Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies (THUD): FY2011 Appropriations

David Randall Peterman
Analyst in Transportation Policy

Maggie McCarty
Specialist in Housing Policy

President Obama requested a total of $123.7 billion for FY2011 for the Department of Transportation, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the related agencies that are funded through the annual Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations (THUD) act. This request represented an increase of approximately $1.6 billion (1.3%) over the $122.1 billion provided in the FY2010 THUD appropriations act.

During the second session of the 111th Congress, the House passed an FY2011 THUD appropriations bill (H.R. 5850) that would have provided $126.4 billion (3.5% over the FY2010 enacted level). The Senate did not pass an FY2011 THUD appropriations bill; the Senate Committee on Appropriations reported out an FY2011 THUD appropriations bill (S. 3644) that recommended $122.8 billion (less than 1% over FY2010). In the absence of passage of a THUD appropriations act for FY2011, Congress has provided funding for the THUD agencies (and other government agencies) through a series of continuing resolutions (CRs). The 111th Congress provided funding through March 4, 2011 (P.L. 111-322), at roughly FY2010 funding levels.

The 112th Congress resumed the FY2011 appropriations process, with the House under new leadership and expressing an intent to reduce non-security-related federal discretionary spending. With only a little over half of FY2011 left when the March 4 CR expired, and the budget request for FY2012 already submitted, debate over FY2011 appropriations shifted to the question of how much would be cut from the current total discretionary funding level. On February 18, 2011, the House passed H.R. 1, a bill to fund the government for the remainder of the fiscal year, which would have cut discretionary funding not only below the FY2011 requested level but also below the FY2010 enacted level. It would have provided $108.0 billion in total budgetary resources for THUD, 11% below the FY2010 enacted level. On March 9, 2011, the Senate considered, but failed to pass, both H.R. 1 and a Senate amendment to H.R. 1 (S.Amdt. 149) that would have cut total discretionary funding below the FY2011 request but left it above the FY2010 enacted level. It would have provided $118.3 billion for THUD, 3% less than the FY2010 enacted level. For the Department of Transportation (DOT), the President’s FY2011 budget requested a total of $77.7 billion. That was $2.0 billion (2.6%) above the $75.7 billion provided for FY2010. The House-passed H.R. 5850 (111th Congress) would have provided $79.4 billion ($3.7 billion over FY2010); the 111th Congress’s Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $75.8 billion ($0.1 billion over FY2010). In the 112th Congress, H.R. 1 would have provided $68.3 billion ($7.4 billion below FY2010); S.Amdt. 149 would have provided $73.7 billion ($2.0 billion below FY2010).

For the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the President’s FY2011 budget requested about $45.6 billion in net new budget authority, a decrease of about 1% from the FY2010 enacted level. However, the requested decrease in net new budget authority actually represented a 3% increase in new funding for HUD programs, as the overall increase in appropriations would have been more than offset by a substantial increase in offsetting collections and receipts, which were expected to come from proposed changes to the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) mortgage insurance programs. Both the FY2011 House and Senate bills in the 111th Congress would have provided a 5% increase over FY2010 in appropriations for HUD programs in aggregate. In the 112th Congress, H.R. 1 would have provided $38.6 billion (about $7 billion below FY2010). S.Amdt. 149 would have provided $44.9 billion (over $1 billion below FY2010).


Date of Report: April 7, 2011
Number of Pages: 34
Order Number: R41492
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press  or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Earthquake Risk and U.S. Highway Infrastructure: Frequently Asked Questions

William J. Mallett
Specialist in Transportation Policy

Nicole T. Carter
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

Peter Folger
Specialist in Energy and Natural Resources Policy

The 9.0 magnitude earthquake that struck off the coast of Sendai, Japan, on March 11, 2011, has renewed concerns about the seismic risk to America’s infrastructure, including its highways. Concerns about the U.S. highway system’s seismic risk stem from interest in protecting public safety, facilitating response and recovery efforts, and minimizing economic loss and social disruption. Seismic resilience of the U.S. highway system has improved in recent decades as investments have been made to build new, more resilient infrastructure and to retrofit existing structures. However, not all existing highway infrastructure has been retrofitted, and no infrastructure can be cost-effectively constructed to be immune from the most intense earthquakes, so some seismic risk to the U.S. highway system remains.

Although earthquake hazards in the United States generally are well documented, little national or federal data exist about the seismic risk to U.S. highway infrastructure; instead, seismic highway risks typically are assessed and addressed by state and local entities which are generally responsible for building and maintaining that infrastructure. The federal government supports these nonfederal efforts by providing data on the seismic hazard for different locations, assisting in the development of construction standards and guidelines, and undertaking research, training, and the development of tools to assist in risk reduction. In limited circumstances, the federal government invests directly in improving resiliency of specific highway structures.

This report addresses frequently asked questions about the risk from earthquakes to highway systems, including bridges, tunnels, pavements, and other highway components. Particular attention is given to highway bridges, which often are the most vulnerable highway structures.1 The report also discusses federal and nonfederal actions to reduce seismic risk to the U.S. highway system.

