197,290 45,482,659 47,047,751 45,828,144 -9,369,146 +345,485 -1,219,607
ment.......................................................
Appropriations.......................................... (38,662,490) (41,977,259) (43,548,679) (42,320,744) (+3,658,254) (+343,485) (-1,227,935)
Rescissions............................................. (-792,600) (-27,600) (-27,600) (-27,600) (+765,000) ................ ................
Advance appropriations.................................. (4,400,000) (4,400,000) (4,393,672) (4,400,000) ................ ................ (+6,328)
Emergency appropriations................................ (13,662,000) ................ ................ ................ (-13,662,000) ................ ................
Offsetting receipts..................................... (-724,000) (-860,000) (-860,000) (-858,000) (-134,000) (+2,000) (+2,000)
Offsetting collections.................................. (-10,600) (-7,000) (-7,000) (-7,000) (+3,600) ................ ................
(By transfer)............................................... (94,300) (70,794) (70,794) (70,794) (-23,506) ................ ................
(Transfer out).............................................. (-94,300) (-70,794) (-70,794) (-70,794) (+23,506) ................ ................
(Limitation on direct loans)................................ (100,000) (70,000) (70,000) (70,000) (-30,000) ................ ................
(Limitation on guaranteed loans)............................ (660,736,504) (916,235,504) (916,235,504) (916,235,504) (+255,499,000) ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Title II, non-emergency discretionary total)............... (41,535,290) (45,482,659) (47,047,751) (45,828,144) (+4,292,854) (+345,485) (-1,219,607)
=============================================================================================================================

TITLE III--OTHER INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board........ 6,550 7,000 7,200 7,400 +850 +400 +200
Federal Maritime Commission....................................... 22,800 24,558 23,712 24,558 +1,758 ................ +846
National Infrastructure Bank (legislative proposal)............... ................ 5,000,000 ................ ................ ................ -5,000,000 ................
National Transportation Safety Board:
Salaries and expenses......................................... 91,000 95,400 99,200 96,900 +5,900 +1,500 -2,300
Rescission of unobligated balances............................ -671 ................ ................ ................ +671 ................ ................
Amtrak Office of Inspector General................................ ................ ................ ................ 19,000 +19,000 +19,000 +19,000
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation............................. 181,000 166,800 196,800 243,000 +62,000 +76,200 +46,200
United States Interagency Council on Homelessness................. 2,333 2,680 2,400 2,680 +347 ................ +280
=============================================================================================================================
Total, title III, Other Independent Agencies................ 303,012 5,296,438 329,312 393,538 +90,526 -4,902,900 +64,226
=============================================================================================================================

Grand total (net)........................................... 117,100,120 108,406,040 68,899,275 67,786,573 -49,313,547 -40,619,467 -1,112,702
Appropriations.......................................... (60,123,003) (109,300,640) (69,800,203) (69,093,766) (+8,970,763) (-40,206,874) (-706,437)
Rescissions............................................. (-831,488) (-27,600) (-27,600) (-27,600) (+803,888) ................ ................
Rescissions of contract authority....................... (-3,479,947) ................ ................ (-414,593) (+3,065,354) (-414,593) (-414,593)
Advance appropriations.................................. (4,400,000) (4,400,000) (4,393,672) (4,400,000) ................ ................ (+6,328)
Emergency appropriations................................ (61,782,000) ................ ................ ................ (-61,782,000) ................ ................
Negative subsidy receipts............................... (-724,000) (-860,000) (-860,000) (-858,000) (-134,000) (+2,000) (+2,000)
Offsetting collections.................................. (-10,600) (-7,000) (-7,000) (-7,000) (+3,600) ................ ................
(Limitation on obligations)................................. (53,745,065) (14,802,352) (54,866,711) (54,242,741) (+497,676) (+39,440,389) (-623,970)
(Exempt contract authority)................................. (739,000) (739,000) (739,000) (739,000) ................ ................ ................
Total budgetary resources less emergencies.................. (109,063,185) (123,208,392) (123,765,986) (122,029,314) (+12,966,129) (-1,179,078) (-1,736,672)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------