Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?
                                                       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:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Fiscal year--
                                                        --------------------------------------     Committee
                                                            2009 enacted      2010 estimate      recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations.............................................     $9,042,467,000     $9,335,798,000     $9,359,131,000
Facilities and equipment...............................      2,742,095,000      2,925,202,000      2,942,352,000
Research, engineering, and development.................        171,000,000        180,000,000        175,000,000
Grants-in-aid for airports (obligation limitation).....      3,514,500,000      3,515,000,000      3,515,000,000
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total............................................     15,470,062,000     15,956,000,000     15,991,483,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               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

\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

    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           1