[Senate Report 112-157]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                       Calendar No. 359
112th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 2d Session                                                     112-157

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



 
TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                       APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2013
                                _______
                                

                 April 19, 2012.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

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

                                 REPORT

                         [To accompany S. 2322]

    The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 2322) 
making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation and 
Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes, 
reports favorably thereon and recommends that the bill do pass.



Amounts of new budget (obligational) authority for fiscal year 2013

Total of bill as reported to the Senate................. $53,438,000,000
Amount of 2012 appropriations...........................  57,312,000,000
Amount of 2013 budget estimate\1\.......................  48,222,756,000
Bill as recommended to Senate compared to--
    2012 appropriations.................................  -3,874,000,000
    2013 budget estimate\1\.............................  +5,215,244,000

\1\The budget estimate proposed converting $5,968,628,000 previously 
treated as budget authority into obligation limits which are not 
included here.


                            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......................................     6
    Federal Aviation Administration..............................    23
    Federal Highway Administration...............................    38
    Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration..................    46
    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration...............    54
    Federal Railroad Administration..............................    59
    Federal Transit Administration...............................    64
    Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation................    71
    Maritime Administration......................................    73
    Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.......    78
    Office of Inspector General..................................    80
    Surface Transportation Board.................................    82
    General Provisions--Department of Transportation.............    82
Title II: Department of Housing and Urban Development:
    Administration, Operations, and Management...................    85
    Program Offices Salaries and Expenses........................    86
    Public and Indian Housing....................................    90
    Community Planning and Development...........................   101
    Housing Programs.............................................   108
    Federal Housing Administration...............................   114
    Government National Mortgage Association.....................   116
    Policy Development and Research..............................   117
    Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity...........................   118
    Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control..............   119
    Working Capital Fund.........................................   120
    Office of Inspector General..................................   121
    Transformation Initiative....................................   122
    General Provisions--Department of Housing and Urban 
      Development................................................   123
Title III: Independent Agencies:
    Access Board.................................................   126
    Federal Maritime Commission..................................   126
    National Railroad Passenger Corporation: Office of Inspector 
      General....................................................   127
    National Transportation Safety Board.........................   128
    Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation........................   129
    United States Interagency Council on Homelessness............   130
Title IV: General Provisions--This Act...........................   132
Compliance With Paragraph 7, Rule XVI, of the Standing Rules of 
  the 
  Senate.........................................................   134
Compliance With Paragraph 7(c), Rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules 
  of the Senate..................................................   135
Compliance With Paragraph 12, Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of 
  the Senate.....................................................   136
Budgetary Impact of Bill.........................................   156
Comparative Statement of Budget Authority........................   157

                     PROGRAM, PROJECT, AND ACTIVITY

    During fiscal year 2012, 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:
  --creates a new program;
  --eliminates a program, project, or activity [PPA];
  --increases funds or personnel for any PPA for which funds 
        have been denied or restricted by the Congress;
  --proposes to redirect funds that were directed in such 
        reports for a specific activity to a different purpose;
  --augments an existing PPA in excess of $5,000,000 or 10 
        percent, whichever is less;
  --reduces an existing PPA by $5,000,000 or 10 percent, 
        whichever is less; or
  --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 of the budget justifications 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 2014 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 2014 to the fiscal year 2013 
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 
2014 budget request.

                             FIGHTING WASTE

    The departments, agencies, boards, and commissions funded 
in this bill can and should continue to reduce operating 
expenses by placing greater scrutiny on overhead costs. Savings 
can and should be achieved by reducing non-essential travel, 
office supply, rent, and utility costs. The Committee directs 
each department, agency, board, and commission funded in this 
bill to develop a plan to reduce such costs by at least 10 
percent in fiscal year 2013. Plans to achieve these savings in 
fiscal year 2013 should be submitted to the Committee no later 
than 30 days after enactment of this act.

                                TITLE I

                      DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

    Extension of Transportation Programs and the Solvency of 
the Highway Trust Fund.--For the fourth year in a row, the 
Committee notes that it is in the position of recommending 
funding levels for the highway, transit, and highway and motor 
carrier safety programs without any certainty that the 
necessary contract authority will be available for the whole of 
fiscal year 2013.
    The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation 
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users [SAFETEA-LU] expired at the end 
of fiscal year 2009, and although the Senate has passed 
legislation to reauthorize the surface transportation programs, 
there is still no guarantee that legislation will be enacted 
before the end of this fiscal year. The use of short-term 
extensions has only served to exacerbate the insecurity felt by 
State and local governments that rely on Federal transportation 
programs for investment in their communities.
    In the meantime, the Committee again must fulfill its 
responsibility to recommend appropriate funding levels for 
offices and programs at the Department of Transportation. In 
order to put forward realistic funding recommendations, the 
Committee is assuming that the transportation programs will 
continue to be extended through fiscal year 2013 at current 
funding levels. 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.

                        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, 2012....................................    $102,481,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................     110,450,000
Committee recommendation................................     108,097,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a total of $108,097,000 for 
salaries and expenses of the Office of the Secretary of 
Transportation, including $60,000 for reception and 
representation expenses. The recommendation is $2,353,000 less 
than the budget request and $5,616,000 more than the fiscal 
year 2012 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 within the Office 
of the Secretary to another. The Committee recommendation also 
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 2012 enacted 
level and the budget estimate:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fiscal year--
                                                              ----------------------------------    Committee
                                                                 2012 enacted     2013 request    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immediate Office of the Secretary............................       $2,618,000       $2,635,000       $2,635,000
Office of the Deputy Secretary...............................          984,000          992,000          992,000
Office of the General Counsel................................       19,515,000       19,615,000       19,615,000
Office of the Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy...       10,107,000       11,248,000       11,248,000
Office of the Assistance Secretary for Budget and Programs...       10,538,000       13,201,000       12,825,000
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Government Affairs.....        2,500,000        2,601,000        2,514,000
Office of the Assistance Secretary for Administration........       25,469,000       28,672,000       27,095,000
Office of Public Affairs.....................................        2,020,000        2,254,000        2,034,000
Executive Secretariat........................................        1,595,000        1,701,000        1,608,000
Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization.......        1,369,000        1,539,000        1,539,000
Office of Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response.....       10,778,000       10,875,000       10,875,000
Office of the Chief Information Officer......................       14,988,000       15,117,000       15,117,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total, Salaries and Expenses...........................      102,481,000      110,450,000      108,097,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   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 $2,635,000 for fiscal year 2013 
for the Immediate Office of the Secretary. The recommendation 
is equal to the budget request and $17,000 more than the fiscal 
year 2012 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 $992,000 for the Immediate Office 
of the Deputy Secretary, which is equal to the budget request 
and $8,000 more than the fiscal year 2012 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 $19,615,000 for expenses of the 
Office of the General Counsel for fiscal year 2013. The 
recommended funding level is equal to the budget request and 
$100,000 more than the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. This 
level retains the $2,500,000 for the Office of the General 
Counsel to continue its enhanced efforts to protect the rights 
of airline passengers.

       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

    The Committee recommends $11,248,000 for the Office of the 
Under Secretary for Policy. The recommended funding level is 
equal to the budget request and $1,141,000 more than the fiscal 
year 2012 enacted level. The recommended funding level will 
allow the Office to invest in its workforce while keeping to 
its current level of full-time equivalents [FTEs].

       OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR BUDGET AND PROGRAMS

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs serves as 
the Chief Financial Officer for the Department and provides 
leadership on all financial management matters. The primary 
responsibilities of this office include ensuring the 
development and justification of the Department's annual budget 
submissions for consideration by the Office of Management and 
Budget and the Congress. The office is also responsible for the 
proper execution and accountability of these resources. In 
addition, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer for the 
Office of the Secretary is located within the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $12,825,000 for the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs. The recommended 
level is $376,000 less than the budget request and $2,287,000 
more than the fiscal year 2012 enacted level.
     The Committee recommendation includes $2,300,000 to 
establish a credit oversight office, as requested by the 
Department. The Department offers credit assistance through the 
Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act 
program, the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing 
program, and the Federal Ship Financing program, which is 
usually referred to as the Title XI program. Among these three 
programs, the Department oversees a portfolio of about 
$10,800,000,000 in direct loans and loan guarantees. 
Applications for credit assistance are complex in nature, and 
the Committee expects that the level of credit assistance 
provided by the Department will increase over the coming years. 
The additional resources provided under the Committee 
recommendation will help the Department review applications and 
maintain strong oversight over its growing portfolio.
     The Committee recommendation does not include $376,000 
requested by the Department for editorial and graphic design 
services for the Performance and Accountability Report, and for 
consultant services for the Office of the Chief Financial 
Officer for OST, and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for 
Budget and Programs.

       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 $2,514,000 for the 
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs. The 
recommended level is $87,000 less than the budget request and 
$14,000 more than the fiscal year 2012 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 $27,095,000 for the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Administration. The recommended funding 
level is $1,577,000 less than the budget request and $1,626,000 
more than the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. The Committee 
recommendation includes $901,000 requested by the Department 
for contract support for the Office of the Senior Procurement 
Executive to conduct procurement management reviews and assess 
internal controls over acquisition activities and programs.

                        OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Director of Public Affairs is the principal advisor to 
the Secretary and other senior departmental officials on public 
affairs questions. The Office is responsible for managing the 
Secretary's presence in the media, writing speeches and press 
releases, and preparing the Secretary for public appearances. 
The Office arranges media events and news conferences, and 
responds to media inquiries on the Department's programs and 
other transportation-related issues. It also provides 
information to the Secretary on the opinions and reactions of 
the public and news media on these programs and issues.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $2,034,000 for the Office of 
Public Affairs, which is $220,000 less than the budget request 
and $14,000 more than the fiscal year 2012 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 $1,608,000 for the Executive 
Secretariat. The recommendation is $93,000 less than the budget 
request and $13,000 more than the fiscal year 2012 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 $1,539,000, an amount that is 
equal to the budget request and $170,000 more than the fiscal 
year 2012 enacted level.

        OFFICE OF INTELLIGENCE, SECURITY, AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $10,875,000 for the Office of 
Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response. The 
recommendation is equal to the request and $97,000 more than 
the fiscal year 2012 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 technology, cybersecurity, privacy, and records 
management.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $15,117,000, which is equal to the 
budget request and $129,000 more than the fiscal year 2012 
enacted level.

                  NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS

Appropriations, 2012....................................    $500,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................  \1\500,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     500,000,000

\1\The administration included these funds in its budget request, but 
reclassified them as mandatory spending.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommendation includes $500,000,000 for 
grants and credit assistance for investment in significant 
transportation projects, which is equal to the fiscal year 2012 
enacted level and the budget request. The administration 
assumed that this program would be funded as a part of 
comprehensive legislation to reauthorize surface transportation 
programs, and reclassified the funding as mandatory spending. 
The Committee, however, does not expect the enactment of 
legislation that funds this program on the mandatory side of 
the budget, and so provides its funding recommendation in order 
to continue investment in these important transportation 
projects.
    Planning Activities.--The Committee recommendation includes 
up to $35,000,000 for the planning, preparation or design of 
projects eligible for funding under this heading.
    Protections for Rural Areas.--The Committee continues to 
believe that our Federal infrastructure programs must benefit 
communities across the country. For this reason, the Committee 
continues to require the Secretary to award grants and credit 
assistance in a manner that ensures an equitable geographic 
distribution of funds and an appropriate balance in addressing 
the needs of urban and rural communities. The Committee also 
set aside funding for projects located in rural areas, and 
included specific provisions to match grant requirements with 
the needs of rural areas. Specifically, the Committee has 
lowered the minimum size of a grant awarded to a rural area and 
increased the Federal share of the total project cost.

                      FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT CAPITAL

Appropriations, 2012....................................      $4,990,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................      10,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      10,000,000

                          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, and instituting new accounting standards 
and mandates.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee is recommending $10,000,000 to support the 
Secretary's Financial Management Capital initiative, which is 
equal to the budget request and $5,010,000 more than the fiscal 
year 2012 enacted level.
    Funding From OST and the Modal Administrations.--The 
Committee is disappointed that the OST budget documents still 
do not provide detailed justifications for the Financial 
Management Capital initiative, including a clear delineation of 
the amount of funding requested for this initiative by OST and 
the amount of funding included in the budget request of each of 
the modes. The Committee notes that the justifications for 
fiscal year 2013 show the amount of funding requested for this 
activity in all of the modes combined, but the justifications 
do not break out how much of that total would be provided by 
each of the modes. The Committee again directs OST to include 
this information in its budget justifications for fiscal year 
2014.

                       CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE

Appropriations, 2012....................................     $10,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................       6,000,000
Committee recommendation................................       6,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommendation includes $6,000,000 to support 
the Secretary's Cyber Security Initiative, which is equal to 
the budget request and $4,000,000 less than the fiscal year 
2012 enacted level.

                         OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS

Appropriations, 2012....................................      $9,384,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................       9,773,000
Committee recommendation................................       9,773,000

                          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 $9,773,000 for 
the Office of Civil Rights. The recommendation is equal to the 
budget request and $389,000 more than the fiscal year 2012 
enacted level. The recommended funding level includes $264,000 
requested by the Department to establish a centralized 
information technology system for tracking accommodation 
requests related to equal employment opportunity services. The 
Department is required to collect information on accommodation 
requests and report annually on whether requested 
accommodations were provided or denied within the allowable 
timeframe. The new system will help the Department ensure that 
decisions are made and accommodations provided within the 
timeframe allowed.