Japan is generally regarded as the country with the most earthquake-resilient infrastructure. Research into the performance of Japan’s highway structures and systems during and after the massive Sendai earthquake and resulting tsunami is ongoing. Japanese and U.S. earthquake science and engineering researchers have well-established collaborations aimed at gathering empirical data and drawing lessons from significant events. It is too soon to know how the events in Japan will affect understanding of the seismic risk of U.S. highway infrastructure, and whether changes in U.S. seismic highway design standards and guidance will result.


Date of Report: March 30, 2011
Number of Pages: 10
Order Number: R41746
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press  or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Federal Support of Public Transit Operating Expenditures: Trends and Policy Issues

William J. Mallett
Specialist in Transportation Policy

Congress may debate federal transit assistance as it considers reauthorization of surface transportation programs, which have been extended until September 30, 2011. Reauthorization will proceed in the context of serious budget problems at many transit agencies. The single largest source of funds for public transit, local sales and property tax revenue, has declined or remained stagnant. In response, many transit agencies have had to raise fares, reduce service and eliminate routes, or slow capital improvements.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) (P.L. 111-5), enacted in February 2009, appropriated $8.4 billion specifically for public transit. But, as is usually the case with federal transit assistance, a large proportion of this funding was only available for capital investment. This revived a long-standing complaint from localities that while the federal government helps transit agencies buy buses and build rail lines, it does not help them pay for labor and fuel to operate them. This complaint is not entirely accurate. Although Congress formally eliminated federal operating assistance for transit operators in large urbanized areas in the late 1990s, federal funding of transit operations has grown dramatically since then, thanks to congressional action redefining “capital expenditures” to include items traditionally considered to be operating expenses, such as maintenance.

Congress subsequently provided some flexibility in the use of ARRA funds for operational expenses in the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 111-32). Other measures to give transit agencies more flexibility in using existing funds for operating expenditures and to make extra funds available for operating expenses on a temporary basis were introduced, but not adopted, in the 111th Congress. The 112th Congress may wish to consider these and other options, including leaving current federal funding rules unchanged; removing all restrictions on the use of federal transit funding for operating expenditures; reducing or eliminating federal support for transit operations; and using a performance-based system of distributing federal funds to encourage improvements in productivity and revenue generation.

There are three main issues Congress may evaluate as it considers these options:

• the effects of operating assistance on service provision and fares, as federal operating assistance might help to avoid threatened service cuts and fare hikes; 
• the effects of operating assistance on transit productivity, given that research has generally concluded that government operating assistance has led to rising costs per vehicle mile; and 
• the effects of operating assistance on transit infrastructure, as some transit agencies may be directing funding to pressing day-to-day needs while allowing the condition of capital assets to decline. 

Date of Report: March 16, 2011
Number of Pages: 26
Order Number: R41695
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press  or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Essential Air Service: Frequently Asked Questions

Rachel Tang
Analyst in Transportation Policy

The 112th Congress continues to work on reauthorizing the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Essential Air Service (EAS) is one of the major issues being debated in the process. A pending House reauthorization bill (H.R. 658) and the reauthorization bill recently approved by the Senate (S. 223) include different provisions affecting the EAS program, and the issue is also addressed in H.R. 408, the Spending Reduction Act of 2011.

This report provides an overview of the EAS program and the legislative issues.


Date of Report: March 3, 2011
Number of Pages: 11
Order Number: R41666
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press  or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Department of Transportation Budget FY2012

David Randall Peterman
Analyst in Transportation Policy

The President’s Department of Transportation (DOT) budget request for FY2012 totals $123.9 billion. It is divided into two parts: a “base” request of $78.6 billion, and a one-time “up-front boost,” related to the President’s proposal for surface transportation reauthorization beginning in FY2012, of $50 billion.

The base request is $1.7 billion (2%) more than the FY2010 enacted DOT budget of $76.9 billion. The total request is $53 billion over the FY2010 enacted level. See Table 1 for a breakdown of the request by DOT administration.

One might ask how this increase is possible in light of the President’s intention to freeze overall federal discretionary spending in FY2012 (and after) at the FY2010 level. It is possible because most DOT funding is not discretionary funding; it comes from the Highway Trust Fund, and is therefore categorized as mandatory funding. Thus, virtually all of the proposed increase counts as an increase in mandatory rather than discretionary funding. Furthermore, the FY2012 DOT budget request proposes to shift funding for some accounts from the general fund to the Highway Trust Fund (which would be renamed the Transportation Trust Fund). This would have the effect of reducing the total discretionary funding for DOT in FY2012 compared to FY2011, all else being equal.

The budget request is complex because it does two different things at once: it requests funding for DOT programs for FY2012, and it restructures the major surface transportation program accounts and funding structure. The latter changes reflect elements of the Administration’s proposal for reauthorizing surface transportation programs for the next six years. The changes include adding intercity rail and new transit construction programs to the programs financed from the trust fund, and increasing the flow of revenues to the fund, although the source of the additional revenues is not specified.

Congress has struggled with surface transportation reauthorization for several years, and may find it challenging to pass a reauthorization proposal on the scale proposed by the Administration in time for it to govern the DOT budget for the fiscal year starting October 1, 2011. Detailed analysis of surface transportation reauthorization proposals is outside the scope of this report.


Date of Report: February 24, 2011
Number of Pages: 6
Order Number: R41650
Price: $19.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press  or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.