           TRANSPORTATION PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2012....................................      $9,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................      10,000,000
Committee recommendation................................       8,000,000

                          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 $8,000,000 for transportation 
planning, research, and development, which is $2,000,000 less 
than the budget request and $1,000,000 less than the fiscal 
year 2012 enacted level.
    The Committee is aware of news reports that have found poor 
air quality in some diesel powered commuter rail cars and 
stations. The Committee encourages the Secretary of 
Transportation to conduct a study of the air quality in 
passenger cars of commuter or intercity trains with diesel or 
diesel-electric locomotives and rail stations serviced by 
diesel or diesel-electric locomotives, and determine cost-
effective ways to reduce diesel emissions and improve air 
quality in these passenger cars and rail stations. The 
Secretary is encouraged to work with modal Administrators, 
commuter rail transit agencies, the public transportation 
industry, public health groups, and commuter rail worker 
organizations in conducting such a study.

                          WORKING CAPITAL FUND

Limitation, 2012........................................    $172,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013\1\................................................
Committee recommendation................................     174,128,000

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Working Capital Fund [WCF] provides technical and 
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 $174,128,000 on 
activities financed through the Working Capital Fund. The 
Committee recommendation is equal to the level of activity 
estimated for fiscal year 2013 under the budget request, but 
the Department had requested that no limitation be included in 
the bill. The recommended limit is also $2,128,000 more than 
the limit enacted for fiscal year 2012.
    As in past years, the bill specifies that the limitation on 
the Working Capital Fund 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 2013 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 2014.

               MINORITY BUSINESS RESOURCE CENTER PROGRAM

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Limitation on
                                        Appropriations  guaranteed loans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2012.................         $922,000      $18,367,000
Budget estimate, 2013................        1,285,000       21,955,000
Committee recommendation.............          922,000       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 $333,000 to 
cover the subsidy costs for guaranteed loans and $589,000 for 
administrative expenses to carry out the guaranteed loan 
program. These recommended levels add to a total funding level 
of $922,000 for the Minority Business Resource Center. This 
total funding level is $363,000 less than the budget estimate 
and equal to the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. The Committee 
also recommends a limitation on guaranteed loans of 
$18,367,000, which is $3,588,000 less than the budget request 
and equal to the fiscal year 2012 enacted level.
    The Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization 
conducted an aggressive campaign in order to increase the 
number of lenders participating in the Minority Business 
Resource Center's Short Term Lending Program. As a result of 
this effort, the office doubled the number of loans it provides 
to small and disadvantaged businesses that had never 
participated in the program before, which means that the 
program is expanding opportunities for the small business 
community. The Department requested an increase in the 
limitation on loan volume in order to accommodate additional 
program growth in fiscal year 2013, but the Committee notes 
that the current limit still affords the office room for 
significant growth. The Committee encourages the Department to 
continue its efforts, and will revisit the issue if the current 
limit becomes a constraint in the future.

                       MINORITY BUSINESS OUTREACH

Appropriations, 2012....................................      $3,068,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................       3,234,000
Committee recommendation................................       3,234,000

                          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. Separate funding is provided for these activities 
since this program provides grants and contract assistance that 
serve Department-wide goals and not just OST purposes.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $3,234,000 for grants and 
contractual support provided under this program for fiscal year 
2013. The recommendation is equal to the budget request and 
$166,000 more than the fiscal year 2012 enacted level.

                        PAYMENTS TO AIR CARRIERS

                    (AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Appropriations   Mandatory\1\        Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, 2012.............................................    $143,000,000     $50,000,000    $193,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013...........................................     114,000,000     100,000,000     214,000,000
Committee recommendation........................................     114,000,000     100,000,000     214,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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. These fees are commonly 
referred to as ``overflight fees'', and a portion of the 
receipts from the fees are 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 $114,000,000 
for the EAS program. This appropriation would be in addition to 
$100,000,000 of overflight fees collected by the Federal 
Aviation Administration, allowing the Department to support a 
total program level for EAS of $214,000,000. The appropriation 
and the level of funding from overflight fees under the 
Committee's recommendation are both equal to the budget 
request. The total program level under the Committee's 
recommendation is $21,000,000 more than the total program level 
enacted for fiscal year 2012; however, the total program level 
enacted for that year was comprised of an appropriation of 
$143,000,000 plus $50,000,000 in overflight fees. Recently 
enacted legislation to reauthorize the Federal Aviation 
Administration allows more of the receipts collected from 
overflight fees to be used to finance the EAS program.
    Reforming the EAS Program.--The Airline Deregulation Act, 
passed in 1978, gave airlines the freedom to choose what 
service to provide to communities across the country. Congress 
recognized that, after deregulation, small communities would be 
the most vulnerable to losing the air service that provided 
essential mobility and connected them to the larger aviation 
network. For this reason, Congress created the Essential Air 
Service program to guarantee that small communities who were 
serviced by the airlines before deregulation would continue to 
be provided with air service.
    Now, more than 30 years after the deregulation of the 
airline industry, the economics of providing subsidized air 
service are profoundly different than they were when the EAS 
program was created. The number of air carriers that can 
provide the air service covered by the EAS program continues to 
drop, even with the promise of a Federal subsidy. As a result, 
the amount of direct appropriations required to continue the 
EAS guarantee of air service more than doubled in recent years. 
The dramatic growth in the cost of the EAS program was 
unsustainable, and in the current budgetary environment, it 
threatened the ability of Congress to live up to its promise to 
communities that had been participating in the program.
    The recently enacted FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 
2012 included reforms to the EAS program that will help 
constrain the growth of the program's cost. The act requires 
that eligible communities have an average of at least 10 
enplanements per service day. It also limits EAS funding to 
communities that received subsidies at any time during fiscal 
year 2011, or received notification during fiscal year 2011 
from an airline that intends to discontinue its service and 
that is required by the Department to continue such service.
    In addition to these reforms, the Committee continues to 
include a provision that was requested by the Administration 
last year, and repeated in its budget request for fiscal year 
2013. The provision removes the requirement for 15-passenger 
seat aircraft. This requirement adds to the cost of the EAS 
program because the fleet of 15-passenger seat aircraft 
continues to age and grow more difficult for airlines to 
maintain. The Committee, however, removes the requirement with 
the expectation that the Department will use this flexibility 
judiciously. The Department should use it for communities where 
historical passenger levels indicate that smaller aircraft 
would still accommodate the great majority of passengers, or 
for communities where viable proposals for service are not 
available. The Committee does not expect the Department to use 
this flexibility simply to lower costs if a community can show 
regular enplanement levels that would justify larger aircraft.
    Transfer Authority.--The nature of the EAS program makes it 
extremely difficult to predict what the true program costs will 
be during fiscal year 2013. 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 
2013. These funds may come from other funds directly 
administered by, or appropriated to, the Office of the 
Secretary.
    The table below reflects the points in the continental 
United States currently receiving EAS service, their annual 
subsidy rates, and their level of subsidy per passenger. To 
remain eligible for EAS service, the community's level of 
subsidy per passenger must be below $1,000. The Department 
determines eligibility by reviewing a community's per passenger 
subsidy level in the last fiscal year of its contract.
    The table shows four communities that received per 
passenger subsidies greater than $1,000 during the period the 
data was collected. The Department terminated the eligibility 
of Alamogordo, New Mexico, on March 31, 2012, and will examine 
the per passenger subsidy for Ely, Nevada, at the end of its 
current contract, which expires on September 30, 2012. Although 
the average per passenger subsidy for Lewistown, Montana, is 
over $1,000 over the past year, the subsidy has fallen to under 
$1,000 for the last several quarters. Finally, a new carrier 
began providing service for Owensboro, Kentucky, this past 
December, and based on data collected since that time, the 
subsidy per passenger has fallen to less than $1,000. DOT will 
again examine the subsidy levels for both Lewistown and 
Owensboro at the end of their current contracts (which expire 
in fiscal year 2013 for Lewistown, and fiscal year 2015 for 
Owensboro).

                                   ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE SUBSIDY PER PASSENGER
                     [Data is based on April 1, 2012 rates and fiscal year 2011 passengers]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Est. miles
                                            to nearest     Average    Subsidy rates at   Passenger   Subsidy per
State            EAS communities            hub (S, M,  enplanements        4/1/12      total at  9/  passenger
                                              or L)        per day                         30/11     at 12/31/10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  ALMuscle Shoals                                 60          24.1        $1,782,928       15,110      $118.00
  AREl Dorado/Camden                             107           5.0         2,436,074        3,150       773.36
  ARHarrison                                      86           7.7         2,080,318        4,828       430.89
  ARHot Springs                                   51           3.6         1,474,388        2,259       652.67
  ARJonesboro                                     82           2.9         1,717,781        1,794       957.51
  AZKingman                                      121           3.0         1,168,390        1,878       622.15
  AZPage                                         282          19.5         1,559,206       12,193       127.88
  AZPrescott                                     102          16.3         1,832,233       10,185       179.90
  AZShow Low                                     154          11.5         1,719,058        7,210       238.43
  CACrescent City                                314          41.7         1,781,888       26,119        68.22
  CAEl Centro                                    101          17.7         1,852,091       11,070       167.31
  CAMerced                                        60           9.1         1,961,174        5,700       344.07
  CAVisalia                                       47           8.1         1,746,507        5,051       345.77
  COAlamosa                                      164          22.1         1,987,155       13,819       143.80
  COCortez                                       255          21.9         1,847,657       13,680       135.06
  COPueblo                                        36          18.9         1,592,276       11,852       134.35
  GAAthens                                        72           4.5         1,051,386        2,839       370.34
  HIKalaupapa                                    999           1.7           932,772        1,040       896.90
  IABurlington                                    74          19.9         1,917,566       12,461       153.89
  IAFort Dodge                                    91          32.7         1,910,995       20,454        93.43
  IAMason City                                   131          39.9         1,017,545       24,969        40.75
  IASioux City                                    88          89.4         1,512,799       55,970        27.03
  IAWaterloo                                      63          68.3         1,541,824       42,740        36.07
  ILDecatur                                      126          19.8         2,667,922       12,415       214.90
  ILMarion/Herrin                                123          28.2         2,053,783       17,672       116.22
  ILQuincy                                       111          27.7         1,946,270       17,322       112.36
  KSDodge City                                   150          12.2         1,842,749        7,641       241.17
  KSGarden City                                  202          32.2         1,884,303       20,160        93.47
  KSGreat Bend                                   114           3.2         1,257,617        2,025       621.05
  KSHays                                         175          30.5         1,954,327       19,074       102.46
  KSLiberal/Guymon                               138          15.1         1,958,570        9,423       207.85
  KSSalina                                        97           7.4         1,493,381        4,617       323.45
  KYOwensboro                                    105           1.0         1,529,913          645     2,371.96
  KYPaducah                                      146          57.8         1,710,775       36,158        47.31
  MDHagerstown                                    78          10.8         1,203,167        6,744       178.41
  MEAugusta/Waterville                            69          17.7         1,362,616       11,074       123.05
  MEBar Harbor                                   178          38.9         2,298,533       24,323        94.50
  MEPresque Isle/Houlton                         270          45.8         2,812,853       28,650        98.18
  MERockland                                      80          23.7         1,420,545       14,829        95.80
  MIAlpena                                       174          35.9         1,532,660       22,452        68.26
  MIEscanaba                                     112          39.2         2,090,534       24,526        85.24
  MIHancock/Houghton                             219          70.8           934,156       44,314        21.08
  MIIron Mountain/Kingsford                      105          32.8         2,090,534       20,540       101.78
  MIIronwood/Ashland                             213           5.3         1,747,326        3,314       527.26
  MIManistee                                     110          29.6         1,694,794       18,523        91.50
  MIMuskegon                                      42          40.3         1,576,067       25,198        62.55
  MIPellston                                     213          71.6         1,500,000       44,815        33.47
  MISault Ste. Marie                             278          55.6           237,825       34,805         6.83
  MNBemidji                                      158          72.7         1,338,293       45,532        29.39
  MNBrainerd                                     143          51.8           959,865       32,456        29.57
  MNChisholm/Hibbing                             199          35.5         2,938,878       22,213       132.30
  MNInternational Falls                          298          45.8         1,309,886       28,648        45.72
  MNThief River Falls                            305           7.8         1,230,322        4,870       252.63
  MOCape Girardeau                               127          17.3         1,469,715       10,858       135.36
  MOFort Leonard Wood                             85          20.8         2,437,766       13,028       187.12
  MOJoplin                                        70          68.9         2,778,756       43,113        64.45
  MOKirksville                                   137          14.5         1,422,110        9,097       156.33
  MSGreenville                                   124          22.2         1,606,662       13,891       115.66
  MSHattiesburg/Laurel                            85          43.9         1,398,798       27,482        50.90
  MSMeridian                                      84          53.6           678,936       33,563        20.23
  MSTupelo                                        94          36.6           921,878       22,901        40.25
  MTButte                                         76          76.1           672,230       47,631        14.11
  MTGlasgow                                      285           4.9         1,166,049        3,064       380.56
  MTGlendive                                     223           2.1         1,193,391        1,305       914.48
  MTHavre                                        230           3.3         1,162,329        2,046       568.10
  MTLewistown                                    103           1.7         1,325,733        1,049     1,263.81
  MTMiles City                                   145           2.9         1,621,821        1,808       897.02
  MTSidney                                       272          12.3         2,932,152        7,731       379.27
  MTWest Yellowstone                              89          42.9           427,757       10,465        40.88
  MTWolf Point                                   293           4.1         1,502,378        2,568       585.04
  NDDevils Lake                                  402          17.9         1,459,493       11,198       130.34
  NDDickinson                                    319          50.3         2,019,177       31,515        64.07
  NDJamestown                                     97          16.1         1,963,220       10,076       194.84
  NEAlliance                                     233           5.4         1,108,701        3,402       325.90
  NEChadron                                      290           6.4         1,108,701        4,015       276.14
  NEGrand Island                                 138          37.1         2,215,582       23,244        95.32
  NEKearney                                      181          33.4         1,965,740       20,921        93.96
  NEMcCook                                       256           6.3         1,796,795        3,917       458.72
  NENorth Platte                                 255          26.8         1,871,765       16,805       111.38
  NEScottsbluff                                  192          27.4         1,507,185       17,167        87.80
  NHLebanon/White River Junction                 124          28.2         2,347,744       17,650       133.02
  NMAlamogordo/Holloman AFB                       89           1.3         1,169,337          809     1,445.41
  NMCarlsbad                                     149           8.0         1,350,253        5,036       268.12
  NMClovis                                       102           7.0         1,592,157        4,401       361.77
  NMSilver City/Hurley/Deming                    134           4.9         1,594,092        3,067       519.76
  NVEly                                          234           1.4         1,752,067          851     2,058.83
  NYJamestown                                     76          12.2         1,639,254        7,666       213.83
  NYMassena                                      138          12.6         1,708,911        7,907       216.13
  NYOgdensburg                                   105           9.8         1,702,697        6,142       277.22
  NYPlattsburgh                                   82          38.3         1,379,257       23,983        57.51
  NYSaranac Lake/Lake Placid                     132          18.2         1,366,538       11,379       120.09
  NYWatertown                                     54          10.0         3,047,972        6,229       489.32
  ORPendleton                                    185          15.8         1,502,521        9,860       152.39
  PAAltoona                                      112          13.9         1,674,147        8,693       192.59
  PABradford                                      77           9.8         1,087,306        6,122       177.61
  PADuBois                                       112          18.8         2,228,996       11,754       189.64
  PAFranklin/Oil City                             85           5.4           915,101        3,379       270.82
  PAJohnstown                                     84          24.9         1,674,147       15,585       107.42
  PALancaster                                     28          20.2         1,372,474       12,633       108.64
  PRMayaguez                                     105          13.8         1,198,824        8,627       138.96
  SDAberdeen                                     189          74.6         1,198,222       46,696        25.66
  SDHuron                                        121           6.4         1,742,886        3,994       436.38
  SDWatertown                                    207          27.5         1,769,019       17,235       102.64
  TNJackson                                       86           2.8         1,149,703        1,722       667.66
  TXVictoria                                      93          16.1         1,856,692       10,065       184.47
  UTCedar City                                   179          21.5         1,859,403       13,445       138.30
  UTMoab                                         256          11.7         1,816,486        7,319       248.19
  UTVernal                                       150          15.8         1,299,194        9,860       131.76
  VAStaunton                                     113          37.7         2,180,461       23,618        92.32
  VTRutland                                       69          18.3           797,141       11,477        69.46
  WIEau Claire                                    92          55.3         1,733,576       34,607        50.09
  WIRhinelander                          ...........          99.8         1,500,000       62,456        24.02
  WVBeckley                                      168           8.8         2,313,457        5,533       418.12
  WVClarksburg                                    96          19.1         1,488,219       11,985       124.17
  WVMorgantown                                    75          33.8         1,488,219       21,137        70.41
  WVParkersburg/Marietta                         110          22.6         2,642,237       14,122       187.10
  WYCody                                         108          89.1           352,058       55,788         6.31
  WYLaramie                                      145          24.3         1,181,572       15,197        77.75
  WYWorland                                      161           9.6         1,770,336        6,027       293.73
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

Appropriations, 2012....................................  \1\$15,981,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................      13,670,000
Committee recommendation................................      13,500,000

\1\Appropriations for fiscal year 2012 were provided for a separate 
agency within the Department of Transportation, whereas the budget 
request and Committee recommendation include funds for an office within 
the Office of the Secretary to perform the same activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and 
Technology will take over the responsibilities previously held 
by the Research and Innovative Technology Administration. The 
responsibilities include coordinating, facilitating, and 
reviewing the Department's research and development programs 
and activities; coordinating and developing positioning, 
navigation and timing [PNT] technology; maintaining PNT policy, 
coordination and spectrum management; managing the Nationwide 
Differential Global Positioning System; and overseeing and 
providing direction to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 
the Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office, 
the University Transportation Centers program, the Volpe 
National Transportation Systems Center and the Transportation 
Safety Institute.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $13,500,000 
for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and 
Technology. This amount is $170,000 less than the budget 
request, and $2,481,000 less than the amount provided to the 
Research and Innovative Technology Administration to perform 
the same activities in fiscal year 2012. The following table 
summarizes the Committee's recommendation in comparison to the 
budget request and the fiscal year 2012 enacted level:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fiscal year--
                                                              ----------------------------------    Committee
                                                                 2012 enacted     2013 request    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salaries and administrative expenses.........................       $6,974,000       $6,717,000       $6,717,000
Alternative fuels research and development...................          499,000          499,000          499,000
Research, development and technology coordination............          509,000          509,000          339,000
Nationwide differential global positioning system............        7,600,000        5,600,000        5,600,000
Positioning, navigation and timing...........................          399,000          345,000          345,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total..................................................       15,981,000       13,670,000       13,500,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Small Business Innovation Research.--The Small Business 
Innovation Research [SBIR] program encourages domestic small 
businesses to engage in Federal research or research and 
development activities that have the potential for 
commercialization. The Volpe Center directs the Department's 
SBIR program due to its extensive background in innovative 
programs such as technology transfer, cooperative research and 
development agreements, outreach projects involving a cross-
section of the transportation community, and technical 
assistance to private organizations and State and local 
governments. The Committee recognizes the importance of the 
SBIR program and its success in commercialization from Federal 
funded research and development projects. Through its work, the 
SBIR program creates jobs in the smallest firms. The Committee 
therefore encourages the Department to place an increased focus 
on awarding SBIR awards to firms with fewer than 50 people.

  ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION

    Section 101 prohibits the Office of the Secretary of 
Transportation from obligating funds originally provided to a 
modal administration in order to approve assessments or 
reimbursable agreements, unless the Department follows the 
regular process for the reprogramming of funds, including 
congressional notification.
    Section 102 prohibits the use of funds for an EAS local 
participation program.
    Section 103 authorizes the Secretary of Transportation or 
his designee to engage in activities with States and State 
legislatures to consider proposals related to the reduction of 
motorcycle fatalities.
    Section 104 allows the Department of Transportation to make 
use of the Working Capital Fund in providing transit benefits 
to Federal employees.
    Section 105 places simple administrative requirements on 
the Department of Transportation's Credit Council. These 
requirements include posting a schedule of meetings on the DOT 
Web site, posting the meeting agendas on the Web site, and 
recording the minutes of each meeting.
    Section 106 authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to 
establish uniform standards for agency transit benefits.

                    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 funding level for the FAA for fiscal 
year 2013 amounts to $15,932,212,000, including new budget 
authority, a limitation on the obligation of contract 
authority, and a rescission of unobligated balances. This 
funding level is $786,396,000 more than the budget request and 
$30,530,000 more than the fiscal year 2012 enacted level.
    The following table summarizes the Committee's 
recommendations for fiscal year 2013 in comparison to the 
budget request and the fiscal year 2012 enacted level:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Fiscal year--
                                                        --------------------------------------     Committee
                                                            2012 enacted      2013 estimate      recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations.............................................     $9,653,395,000     $9,718,000,000     $9,698,396,000
Facilities and equipment...............................      2,730,731,000      2,850,000,000      2,750,000,000
Research, engineering, and development.................        167,556,000        180,000,000        160,000,000
Rescission of research, engineering, and development     .................        -26,183,998        -26,183,998
 funds.................................................
Grants-in-aid for airports.............................      3,350,000,000      2,424,000,000      3,350,000,000
War risk insurance.....................................  .................         -1,000,000  .................
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total............................................     15,901,682,000     15,144,816,000     15,932,212,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               OPERATIONS

Appropriations, 2012....................................  $9,653,395,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................   9,718,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   9,698,396,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This appropriation provides funds for the operation, 
maintenance, communications, and logistical support of the air 
traffic control and air navigation systems. It also covers 
administrative and managerial costs for the FAA's regulatory, 
international, commercial space, medical, research, engineering 
and development programs, as well as policy oversight and 
agency management functions. The operations appropriation 
includes the following major activities:
  --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;
  --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;
  --the office of commercial space transportation; and
  --headquarters, administration and other staff, and support 
        offices.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a total of $9,698,396,000 for FAA 
operations. This funding level is $19,604,000 less than the 
budget request, and $45,001,000 more than the fiscal year 2012 
enacted level. The Committee recommendation derives 
$5,340,000,000 of the appropriation from the airport and airway 
trust fund. The balance of the appropriation will be drawn from 
the general fund of the Treasury.
    As in past years, FAA is directed to report immediately to 
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations in the event 
resources are insufficient to operate a safe and effective air 
traffic control system.
    The Committee continues three provisions enacted in prior 
years relating to premium pay, aeronautical charting and 
cartography, and Government-issued credit cards.
    The following table summarizes the Committee's 
recommendation in comparison to the budget estimate and fiscal 
year 2012 enacted level:

                                                 FAA OPERATIONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Fiscal year--
                                                        --------------------------------------     Committee
                                                            2012 enacted      2013 estimate      recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air traffic organization...............................     $7,442,738,000     $7,513,850,000     $7,496,279,000
Aviation safety........................................      1,252,991,000      1,255,000,000      1,255,000,000
Commercial space transportation........................         16,271,000         16,700,000         16,271,000
Finance and management.................................        582,117,000        573,591,000        573,591,000
NextGen and operations planning........................         60,134,000         60,064,000         60,064,000
Staff offices..........................................        299,144,000        298,795,000        297,191,000
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total............................................      9,653,395,000      9,718,000,000      9,698,396,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FAA Administrative Expenses.--The Committee continues to 
expect the FAA to use its Federal resources judiciously, and 
does not believe that providing retention bonuses to the same 
employee for repeated years in a row represents a responsible 
use of those taxpayer dollars. A retention bonus should offer a 
short-term enticement to stay at the FAA for employees 
possessing critical and hard-to-replace skills, thereby giving 
the agency extra time to find a suitable replacement. When 
given every year to a broad spectrum of employees, however, a 
retention bonus acts as a loophole in the Federal 
administrative process, allowing the FAA to give a permanent 
pay raise to certain employees without being held accountable 
to the regular administrative requirements. The Committee is 
still concerned about the FAA's failure to manage this 
authority responsibly, and retains bill language directing the 
Department's Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration to 
be the approving official for any request for a retention bonus 
by the FAA during fiscal year 2013.
    Contract Towers.--The Committee recommendation provides a 
total of $140,350,000 for the contract tower program, which 
includes $10,350,000 for the contract tower cost share program. 
In addition, the Committee retains language that limits 
contributions in the contract tower cost share program to 20 
percent of total costs.
    Critical Workforces at the FAA.--The Committee continues to 
place a high priority on the critical workforces at the FAA. 
The Committee recommendation therefore fully funds the budget 
request for the air traffic controller workforce and the 
aviation safety inspector workforces. For the inspector 
workforce, the Committee recommendation includes $833,087,000 
requested by the FAA to support the flight standards service, 
and another $209,969,000 requested by the FAA to support the 
aircraft certification service. The Committee also identifies 
funding for the flight standards and aircraft certification 
services as a congressional item of interest, and directs the 
FAA to submit to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations a request for approval before redirecting any of 
the funding provided for the flight standards and aircraft 
certification services.
    Performance Based Navigation.--The Committee recommendation 
includes an additional $10,000,000 requested by the FAA for 
performance based navigation activities. This funding increase 
includes $6,200,000 to provide operational support for the 
Optimization of Airspace and Procedures in a Metroplex program. 
The funding increase also includes $3,800,000 for the FAA's 
efforts to streamline its processes for requesting, 
prioritizing, developing and implementing instrument flight 
procedures.
    Airfield Pavement Markings.--A key element to the 
application of reflective painting and striping for roadways, 
highways and airports are engineered glass beads. These beads 
are highly technical products that require safe and durable 
materials. However, the source materials for the creation of 
these glass beads can vary widely. Most manufacturers use 
environmentally friendly materials, such as recycled flat 
glass. These products are made from natural glass elements and 
contain only trace levels of heavy metals. Unfortunately, some 
producers of glass beads recycle glass with much higher 
concentrations of heavy metals, such as arsenic or lead. The 
high level of arsenic or lead that are present is due to the 
use of outdated manufacturing techniques which require the 
actual addition of heavy metals to clarify and ``fine'' the 
glass in order to create an economically viable product. As the 
glass degrades over time from the relentless pounding of 
aviation ground traffic, snow plows, and weather, the toxic 
materials leach out of the glass and run-off into nearby soil 
and water tables. In addition, workers who deal with the 
application of glass beads are becoming increasingly concerned 
about their own exposure.
    Recently, the Texas Transportation Institute and Rowan 
University in conjunction with the New Jersey Institute of 
Technology [NJIT] have studied whether glass beads from foreign 
sources had high levels of arsenic and lead and if those heavy 
metals would leach out of this type of glass. Both studies 
found high levels of arsenic and lead in glass beads from 
foreign sources, and both studies found these metals leached 
out rapidly. The Rowan/NJIT study found leachable 
concentrations of arsenic and lead were higher than Federal 
regulatory standards for drinking water and aquatic life, and 
higher than New Jersey's default leachate criteria for 
groundwater.
    The Committee is concerned with the findings from these 
studies and therefore encourages the FAA to issue a regulation 
prohibiting glass beads containing more than 200 parts per 
million of arsenic or lead, as determined in accordance with 
Environmental Protection Agency testing methods 3052, 6010B, or 
6010C, in airfield pavement marking projects.
    FAA Public Hearing.--The Committee remains concerned with 
the proposed modifications to the Condor 1 and Condor 2 
military operating areas and encourages FAA to continue working 
with their partner agencies by holding a public hearing with 
representatives from the relevant Federal agencies in western 
Maine upon completion of the Air National Guard's environmental 
impact statement and the record of decision. The Committee 
recognizes that the Air National Guard, as the lead agency 
under the NEPA process, has sought to meet the minimum legal 
requirements for public participation and comment. However, the 
Committee remains troubled with how the authorization of low-
altitude military training in the proposed airspace would 
affect areas that significantly contribute to the local economy 
and areas that are culturally and environmentally sensitive. 
Furthermore, the Committee notes the FAA is the only Federal 
agency that can modify special airspace and that the FAA may 
adopt the Air National Guard's EIS in whole, or in part, once 
the Final EIS has been issued. In addition, the Committee 
directs the FAA to report to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations prior to the issuance of a record of decision 
regarding the modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 
military operations areas that includes a summary of any public 
meeting and hearing and a list of the comments, questions, and 
responses presented at these meetings and hearings.
    Aeronautical Navigation Products.--The Committee is aware 
that Aeronautical Navigation Products (AeroNav) removed 
publicly available aeronautical data from its Web site without 
notice, and is currently developing a per subscriber user fee 
on this information. In addition, the availability of AeroNav 
products to the public has been abruptly reduced from 17 days 
to 24 hours in advance of the charts' effective date. The 
Committee is concerned that these changes may conflict with the 
FAA's mission to provide timely and accurate information for 
pilots in the interest of safe and efficient navigation.
    The Committee believes that the FAA should develop a fair 
and equitable fee structure for its products; however, the 
Committee notes that the agency has not yet been able to 
provide a justification for its new user fee, nor has the 
agency sought sufficient input from industry stakeholders. 
Sales of paper products have fallen, but the FAA should not 
view the sale of digital products simply as a convenient source 
of revenue to compensate for the loss of revenue.
    The Committee therefore has included an administrative 
provision in the bill that would restrict the FAA from 
implementing new fees on AeroNav products until the agency has 
undergone a process of public outreach and provided a full 
justification to the Committee. In developing its fee 
structure, the FAA should consider the impact that a fee 
increase would have on all members of the aviation community, 
including private sector companies who utilize FAA data in its 
products sold to end users and government agencies.
    The Committee also urges the Department to restore the 
timely deliverability of AeroNav products. Until a new proposal 
is approved and implemented, FAA should seek to restore the 17 
day availability of digital content on the Internet. The timely 
availability of aeronautical charts is a benefit to the flying 
public and aviation safety, and unfortunately, the reduction in 
the availability of these charts has already had negative 
impacts.
    Community Concerns Over Noise and Safety.--The Committee 
recognizes that the use of helicopters in Los Angeles County 
produces quality of life and safety impacts, prompting requests 
for FAA action. The Committee directs the FAA to solicit the 
views of interested parties, including representatives of local 
communities, regarding helicopter noise and safety issues in 
Los Angeles County no later than 90 days after the enactment of 
this Act. The Committee further directs the FAA to lead a 
collaborative effort with community representatives, elected 
officials, helicopter operators, and other affected interests 
to (1) identify specific concerns with helicopter operations, 
including noise; (2) evaluate options that would respond to 
identified concerns including, but not limited to routes, 
operating altitudes, and hovering practices; and (3) develop 
solutions to the identified issues consistent with the FAA's 
statutory responsibilities. Potential solutions should not 
restrict helicopter operations needed for emergency, law 
enforcement, or military purposes.
    The Committee directs the FAA to submit a report to the 
House and Senate Appropriations Committee within 12 months of 
enactment of this act regarding the helicopter concerns in Los 
Angeles County that have been identified, the progress in 
addressing these concerns including reasons why some measures 
were not retained for further study, and the mechanisms for 
implementing measures and monitoring their continuing 
effectiveness.
    Human Intervention Motivation Study and the Flight 
Attendant Drug and Alcohol Program.--The Human Intervention and 
Motivation Study [HIMS] 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 peer identification and 
intervention. The HIMS program provides educational materials, 
holds seminars, and conducts outreach to the pilot community.
    Flight attendants are also safety professionals who, like 
pilots, perform their duties with little management oversight. 
The Flight Attendant Drug and Alcohol Program [FADAP] is 
designed specifically for the needs of flight attendants, and 
with its emphasis on peer identification and intervention, it 
operates much like the HIMS program. FADAP is an essential tool 
to help flight attendants who may be abusing alcohol or drugs.
    The Committee recommendation includes $2,103,000 to 
continue funding for HIMS and FADAP over the fiscal year 2012-
2015 period.

                        FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

                    (AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2012....................................  $2,730,731,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................   2,850,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   2,750,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,750,000,000 
for the Facilities and Equipment account of the Federal 
Aviation Administration. The recommended level is $100,000,000 
less than the budget estimate and $19,269,000 more than the 
fiscal year 2012 enacted level.
    Budget Activities Format.--The Committee directs that the 
fiscal year 2014 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--
                                                                 --------------------------------    Committee
                                                                   2012 enacted    2013 estimate  recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engineering, Development, Test and Evaluation:
    Advanced Technology Development and Prototyping.............     $29,000,000     $33,100,000     $31,000,000
    NAS Improvement of System Support Laboratory................       1,000,000       1,000,000       1,000,000
    William J. Hughes Technical Center Facilities...............      14,000,000      11,500,000      11,500,000
    William J. Hughes Technical Center Infrastructure                  7,500,000       8,000,000       8,000,000
     Sustainment................................................
    Data Communications for Trajectory Based Operations [NGATS].     143,000,000     142,630,000     142,630,000
    Next Generation Transportation System Technology                  15,000,000      24,600,000      20,000,000
     Demonstration..............................................
    Next Generation Transportation System--Systems Development..      85,000,000      61,000,000      47,000,000
    Next Generation Transportation System--Trajectory Based            7,000,000      16,500,000      10,000,000
     Operations.................................................
    Next Generation Transportation System--Reduce Weather Im-         15,600,000      16,600,000      16,000,000
     pact.......................................................
    Next Generation Transportation System--High Density/Arrivals/     12,000,000      11,000,000       8,000,000
     Departures.................................................
    Next Generation Transportation System--Collaborative ATM....      24,000,000      24,200,000      17,000,000
    Next Generation Transportation System--Flexible Terminals         33,300,000      30,500,000      19,000,000
     and Airports...............................................
    Next Generation Transportation System--System Network              5,000,000      11,000,000       8,000,000
     Facilities.................................................
    Next Generation Transportation System--Future Facilities....      15,000,000      95,000,000      75,000,000
    Performance Based Navigation/RNAV/RNP.......................      29,200,000      36,200,000      41,200,000

Air Traffic Control Facilities and Equipment:

En Route Programs:
    En Route Automation Modernization [ERAM]....................     155,000,000     144,000,000     144,000,000
    En Route Automation Modernization [ERAM]--Post Release 3....  ..............      10,000,000      10,000,000
    En Route Communications Gateway [ECG].......................       2,000,000       3,100,000       3,100,000
    Next Generation Weather Radar [NEXRAD]--Provide.............       2,800,000       3,300,000       3,300,000
    Air Traffic Control System Command Center [ATCSCC]--               3,600,000  ..............  ..............
     Relocation.................................................
    ARTCC Building Improvements/Plant Improvements..............      41,000,000      46,000,000      45,500,000
    Air Traffic Management [ATM]................................       7,500,000      21,700,000      21,700,000
    Air/Ground Communications Infrastructure....................       4,800,000       4,000,000       4,000,000
    Air Traffic Control En Route Radar Facilities Improvements..       5,800,000       5,900,000       5,900,000
    Voice Switching and Control System [VSCS]...................       1,000,000      15,000,000      15,000,000
    Oceanic Automation System...................................       4,000,000       4,000,000       4,000,000
    Next Generation Very High Frequency Air/Ground                    45,150,000      33,650,000      33,650,000
     Communications System [NEXCOM].............................
    System-Wide Information Management..........................      66,350,000      57,200,000      57,200,000
    ADS-B NAS Wide Implementation...............................     285,100,000     271,600,000     271,600,000
    Windshear Detection Service.................................       1,000,000  ..............  ..............
    Weather and Radar Processor [WARP]..........................       2,500,000         500,000         500,000
    Collaborative Air Traffic Management Technologies--WP2......      41,500,000      34,420,000      34,420,000
    Colorado ADS-B/WAM Cost Share...............................       3,800,000       1,400,000       1,400,000
    Automated Terminal Information System [ATIS]................       1,000,000  ..............  ..............
    Tactical Flow Time Based Flow Management....................      38,700,000      12,900,000      12,900,000
Terminal Programs:
    Airport Surface Detection Equipment--Model X [ASDE-X].......       2,200,000       7,400,000       7,400,000
    Terminal Doppler Weather Radar [TDWR]--Provide..............       7,700,000       2,500,000       2,500,000
    Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System [STARS]           25,000,000      34,500,000      34,500,000
     (TAMR Phase 1).............................................
    Terminal Automation Modernization/Replacement Program (TAMR      108,750,000     153,000,000     153,000,000
     Phase 3)...................................................
    Terminal Automation Program.................................       2,500,000       2,500,000       2,500,000
    Terminal Air Traffic Control Facilities--Replace............      51,600,000      64,900,000      64,900,000
    ATCT/Terminal Radar Approach Control [TRACON] Facilities--        52,000,000      25,200,000      25,200,000
     Improve....................................................
    Terminal Voice Switch Replacement [TVSR]....................       8,000,000       4,000,000       4,000,000
    NAS Facilities OSHA and Environmental Standards Compliance..      24,600,000      26,000,000      26,000,000
    Airport Surveillance Radar [ASR-9]..........................       6,000,000       6,400,000       6,400,000
    Terminal Digital Radar [ASR-11].............................       3,900,000       8,200,000       8,200,000
    Runway Status Lights........................................      29,800,000      35,250,000      35,250,000
    National Airspace System Voice Switch [NVS].................       9,000,000      10,250,000      10,250,000
    Integrated Display System [IDS].............................       8,800,000       4,200,000       4,200,000
    Remote Monitoring and Logging System [RMLS].................       4,200,000       4,700,000       4,700,000
    Mode S Service Life Extension Program [SLEP]................       4,000,000       4,000,000       4,000,000
    Surveillance Interface Modernization........................  ..............       2,000,000       2,000,000
    Tower Flight Data Manager [TFDM]............................  ..............      37,600,000      37,600,000
Flight Service Programs:
    Automated Surface Observing System [ASOS]...................       2,500,000  ..............  ..............
    Future Flight Service Program...............................  ..............       8,000,000       8,000,000
    Flight Service Station [FSS] Modernization..................       4,500,000       2,900,000       2,900,000
    Weather Camera Program......................................       4,800,000       4,400,000       4,400,000
Landing and Navigational Aids Program:
    VHF Omnidirectional Radio Range [VOR] with Distance                5,000,000       2,500,000       2,500,000
     Measuring Equipment [DME]..................................
    Instrument Landing System [ILS]--Establish..................       5,000,000       7,000,000      12,000,000
    Wide Area Augmentation System [WAAS] for GPS................      95,000,000      96,000,000      96,000,000
    Runway Visual Range [RVR]...................................       5,000,000       4,000,000       4,000,000
    Approach Lighting System Improvement Program [ALSIP]........       5,000,000       3,000,000       3,000,000
    Distance Measuring Equipment [DME]..........................       5,000,000       5,000,000       5,000,000
    Visual NAVAIDS--Establish/Expand............................       3,400,000       3,500,000       3,500,000
    Instrument Flight Procedures Automation [IFPA]..............       2,200,000       7,100,000       7,100,000
    Navigation and Landing Aids--Service Life Extension Program        7,000,000       8,000,000      10,000,000
     [SLEP].....................................................
    VASI Replacement--Replace with Precision Approach Path             8,000,000       4,000,000       4,000,000
     Indicator..................................................
    GPS Civil Requirements......................................      19,000,000      40,000,000      19,000,000
    Runway Safety Areas--Navigational Mitigation................      25,000,000      30,000,000      30,000,000
Other ATC Facilities Programs:
    Fuel Storage Tank Replacement and Monitoring................       5,400,000       6,600,000       6,600,000
    Unstaffed Infrastructure Sustainment........................      18,000,000      18,000,000      18,000,000
    Aircraft Related Equipment Program..........................      11,700,000      10,100,000      10,100,000
    Airport Cable Loop Systems--Sustained Support...............       5,000,000       5,000,000       5,000,000
    Alaskan Satellite Telecommunications Infrastructure [ASTI]..      15,500,000       6,800,000       6,800,000
    Facilities Decommissioning..................................       5,000,000       5,000,000       5,000,000
    Electrical Power Systems--Sustain/Support...................      77,581,000      85,000,000      68,000,000
    Aircraft Fleet Modernization................................       9,000,000       2,100,000       2,100,000
    FAA Employee Housing and Life Safety Shelter System Service.       2,500,000       2,500,000       2,500,000
Non-Air Traffic Control Facilities and Equipment:

Support Equipment:
    Hazardous Materials Management..............................      20,000,000      20,000,000      20,000,000
    Aviation Safety Analysis System [ASAS]......................      30,100,000      15,800,000      15,800,000
    Logistics Support Systems and Facilities [LSSF].............      10,000,000      10,000,000      10,000,000
    National Air Space [NAS] Recovery Communications [RCOM].....      12,000,000      12,000,000      12,000,000
    Facility Security Risk Management...........................      16,000,000      14,200,000      14,200,000
    Information Security........................................      15,200,000      14,000,000      14,000,000
    System Approach for Safety Oversight [SASO].................      23,600,000      23,000,000      23,000,000
    Aviation Safety Knowledge Management Environment [ASKME]....      17,200,000      12,800,000      12,800,000
    Data Center Optimization....................................       1,000,000       1,000,000       1,000,000
    Aerospace Medical Equipment Needs [AMEN]....................      10,000,000       3,000,000       3,000,000
    Aviation Safety Information Analysis and Sharing [ASIAS]....  ..............      15,000,000      15,000,000
    National Test Equipment Program.............................  ..............       2,000,000       2,000,000
    Mobile Assets Management Program............................  ..............       1,700,000       1,700,000
    Aerospace Medicine Safety Information Systems [AMSIS].......  ..............       3,000,000       3,000,000
Training, Equipment and Facilities:
    Aeronautical Center Infrastructure Modernization............      16,500,000      12,500,000      12,500,000
    Distance Learning...........................................       1,500,000       1,500,000       1,500,000
Facilities and Equipment Mission Support:

System Support and Services:
    System Engineering and Development Support..................      32,900,000      35,000,000      34,000,000
    Program Support Leases......................................      40,000,000      40,900,000      40,900,000
    Logistics Support Services [LSS]............................      11,700,000      11,500,000      11,500,000
    Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center Leases....................      17,000,000      17,500,000      17,500,000
    Transition Engineering Support..............................      13,000,000      14,000,000      14,000,000
    Technical Support Services Contract [TSSC]..................      22,000,000      23,000,000      23,000,000
    Resource Tracking Program [RTP].............................       4,000,000       4,000,000       4,000,000
    Center for Advanced Aviation System Development [CAASD].....      78,000,000      70,000,000      70,000,000
    Aeronautical Information Management Program.................      20,200,000       2,000,000       2,000,000
    Permanent Change of Station [PCS] Moves.....................       1,500,000  ..............  ..............
Personnel and Related Expenses:
    Personnel and Related Expenses..............................     475,000,000     480,000,000     480,000,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................   2,730,731,000   2,850,000,000   2,750,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Next Generation Transportation System Technology 
Demonstration.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$20,000,000 for demonstrations of NextGen technologies. This 
funding level is $4,600,000 less than the budget request and 
$5,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. The 
Committee directs the FAA to use $4,000,000 provided in the 
Committee recommendation for trials that integrate live 
unmanned aerial systems into the national airspace. These 
trials should build on previously completed demonstrations.
    Performance-Based Navigation.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $41,200,000 for Performance Based Navigation, an 
increase of $5,000,000 above the budget request and $12,000,000 
above the fiscal year 2012 enacted level.
    Section 213 of the recently enacted FAA Modernization and 
Reform Act of 2012 requires the FAA to accelerate the 
development and utilization of performance based navigation 
procedures at 70 commercial airports across the country. The 
authorization act requires the FAA to complete this work by 
June 30, 2016, with specific targets set for 18 months after 
enactment and 36 months after enactment. The act also requires 
the FAA to define a budget and schedule necessary for 
accomplishing this work, create expedited processes for getting 
the work done in a timely manner, and establish performance 
metrics in order to accurately measure the effectiveness of the 
FAA's progress.
    The Committee expects the FAA to fully comply with the 
requirements of section 213. The Committee also notes that the 
performance metrics required by the authorization act must 
include measures of the extent to which new procedures are 
actually used in the national airspace, as well as measurements 
of fuel savings and emission reductions that result from the 
use of new procedures. The FAA has not built a good track 
record of developing procedures in an efficient manner, or 
ensuring that air carriers can take advantage of the 
procedures. Therefore, the strength of the authorization law 
lies not only in demanding that the FAA develop a specific 
number of procedures across the country, but also in 
stipulating that such procedures are actually used and 
therefore result in measurable benefits.
    The Committee provides $5,000,000 above the FAA's budget 
request for performance based navigation in order to support 
the FAA's efforts to meet the requirements of section 213. The 
Committee notes that the authorization law gives the FAA the 
discretion to use an expedited process and to work with third 
parties in order to accomplish its work.
    Navigation and Landing Aids--Service Life Extension Program 
[SLEP].--Runway end identifier lights [REILs] improve airport 
safety by clearly indicating to pilots the approach end of the 
runway. The Committee recommends $8,000,000 for navigation and 
landing aids, an increase of $2,000,000 above the budget 
request and $3,000,000 above the fiscal year 2012 enacted 
level. The Committee urges the FAA to use this additional 
funding to procure additional REILs with the latest LED 
technology.
    Equipage for NextGen.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $956,000,000 for the FAA's NextGen program to 
modernize the Nation's air traffic control system. This funding 
level is $21,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2012 enacted 
level. The success of the NextGen program, however, will depend 
on more than just the availability of funds; it will be 
determined primarily by the FAA's ability to manage a portfolio 
of complex technology programs and to integrate new 
capabilities into its daily operations. NextGen's success also 
depends on whether each aircraft in the air traffic control 
system is equipped with compatible technology. The FAA has 
mandated that aircraft be equipped with some of these avionics 
by the year 2020, but there is still no guarantee that airlines 
will be able to meet this mandate.
    Section 221 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 
authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to provide loan 
guarantees that would support the equipage of aircraft with 
NextGen technology. The Act allows the Secretary to charge fees 
in order to cover the full cost of the program if direct 
appropriations are not available for this purpose. On March 15, 
2012, the Secretary testified before the Subcommittee on 
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related 
Agencies, saying that he did not require any additional 
legislative authority in order to implement the loan program 
authorized by section 221.
    The Committee, however, questions whether the Department is 
ready to establish an effective loan guarantee program. The 
Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 includes specific 
requirements for programs that provide Federal credit 
assistance, and the FAA has not previously worked under these 
requirements. Furthermore, since the program is newly 
authorized, the FAA must decide how it will structure and 
manage it before offering the first loan guarantee. Section 221 
terminates the Secretary's authority to provide loan guarantees 
5 years after the date of the program's establishment. The 
Committee expects the FAA to use its time efficiently, and does 
not believe the FAA should waste any portion of the 5 years 
with planning activities or by defending decisions that should 
have been thoroughly discussed with stakeholders before the 
establishment of the program.
    The Committee therefore directs the FAA to work 
expeditiously to structure its loan guarantee program. In 
addition, because NextGen and the effectiveness of the loan 
guarantee program depend on airlines and other industry 
stakeholders to work in concert with the FAA, the Committee 
further directs the FAA to solicit feedback from the aviation 
industry at the beginning of this process.
    FAA Management Training and Conference Center.--The 
Committee recommends that the FAA continue to pursue new leased 
space for its Management Training and Conference Center. A 
significant amount of both private and public resources have 
been committed to this procurement process. The Committee 
recognizes that a best value acquisition will result in 
continuing the preceding procurement process as the FAA's long-
term need for such a facility remains. The Committee, in 
understanding both the FAA's long-term needs and costs of 
remaining in the current facility, recognizes that it is 
appropriate to not only continue with the procurement but that 
doing so is consistent with the recently enacted FAA 
Modernization and Reform Act of 2012.

                 RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, AND DEVELOPMENT

                    (AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

                         (INCLUDING RESCISSION)

Appropriations, 2012....................................    $167,556,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................     180,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     160,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $160,000,000 for the FAA's 
research, engineering, and development activities. The 
recommended level of funding is $20,000,000 less than the 
budget request and $7,556,000 less than the fiscal year 2012 
enacted level. The Committee also recommends the rescission of 
$26,183,998 in unobligated balances from prior year 
appropriations.
    A table showing the fiscal year 2012 enacted level, the 
fiscal year 2013 budget estimate, and the Committee 
recommendation follows:

                                     RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, AND DEVELOPMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Fiscal year--
                                                                 --------------------------------    Committee
                                                                   2012 enacted    2013 estimate  recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety:
    Fire Research and Safety....................................      $7,158,000      $7,667,000      $7,667,000
    Propulsion and Fuel Systems.................................       2,300,000       2,882,000       2,882,000
    Advanced Materials/Structural Safety........................       2,534,000       2,569,000       2,569,000
    Aircraft Icing--Atmospheric Hazards/Digital System Safety...       5,404,000       6,644,000       6,644,000
    Continued Airworthiness.....................................      11,600,000      13,202,000      13,202,000
    Aircraft Catastrophic Failure Prevention Research...........       1,147,000       1,691,000       1,691,000
    Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors.....       6,162,000       5,416,000       5,600,000
    System Safety Management....................................      10,027,000      11,345,000       9,586,000
    Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human Factors......      10,364,000      10,014,000       9,000,000
    Aeromedical Research........................................      11,000,000       9,895,000       8,000,000
    Weather Program.............................................      16,043,000      15,539,000      12,000,000
    Unmanned Aircraft Systems Research..........................       3,504,000       5,901,000       5,901,000
    NextGen--Alternative Fuels for General Aviation.............       2,071,000       1,995,000       1,995,000
Economic Competitiveness:
    Joint Planning and Development Office.......................       5,000,000      12,000,000      10,000,000
    NextGen--Wake Turbulence....................................      10,674,000      10,350,000       9,000,000
    NextGen--Air Ground Integration Human Factors...............       7,000,000      10,172,000       7,500,000
    NextGen--Self Separation Human Factors......................       3,500,000       7,796,000       4,000,000
    NextGen--Weather Technology in the Cockpit..................       8,000,000       4,826,000       2,500,000
Environmental Sustainability:
    Environment and Energy......................................      15,074,000      14,776,000      15,200,000
    NextGen--Environmental Research--Aircraft Technologies,           23,500,000      19,861,000      19,861,000
     Fuels, and Metrics.........................................
Mission Support:
    System Planning and Resource Management.....................       1,717,000       1,757,000       1,500,000
    William J. Hughes Technical Center Laboratory Facility......       3,777,000       3,702,000       3,702,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................     167,556,000     180,000,000     160,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Joint Planning and Development Office.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $10,000,000 for the Joint Planning and 
Development Office. This funding level is $2,000,000 less than 
the budget request, and $5,000,000 more than the fiscal year 
2012 enacted level. The Committee provides this funding to 
cover all of the expenses of the Joint Planning and Development 
Office [JPDO], including the cost of maintaining the NextGen 
enterprise architecture, which in previous years had been paid 
out of the FAA's Facilities and Equipment account.
    The administration included in its budget documents a 
request to reorganize the agency so that JPDO would no longer 
be a part of the Air Traffic Organization, and instead would 
stand as its own organization within the FAA. Under the new 
organizational structure, the Director of JPDO would report 
directly to the Deputy Administrator of the FAA, and continue 
to serve as a senior advisor to the Secretary of Transportation 
on the FAA's NextGen program. The Committee approves the 
Department's reorganization request.
    Under the organizational structure requested by the FAA, 
both JPDO and the FAA's NextGen and Operations Planning office 
report directly to the Deputy Administrator. Both offices focus 
on the agency's effort to modernize the air transportation 
system, with the JPDO coordinating the work of the FAA with the 
aviation industry and other government agencies, and the 
NextGen office overseeing the FAA's internal efforts to improve 
air transportation. The Committee recognizes that keeping JPDO 
and the NextGen office as separate entities gives each 
organization a higher profile; however, the Committee also 
believes that merging the two organizations would encourage 
better coordination. The Government Accountability Office and 
the DOT Office of Inspector General have both issued numerous 
reports that discuss the need for the programs and 
organizations within the FAA to better coordinate in order to 
ensure the success of the agency's modernization effort. The 
Committee therefore encourages the FAA to overcome this 
challenge and establish a strong connection between JPDO and 
the NextGen office so that the new organizational structure 
does not need to be revisited at a later date.
    Environment and Energy.--The Committee recommends 
$15,200,000 for environment and energy activities, a funding 
level that is $424,000 more than the budget request and 
$126,000 more than the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. The 
Committee recommendation includes $3,000,000 to establish a 
new, separate Center of Excellence for alternative jet fuel 
research in civil aircraft, as authorized by section 911 of the 
FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. This law allows the 
FAA Administrator to designate the Center of Excellence 180 
days after enactment, and the Committee expects the FAA to 
adhere to this schedule.
    The development of alternative aviation fuel technology is 
an important national policy objective, and the new Center of 
Excellence will assist in the development and qualification of 
jet fuel from alternative sources. The Committee notes the 
Center of Excellence will focus exclusively on research related 
to the development of alternative fuels, and so it will be a 
valuable addition to other FAA programs that explore the use of 
such fuels. In addition, the new Center of Excellence will 
partner with the FAA's Continuous Low Energy, Emissions, and 
Noise--or CLEEN--program, and the Partnership for Air 
Transportation Noise and Emission Reduction--or PARTNER--Center 
of Excellence.
    The Committee expects the FAA to establish the new Center 
of Excellence by identifying an educational and research 
institution that can lead this effort in collaboration with the 
private sector and other educational and research institutions, 
and that can take advantage of existing facilities and 
experience across the areas of the supply chain, including 
research, feedstock development and production, small-scale 
development, testing, and technology evaluation related to the 
creation, processing, production, and transportation of 
alternative aviation fuel. The Committee encourages the FAA to 
establish the Center of Excellence in a way that will build on 
work already performed by a consortium examining the 
development of alternative aviation fuel.
    Unmanned Aerial Systems.--The Committee is aware of the 
numerous issues facing FAA as technology develops to aid the 
integration of unmanned aerial vehicles into the National Air 
Space [NAS]. The need for this integration is even more urgent 
given the recent numerous incidents of national disasters 
including a major oil spill, devastating tornadoes and 
unprecedented flooding. The Committee is aware of the FAA's 
progress in establishing an FAA Unmanned Aerial System [UAS] 
Center of Excellence to address a host of issues surrounding 
integration of UAS systems into the NAS during times of 
emergency, and to utilize these lessons learned to provide 
essential data to the Center of Excellence as it works toward 
non-emergency integration. The Committee directs the FAA to 
complete the establishment of the UAS Center of Excellence with 
funds provided for UAS research and include the UAS Center of 
Excellence as an integral part of the FAA's UAS research 
program. The Committee further directs that the new Center of 
Excellence shall: provide recommendations for a safe, non-
exclusionary airspace designation for cooperative manned and 
unmanned flight operations; conduct research to support UAS 
interagency requirements to include emergency response, 
maritime contingencies, and bio-fuel clean fuel technologies; 
conduct flight testing of UAS and related navigation procedures 
and equipment; encourage leveraging and coordination of such 
research and development activities with the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Department of 
Defense; provide recommendations on certification, flight 
standards, and air traffic requirements; and facilitate UAS 
technology transfer to other civilian and defense agencies, 
initially focusing upon emergency management. The Administrator 
shall take into consideration geographical and climate 
diversity, relevant research capability, and participating 
consortia from the public and private sectors, educational 
institutions, and nonprofit organizations.

                       GRANTS-IN-AID FOR AIRPORTS

                (LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

                      (LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

                    (AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fiscal year--
                                                              ----------------------------------    Committee
                                                                 2012 enacted    2013 estimate    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resources from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund:
    Limitation on obligations................................   $3,350,000,000   $2,424,000,000   $3,350,000,000
    Liquidation of contract authorization....................    3,435,000,000    3,400,000,000    3,400,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          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 
$3,350,000,000 for grants-in-aid to airports for fiscal year 
2013. The recommended limitation on obligations is $926,000,000 
more than the budget estimate. Under the administration's 
request, airport grants would be reserved for general aviation 
and small commercial airports, while large and medium 
commercial airports would be allowed to raise their passenger 
facility charges in order to finance capital improvements. The 
Committee notes that an increase to passenger facility charges 
was considered as part of the debate over the bill to 
reauthorize the FAA. That increase, however, was not included 
in the final legislation, which was enacted just two months 
ago. The Committee therefore recommends a funding level that 
would fund capital improvements at all airports that support 
our nation's air transportation system.
    In addition, the Committee recommends a liquidating cash 
appropriation of $3,400,000,000 for grants-in-aid to airports. 
The recommended level is equal to the budget estimate and 
$35,000,000 less than the fiscal year 2012 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.
    Local Cost Share.--The recently enacted FAA Modernization 
and Reform Act of 2012 increased the local share requirement 
for projects at most small airports from 5 percent to 10 
percent. The Committee is concerned about how this new 
requirement will affect small airports that have started--but 
not yet completed--multi-year projects. For this reason, the 
Committee included language that would allow small airports to 
continue contributing 5 percent of the total cost for 
unfinished phased projects that were already underway before 
the bill was signed into law. This provision would not apply to 
new projects that small airports started after enactment of the 
law.
    Airport Privatization.--Congress created the Airport 
Privatization Pilot Program in 1996 to attract private 
companies to lease or buy public airports. The Committee is 
aware there are some public airports interested in being sold 
or leased through the pilot program this upcoming fiscal year. 
The Department of Transportation has the discretionary 
authority to waive existing Federal funding repayment 
requirements. The Committee expects the Department to use its 
discretionary authority to waive repayment of past Federal 
funds at privatized airports judiciously.
    Administrative Expenses.--The Committee recommends 
$103,000,000 to cover administrative expenses. This funding 
level is equal to the budget request, and $2,000,000 more than 
the fiscal year 2012 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 2012 enacted level.
    Airport Technology.--The Committee recommends $29,300,000 
for airport technology research. This funding level is equal to 
the budget request, and $50,000 more than the fiscal year 2012 
level.
    Small Community Air Service Development Program [SCASDP].--
The Committee recommends $6,000,000 for the Small Community Air 
Service Development Program. This funding level is equal to the 
fiscal year 2012 enacted level. The administration requested no 
funds for this program for fiscal year 2013.

       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 2013.
    Section 111 prohibits funds in this act from being 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 the FAA from paying Sunday premium 
pay except in those cases where the individual actually worked 
on a Sunday.
    Section 115 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 116 allows all airports experiencing the required 
level of boardings through charter and scheduled air service to 
be eligible for funds under 49 U.S.C. 47114(c).
    Section 117 requires approval from the Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Administration of the Department of 
Transportation for retention bonuses for any FAA employee.
    Section 118 limits to 20 percent the cost-share required 
under the contract tower cost-share program.
    Section 119 requires that, upon request by a private owner 
or operator of an aircraft, the Secretary block the display of 
that owner or operator's aircraft registration number in the 
Aircraft Situational Display to Industry program.
    Section 119A prohibits funds in this act for salaries and 
expenses of more than seven political and Presidential 
appointees in the Federal Aviation Administration.
    Section 119B requires the FAA to conduct public outreach 
and provide justification to the Committee before increasing 
fees under section 44721 of title 49, United States Code.
    Section 119C prohibits funds from being used to change 
weight restrictions or prior permission rules at Teterboro 
Airport in New Jersey.

                     Federal Highway Administration


                          FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

                          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 $39,882,583,000 would be provided for the activities of the 
Federal Highway Administration in fiscal year 2013. The 
recommendation is $2,686,417,000 less than the budget request. 
The total program level under the Committee recommendations is 
$1,661,999,670 less than the fiscal year 2012 enacted level; 
however, the total for fiscal year 2012 also included 
$1,662,000,000 in disaster spending that would not be repeated 
for fiscal year 2013 under the Committee recommendation. The 
following table summarizes the Committee's recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Fiscal year--
                                                        --------------------------------------     Committee
                                                            2012 enacted      2013 estimate      recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-aid highway program obligation limitation......    $39,143,582,670    $41,830,000,000    $39,143,583,000
Emergency relief and equity bonus exempt contract              739,000,000        739,000,000        739,000,000
 author-  ity..........................................
Emergency relief (disaster spending)...................      1,662,000,000  .................  .................
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total............................................     41,554,582,670     42,569,000,000     39,882,583,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Limitation, 2012........................................    $412,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................     437,780,000
Committee recommendation................................     426,476,000

                          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 
$426,476,000 for administrative expenses of the agency. This 
limitation is $11,304,000 less than the budget request and 
$14,476,000 more than the fiscal year 2012 enacted level.
    In addition, $3,220,000 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.
    The recommended limitation on administrative expenses 
includes $5,000,000 for improvements to the agency's financial 
management reporting system, and another $4,000,000 for the 
integration of the agency's data and reporting system.
     The Committee applauds FHWA's efforts to reduce 
administrative costs, use technology to avoid unnecessary 
travel, printing and production costs, and pursue other 
opportunities for increased efficiency. The Committee directs 
FHWA to provide the Committee information no later than March 
31, 2013, on actual savings achieved, projected savings 
expected to be achieved in fiscal year 2013 and additional 
opportunities for savings in fiscal year 2014. The Committee 
further directs FHWA to apply savings achieved in fiscal year 
2013 toward its video teleconferencing modernization 
initiative.

                       LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Limitation, 2012........................................ $39,143,582,670
Budget estimate, 2013...................................  41,830,000,000
Committee recommendation................................  39,143,583,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Federal-aid highway 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 2013 Federal-
aid highways obligations to $39,143,583,000 which is 
$2,686,417,000 less than the budget request and $330 more than 
the fiscal year 2012 enacted level for the Federal-aid highway 
program. The obligation limitation included in the budget 
request is consistent with the administration's legislative 
proposal for a long-term authorization of the surface 
transportation programs; however, as discussed earlier in this 
report, the Committee must base its recommendation on the 
assumption that the levels of contract authority currently 
provided under the short-term extension of surface 
transportation programs will be continued throughout fiscal 
year 2013. The Committee cannot presuppose what legislation 
will be enacted through the authorization process.
    Within the overall limitation on fiscal year 2013 Federal-
aid highway obligations, the Committee recommends limiting 
fiscal year 2013 obligations on transportation research to 
$429,800,000. The recommendation for transportation research is 
equal to the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. 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.
    Highway Public-Private Partnerships.--In 2008, the 
Government Accountability Office [GAO] issued a report entitled 
``More Rigorous Up-Front Analysis Could Better Secure Potential 
Benefits and Protect the Public Interest.'' In this report, GAO 
noted that the Department has promoted public-private 
partnerships, but done little to help State and local 
governments evaluate the trade-offs involved in entering a 
public-private partnership or determine how such partnerships 
can be established in a way that protects the national 
interest. GAO recommended that the Department develop objective 
criteria for identifying potential national public interests in 
highway public-private partnerships, and identify additional 
legal authority, guidance or assessment tools that may be 
needed for the Department to play a targeted role in ensuring 
that such national interests are appropriately considered in 
the development of public-private partnerships. The Committee 
directs the Secretary of Transportation to develop such 
objective criteria and identify additional legal authority, 
guidance or assessment tools, as recommended by the GAO.
    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 2012, President's request and Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2013]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Fiscal year
                                                           Fiscal year       budget request        Committee
                                                             2012\1\            2013\2\        recommendation\3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Formula Programs

ALABAMA...............................................       $686,715,565       $721,502,740        $687,225,988
ALASKA................................................        407,862,245        329,377,227         408,129,973
ARIZONA...............................................        656,350,209        707,923,731         656,788,953
ARKANSAS..............................................        458,149,130        455,990,253         458,465,111
CALIFORNIA............................................      3,258,347,193      3,297,290,087       3,260,629,974
COLORADO..............................................        484,984,546        471,319,343         485,324,649
CONNECTICUT...........................................        447,359,543        489,633,673         447,666,669
DELAWARE..............................................        150,246,610        143,114,129         150,352,443
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA..................................        146,005,716        142,498,848         146,111,947
FLORIDA...............................................      1,694,197,099      1,822,922,011       1,695,313,174
GEORGIA...............................................      1,156,274,283      1,292,660,185       1,157,047,023
HAWAII................................................        154,383,858        153,577,960         154,495,053
IDAHO.................................................        257,100,386        267,457,980         257,273,803
ILLINOIS..............................................      1,284,161,217      1,194,812,213       1,285,048,527
INDIANA...............................................        853,135,679        913,880,701         853,701,029
IOWA..................................................        434,559,537        396,068,399         434,867,846
KANSAS................................................        345,073,584        370,073,864         345,322,528
KENTUCKY..............................................        599,778,227        618,836,820         600,201,353
LOUISIANA.............................................        615,331,311        574,640,818         615,761,455
MAINE.................................................        169,109,016        159,058,844         169,232,630
MARYLAND..............................................        535,114,355        569,098,312         535,496,347
MASSACHUSETTS.........................................        554,173,040        601,418,779         554,571,606
MICHIGAN..............................................        952,607,569      1,070,564,652         953,268,743
MINNESOTA.............................................        570,248,002        563,193,560         570,642,187
MISSISSIPPI...........................................        429,462,191        429,498,244         429,765,041
MISSOURI..............................................        814,634,564        847,516,903         815,192,736
MONTANA...............................................        346,272,268        345,661,081         346,505,111
NEBRASKA..............................................        263,024,903        263,785,312         263,211,957
NEVADA................................................        328,405,134        251,700,850         328,632,645
NEW HAMPSHIRE.........................................        149,840,374        166,190,117         149,945,422
NEW JERSEY............................................        896,898,658        949,360,717         897,514,856
NEW MEXICO............................................        323,793,179        345,737,644         324,016,136
NEW YORK..............................................      1,525,471,569      1,645,878,639       1,526,553,201
NORTH CAROLINA........................................        935,614,205      1,024,065,243         936,259,326
NORTH DAKOTA..........................................        225,904,110        223,736,759         226,064,716
OHIO..................................................      1,186,578,402      1,291,814,270       1,187,397,774
OKLAHOMA..............................................        575,012,624        552,702,757         575,415,265
OREGON................................................        445,144,900        409,239,319         445,461,771
PENNSYLVANIA..........................................      1,489,293,086      1,640,801,464       1,490,372,433
RHODE ISLAND..........................................        197,365,100        179,412,959         197,509,369
SOUTH CAROLINA........................................        564,689,916        594,223,984         565,073,874
SOUTH DAKOTA..........................................        249,368,744        240,932,357         249,542,161
TENNESSEE.............................................        745,044,062        794,662,058         745,558,953
TEXAS.................................................      2,828,750,110      3,041,646,470       2,830,634,525
UTAH..................................................        291,615,935        263,763,649         291,818,692
VERMONT...............................................        182,336,297        150,888,591         182,469,282
VIRGINIA..............................................        899,984,685        962,787,944         900,610,730
WASHINGTON............................................        603,272,439        601,563,994         603,705,869
WEST VIRGINIA.........................................        386,604,429        388,502,030         386,875,846
WISCONSIN.............................................        650,558,021        704,564,224         650,990,895
WYOMING...............................................        220,925,931        245,658,942         221,080,431
                                                       ---------------------------------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL........................................     34,627,133,756     35,883,211,650      34,651,118,028
                                                       =========================================================
Non-Formula Programs..................................      4,516,448,914      5,946,788,350       4,492,464,972
                                                       =========================================================
      Total...........................................     39,143,582,670     41,830,000,000      39,143,583,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Estimated assuming extension of the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2012 through September 30, 2012.
\2\Estimated for the fiscal year 2013 President's budget; distribution of obligation limitation based on State
  under SAFETEA-LU; funding for Puerto Rico is apportioned under the fiscal year 2013 President's budget but
  included inapportionment shares ``Non-formula programs'' for purposes of comparison.
\3\Estimated assuming extension of the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2012 through September 30, 2013.

                      FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY PROGRAM

    The roads and bridges that make up our Nation's highway 
infrastructure are built, operated, and maintained through the 
joint efforts of Federal, State, and local governments. States 
have much flexibility to use Federal-aid highway funds to best 
meet their individual needs and priorities, with FHWA's 
assistance and oversight.
    The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation 
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users [SAFETEA-LU], the highway, 
highway safety, and transit authorization through fiscal year 
2009, made Federal-aid highways funds available in various 
categories of spending. These categories were continued by each 
of the short-term extension acts that continued the authorities 
provided under SAFETEA-LU.
    National Highway System [NHS].--The Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act [ISTEA] of 1991 authorized the 
NHS, which was subsequently established as a 161,000-mile road 
system by the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995. 
This system serves major population centers, intermodal 
transportation facilities, international border crossings, and 
major destinations. The NHS program provides funding for this 
system, consisting of roads that are of primary Federal 
interest: the current interstate; other rural principal 
arterials; urban freeways and connecting urban principal 
arterials; facilities on the Defense Department's designated 
Strategic Highway Network; and roads connecting the NHS to 
intermodal facilities. The Federal share for the NHS program is 
generally 80 percent, subject to the sliding-scale adjustment, 
with an availability period of 4 years.
    Interstate Maintenance [IM].--The 46,876-mile Dwight D. 
Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways 
retains a separate identity within the NHS. The IM program 
finances projects to rehabilitate, restore, resurface and 
reconstruct the interstate system. Reconstruction that 
increases capacity, other than HOV lanes, is not eligible for 
IM funds. The Federal share for the IM program is 90 percent, 
subject to the sliding-scale adjustment, and funds are 
available for 4 years.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation 
[TIFIA].--The TIFIA credit program provides funds to assist in 
the development of major infrastructure facilities through 
greater non-Federal and private sector participation, building 
on public willingness to dedicate future revenues or user fees 
in order to receive transportation benefits earlier than would 
be possible under traditional funding techniques. The TIFIA 
program provides secured loans, loan guarantees, and standby 
lines of credit that may be drawn upon to supplement project 
revenues, if needed, during the first 10 years of project 
operations.
    As required by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, this 
account records, for this program, the subsidy costs associated 
with the direct loans, loan guarantees, and lines of credit 
obligated in 1992 and beyond (including modifications of direct 
loans or loan guarantees that resulted from obligations or 
commitments in any year), as well as administrative expenses of 
this program. The subsidy amounts are estimated on present 
value basis; the administrative expenses are estimated on a 
cash basis.
    Appalachian Development Highway System.--This program makes 
funds available to construct highways and access roads under 
section 201 of the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 
1965. Under SAFETEA-LU, funding is distributed among the 13 
eligible States based on the latest available cost-to-complete 
estimate prepared by the Appalachian Regional Commission.
    Delta Region Transportation Development Program.--This 
program encourages multistate transportation planning and 
supports the development of transportation infrastructure in 
the eight States that comprise the region of the Mississippi 
Delta: Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, 
Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee.
    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.

                 LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2012.................................... $39,882,582,670
Budget estimate, 2013...................................  42,569,000,000
Committee recommendation................................  39,882,583,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a liquidating cash appropriation 
of $39,882,583,000. The recommended level is $2,686,417,000 
less than the budget request and $330 more than the fiscal year 
2012 enacted level. This level of liquidating authority 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 provides requirements for any waiver of Buy 
American requirements.
    Section 123 continues a provision prohibiting tolling in 
Texas, with exceptions.
    Section 124 restores contract authority for FHWA's 
administrative expenses.
    Section 125 requires that funds authorized for purposes 
under section 1960 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 
Efficient Transportation Equity Act shall be allocated in 
accordance with such section.

              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 
and motor coach operations, as well as reduce the number and 
severity of accidents. Agency resources and activities prevent 
and mitigate commercial motor vehicle and motor coach accidents 
through education, regulation, enforcement, stakeholder 
training, technological innovation, and improved information 
systems. FMCSA is also 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. To 
accomplish these activities, FMCSA works with Federal, State, 
and local enforcement agencies, the motor carrier industry, 
highway safety organizations, and the public.
    MCSIA and the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users [SAFETEA-LU] 
provide funding authorization for FMCSA's Motor Carrier Safety 
Operations and Programs and Motor Carrier Safety Grants. As the 
current authorization expires June 30, 2012, the Committee 
recommendation is contingent on a full-year authorization.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a total level of $572,218,000 for 
obligations and liquidations from the Highway Trust Fund. This 
level is $7,782,000 less than the request and $17,494,000 more 
than the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. This level allows 
FMCSA to utilize the authorized level of contract authority 
provided under SAFETEA-LU plus $22,074,000 in unobligated 
carryover contract authority for agency operations.
    FMCSA is responsible for developing, implementing, and 
enforcing regulations for the motor carrier and motor coach 
industry to ensure that qualified drivers and safe vehicles are 
operating on our Nation's highways. By effectively carrying out 
its responsibilities, the agency provides industry with 
appropriate guidance and oversight to ensure both the efficient 
movement of goods and people, as well as the safety of the 
driving public.
    For the past several years, the Committee has expressed its 
frustration with FMCSA's failure to address recommendations by 
the National Transportation Safety Board [NTSB], the Department 
of Transportation's Office of Inspector General [OIG], and the 
Government Accountability Office [GAO] in a timely manner. For 
example, NTSB has 56 open recommendations affecting FMCSA and 
continues to rate the agency's response as unacceptable in 
addressing the improvement of the collection and maintenance of 
data on hours of service, the mandatory use of electronic on-
board recorders, the identification of the chameleon carriers, 
and the agency's ability to prevent operators from providing 
services if they have serious safety violations for mechanical 
failures or unqualified drivers. While OIG open recommendations 
have decreased significantly from 22 to 10 over the last 2 
years, concerns remain with FMCSA's ability to counter fraud in 
the Commercial Driver's License Program, properly vet new 
entrants to prevent the reincarnation of passenger and 
household goods carriers, prevent fraud among household goods 
carriers, and reform its contracting and acquisition tools.
    FMCSA is undertaking a multilateral approach to addressing 
many of these long-standing and serious safety issues, but 
virtually all programmatic, regulatory and enforcement 
solutions remain a work in progress. The lack of a multi-year 
surface transportation reauthorization bill inhibits the 
agency's ability to strengthen programs, develop regulations, 
improve information technology systems, and target enforcement 
efforts on emerging highway safety initiatives that could 
significantly improve road and passenger safety. However, the 
Committee has identified $22,000,000 in prior year unobligated 
balances of contract authority that will allow the agency to 
make advances in several safety initiatives. FMCSA leadership 
has demonstrated a commitment to addressing the many safety 
recommendations, while also providing industry ample 
opportunity for constructive feedback that aligns with national 
safety objectives. The Committee believes that FMCSA has the 
opportunity to generate further reductions in large truck and 
bus fatalities and injuries 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, 2012........................................    $247,724,000
Budget estimate, 2013 (limitation)......................     250,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     247,594,000

                          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 and 
authority to liquidate an equal amount of contract 
authorization of $247,594,000 for FMCSA's Operations and 
Programs. The recommendation is $130,000 less than the fiscal 
year 2012 enacted level and $2,406,000 less than the budget 
request.

                           OPERATING EXPENSES

    The Committee recommends $192,705,000 for operating 
expenses. This level is $130,000 less than the fiscal year 2012 
enacted level and $23,295,000 less than the budget request.
    Compliance, Safety and Accountability Program [CSA].--FMCSA 
currently relies on a labor-intensive model to perform 
compliance audits of motor carrier operators. Using this method 
of oversight, the agency is only able to reach 3 percent of the 
industry annually. More than a decade ago, the National 
Transportation Safety Board [NTSB] concluded that this method 
of highway safety oversight was ineffective, and recommended 
that FMCSA develop a more comprehensive method of evaluating 
operator and driver performance into its oversight and 
enforcement regime.
    In response, FMCSA began to implement its Compliance, 
Safety and Accountability Program [CSA] in 2004. The CSA 
program represents a complete overhaul of FMCSA's systems and 
investigation practices, and is designed to better target the 
agency's resources on the riskiest carriers. The goal of CSA is 
to use performance data to target interventions and assist 
carriers in coming into compliance. The CSA program uses the 
new Safety Measurement System [SMS] to identify motor carriers 
that are at risk of causing a crash or pose a significant 
safety hazard.
    Unfortunately, after 8 years and $36,000,000 in Federal 
investment, key components of FMCSA's CSA program are 
significantly delayed, limiting the agency's ability to 
implement NTSB's recommendations to expand oversight of motor 
carrier operators and drivers. The Safety Fitness Determination 
[SFD] rulemaking, which is the cornerstone of CSA, was 
initially proposed to be completed in 2009, but the notice of 
proposed rulemaking is now targeted for publication in 
November, 2012. This rulemaking will be subject to great 
scrutiny, which is likely to require a significant amount of 
time. Until the SFD rulemaking is complete, FMCSA continues to 
rely on the current rating and enforcement system that fails to 
place sufficient emphasis on both driver and vehicle 
qualifications, thereby compromising safety on our Nation's 
highways. The Committee expects FMCSA to meet its new SFD rule 
target date of November, 2012.
    Additionally, according to GAO, FMCSA has ``not developed a 
plan or set any timetable'' to assess driver fitness as part of 
CSA. Integrating driver fitness is an important component since 
driver behavior is the single largest cause of crashes. The 
Committee directs the agency to provide a report to the 
Committee no later than February 4, 2013 on the driver fitness 
component of CSA that identifies key objectives, programmatic 
goals, information technology system requirements, and 
timelines for implementation.
    Finally, the agency has not developed a method for 
determining crash accountability. The Committee believes that 
crash accountability is an important factor when evaluating a 
carrier's crash rate for the SMS. The Committee directs FMCSA 
to work with the Department of Transportation's Volpe Center to 
develop a mechanism to fairly establish crash accountability 
and how it weighs on a carrier's SMS score. FMCSA shall report 
to the Committee on its progress no later than February 4, 
2013.
    The Committee strongly supports the agency's efforts to 
improve its programs, and remains focused on ensuring CSA 
delivers the promised results. The Committee is troubled by 
FMCSA's failure to meet critical milestones for implementing 
this new system. Therefore, the Committee requests that GAO 
continue to monitor the implementation of CSA and evaluate 
FMCSA's ability to meet its designated milestones.
    Chameleon Carriers.--The Committee continues to have 
concerns with FMCSA's ability to detect and prevent 
unscrupulous motor carrier and motor coach operators from 
evading enforcement or out-of-service orders by going out of 
business and then re-incorporating as a ``new'' transportation 
service provider. These carriers are a blight to the industry 
and a hazard to the traveling public.
    A 2009 GAO report found that 9 percent of motor carriers 
placed out-of-service by FMCSA between 2007 and 2008 applied as 
new entrants and many of these operators continued to 
demonstrate a pattern of significant violations under their new 
operating authority. Based on these findings, the Committee 
directed GAO to evaluate the effectiveness of FMCSA's new 
applicant screening programs to prevent chameleon carriers from 
obtaining new operating authority. The GAO audit released in 
March 2012 found that FMCSA's vetting process is not 
comprehensive or risk-based, legal constraints impede its 
ability to pursue enforcement action, and low penalties are an 
insufficient deterrent to discourage chameleon practices. GAO 
recommended that FMCSA develop a risk-based process to target 
the new entrant applications to carriers with chameleon 
tendencies. This would allow FMCSA to expand the vetting 
process to freight carriers, which represent 94 percent of the 
industry, with few additional resources. FMCSA concurred with 
these findings and is in the process of developing 
specifications for the modification of its vetting information 
technology [IT] systems. To support this effort, the Committee 
has provided an increase of $3,450,000 to fund the 
modifications necessary to the IT systems and to hire up to 
three additional staff. The Committee directs FMCSA to report 
to the Committee by March 29, 2013, on its implementation of a 
risk-based vetting methodology to identify chameleon motor 
carriers applying for operating authority. The report should 
include timelines and performance goals for expanding vetting 
to the freight sector, the modification of information systems 
to improve the vetting program consistent with the 
recommendations of GAO Report 12-364, and other relevant 
information. Further, the Committee directs FMCSA to clarify 
the application of a uniform Federal standard for enforcement 
action against chameleon carriers.
    Electronic On-Board Recorders.--In 1977, NTSB issued its 
first recommendation on the use of on-board recording devices 
for commercial vehicles to provide an efficient and reliable 
means of tracking the number of hours a commercial motor 
vehicle operator drives. NTSB subsequently issued additional 
recommendations concerning the use of on-board recorders. In 
2008, NTSB added to its Most Wanted List a recommendation that 
FMCSA require electronic on-board data recorders [EOBRs] to 
maintain accurate carrier records of drivers' hours-of-service. 
This recommendation remains ``open unacceptable''. The 
Committee supports FMCSA's commitment to issue a broader EOBR 
mandate and encourages FMCSA to expand EOBR usage for 
interstate commercial vehicles.
    High-Risk Carriers.--Since fiscal year 2008, the Committee 
has required reports on the agency's ability to meet the 
requirement to conduct compliance reviews on all motor carriers 
identified as high-risk. Since the agency first began reporting 
its performance to the Committee, the agency's ability to 
comply with this requirement has improved significantly, from 
completing compliance reviews of 69 percent of high-risk 
carriers in fiscal year 2008 to 86 percent in the 2010 calendar 
year.
    In December 2010, FMCSA deployed the new Carrier Safety 
Measurement System [CSMS] as part of its Compliance, Safety, 
and Accountability [CSA] program. CSMS more precisely 
identifies motor carriers that pose the highest safety risk by 
quantifying the on-road safety performance of carriers in seven 
Behavior Analysis and Safety Improvement Categories [BASICs] 
when a serious violation has been discovered. CSMS replaced the 
SafeStat measurement system as FMCSA's tool to prioritize motor 
carriers for potential intervention. CSMS emphasizes on-road 
safety performance using all safety-based inspection 
violations. Under CSA and consistent with section 4138 of 
SAFETEA-LU, any motor carrier with certain BASIC alerts for 2 
consecutive months is now labeled ``mandatory'' under CSMS. 
Mandatory motor carriers are prioritized for an onsite 
investigation if they have not undergone an investigation in 
the last 24 months. Under FMCSA regulations, carriers 
identified as mandatory must have a compliance review conducted 
within one year.
    During FMCSA's transition to its CSA model in fiscal year 
2011, the agency was forced to reduce the number of 
investigations it was able to perform. During the year, FMCSA 
identified 8,544 carriers as mandatory, of which only 44 
percent, or 3,760, received compliance reviews. During the 
first two quarters of fiscal year 2012, 3,597 carriers were 
labeled as mandatory and 3,198, or 88 percent of the compliance 
reviews were conducted. Additionally, 1,682 unsafe carriers are 
now out of business and the total backlog has been reduced to 
3,501, of which 177 are overdue. The Committee recognizes the 
reduction in compliance reviews during this period of 
transition is unavoidable; however, fiscal year 2011 represents 
the lowest inspection rate since the Committee began collecting 
performance data. The Committee expects FMCSA to continue to 
prioritize these carriers for inspection and significantly 
reduce the backlog of carriers requiring reviews now that the 
mandatory rates are stabilized. The Committee directs the 
agency to provide the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations with a report on its ability to meet its 
requirements to evaluate mandatory carriers by March 29, 2013.
    Commercial Driver's License [CDL] Veterans-to-Work 
Initiative.--The Committee commends FMCSA's efforts to assist 
military motor vehicle drivers' transition to civilian 
employment in the trucking industry. FMCSA has been actively 
working with the Army and Army Reserves since 2009 to develop 
equivalent standards between commercial and Army truck driver 
testing. They have identified comparable civilian and military 
vehicle types and improved State DMV's access to military 
personnel driving records. In May 2011, FMCSA issued new 
regulations to allow States to exempt veterans from certain 
testing requirements when drivers certify that they have 
experience that meets civilian standards. FMCSA also issued a 
standardized certification form to encourage States to adopt a 
more uniform program. However, States have been slow to adopt 
the new Federal regulations. To date, 15 States have taken 
advantage of this new authority, 3 are in the process of doing 
so, and 8 States have declined to modify their CDL program. The 
other 24 States have yet to respond to the American Association 
of Motor Vehicle Administrators [AAMVA] survey on this issue. 
The Committee directs the Secretary and Administrator of FMCSA 
to increase States' awareness of the regulatory streamlining 
opportunities available to assist veterans' transition to 
civilian employment.
    ADA Compliance.--For several years, this Committee has 
pushed FMCSA to enforce DOT's own Americans with Disability Act 
[ADA] regulations for over-the-road curbside operators. 
Congress had to pass a law to compel the agency to accept its 
responsibility to deny or revoke operating authority based on 
an operator's inability or unwillingness to meet DOT's ADA 
regulations. However, to date, FMCSA has taken few enforcement 
actions related to ADA noncompliance. The Committee directs 
FMCSA to report to the Committee by December 10, 2012, on 
enforcement actions the agency has taken in the preceding 
fiscal year, including the number of denials or revocations due 
to noncompliance with ADA regulations. The Committee expects 
the information to demonstrate that FMCSA takes its 
responsibility to enforce DOT's ADA regulations seriously.

                            PROGRAM EXPENSES

    The Committee recommends $54,889,000 for FMCSA's program 
expenses. This amount is equal to the enacted level for fiscal 
year 2012 and $20,889,000 more than the budget request.

                     NATIONAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY

                (LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

                      (LIMITATION OF OBLIGATIONS)

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Limitation, 2012........................................................
Budget estimate, 2012...................................................
Committee recommendation................................     $16,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The National Motor Carrier Safety program [NMCSP] was 
authorized by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 
Century, amended by the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 
1999, and discontinued under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 
and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users. 
This program consisted of two major areas: the motor carrier 
safety assistance program [MCSAP] and the information systems 
and strategic safety initiatives [ISSSI] program. MCSAP is 
targeted at roadside vehicle safety inspections of both 
interstate and intrastate commercial motor vehicle traffic, 
while ISSSI provides funds to develop and enhance data-related 
motor carrier programs.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations and 
authority to liquidate an equal amount of contract 
authorizations from prior year unobligated balances of 
$16,000,000 for border facility improvements and information 
technology modernization efforts for FMCSA operations and 
programs.

                      MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY GRANTS

                (LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

                      (LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

                         (INCLUDING RESCISSION)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Liquidation of
                                         contract        Limitation on
                                      authorization       obligations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2012..............       $307,000,000       $307,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013.............        330,000,000        330,000,000
Committee recommendation..........        308,624,000        308,624,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                      MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY GRANTS

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of 
$308,624,000 for motor carrier safety grants. The recommended 
limitation is $1,624,000 more than the fiscal year 2012 enacted 
level and $21,376,000 less than the budget request. The 
Committee recommends a separate limitation on obligations for 
each grant program funded under this account with the funding 
allocation identified below. The obligation limitation 
recommendation for the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program 
[MCSAP] includes $16,624,000 for High Priority grants and 
$29,000,000 for New Entrant grants.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program [MCSAP]......       $213,624,000
Commercial Driver's License and Driver Improvement            30,000,000
 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------

 ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION--FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMNINSTRATION

    Section 130 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.
    Section 131 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.

             National Highway Traffic Safety Administration


                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Federal Government's regulatory role in motor vehicle 
and highway safety began in September of 1966 with the 
enactment of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act 
of 1966 and the Highway Safety Act of 1966. 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 within the Federal Highway Administration. In 
March 1970, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
[NHTSA] was established as a separate organizational entity in 
the Department of Transportation.
    NHTSA is responsible for motor vehicle safety, highway 
safety behavioral programs, motor vehicle information, and 
automobile fuel economy programs. NHTSA's current programs are 
authorized in five major laws: (1) the National Traffic and 
Motor Vehicle Safety Act (chapter 301 of title 49, United 
States Code [U.S.C.]; (2) the Highway Safety Act (chapter 4 of 
title 23, U.S.C.); (3) the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost 
Savings Act [MVICSA] (part C of subtitle VI of title 49, 
U.S.C.); the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability 
and Documentation [TREAD] Act; and (5) the Safe, Accountable, 
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 
Users [SAFETEA-LU].
    The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 
provides for the establishment and enforcement of safety 
standards for vehicles and related equipment and the conduct of 
supporting research.
    The Highway Safety Act of 1966 established NHTSA's 
responsibility for providing States with financial assistance 
to support coordinated national highway safety programs 
(section 402 of title 23, U.S.C.), as well its role in highway 
safety research, development, and demonstration programs 
(section 403 of title 23, U.S.C.). The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 
1988 (Public Law 100-690) authorized NHTSA to make grants to 
States to implement and enforce drunk driving prevention 
programs.
    The MVICSA established NHTSA's responsibilities for 
developing low-speed collision bumper standards and odometer 
regulations, as well its consumer information activities. 
Subsequent amendments to this law established the agency's 
responsibility for administering mandatory automotive fuel 
economy standards, theft prevention standards for high theft 
lines of passenger motor vehicles, and automobile content 
labeling requirements.
    In 2000, the TREAD Act expanded NHTSA's responsibilities 
further, requiring the agency to promulgate regulations for the 
stability of light duty vehicles, tire safety and labeling 
standards, improving the safety of child restraints, and 
establishing a child restraint safety rating consumer 
information program.
    SAFETEA-LU, which was enacted on August 10, 2005, 
established support for NHTSA's high-visibility enforcement 
efforts, motorcycle safety grants, and child safety and child 
booster safety incentive grant programs. Finally, SAFETEA-LU 
adopted new motor vehicle safety and information provisions, 
including rulemaking directions to reduce vehicle rollover 
crashes and vehicle passenger ejections, and improve passenger 
safety in side impact crashes.
    SAFETEA-LU expired on September 30, 2009. Congress has not 
yet completed work on a long-term reauthorization bill for the 
surface transportation programs. At present, Congress has 
extended the surface transportation programs through June 30, 
2012. In the absence of a long-term reauthorization of surface 
transportation programs, the Committee has generally assumed 
the continuation of the current program structure and that 
funding levels will be extended and annualized for the 2013 
fiscal year.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    In 2010, the number of overall traffic fatalities reached 
the lowest level since 1949, declining for the 19th consecutive 
quarter. In 2010, 32,788 people were killed on our roadways, a 
3-percent decrease from 2009 and a 24-percent decrease from 
2005. While the trend in reduced highway fatalities is 
significant and encouraging, the agency and its State partners 
must remain diligent to sustain these gains as the economy 
recovers and discretionary travel begins to increase. The 
Committee recommends $809,374,000 for NHTSA to maintain current 
programs and continue its mission to save lives, prevent 
injuries, and reduce vehicle-related crashes. This level 
includes both budget authority and limitations on the 
obligation of contract authority. This funding is $171,626,000 
less than the President's request and $9,400,000 more than the 
fiscal year 2012 enacted level.
    The following table summarizes Committee recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Fiscal year--
                             Program                             --------------------------------    Committee
                                                                   2012 enacted    2013 estimate  recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations and Research.........................................    $249,646,000    $338,000,000    $259,046,000
Highway Traffic Safety Grants...................................     550,328,000     643,000,000     550,328,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................     799,974,000     981,000,000     809,374,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        OPERATIONS AND RESEARCH

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Highway Trust
                                                                   General Fund        Fund            Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012.................................    $140,146,000    $109,500,000    $249,646,000
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012.................................  ..............     338,000,000     338,000,000
Committee recommendation........................................     136,686,000     122,360,000     259,046,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          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 governments, 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, protection of motorcycle riders, pedestrian and 
bicyclist safety, pupil transportation, distracted and drowsy 
driving prevention, young and older driver safety, and improved 
accident investigation procedures.
    This account also provides funding to implement and operate 
the Problem Driver Pointer System [PDPS] and to 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.

                        OPERATIONS AND RESEARCH

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee provides $259,046,000 for Operations and 
Research that includes funding for the National Driver Register 
into this account. This level of funding is $83,954,000 less 
than the President's budget request and $9,400,000 more than 
the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. Of the total amount 
recommended for Operations and Research, $136,686,000 is 
derived from the General Fund and $122,360,000 is derived from 
the Highway Trust Fund, of which $4,000,000 is for the National 
Driver Register.
    Drunk Driving Prevention.--Drunk driving deaths continue to 
be the leading cause of highway fatalities. Although the number 
of drunk driving fatalities has dropped recently, they continue 
to represent 31 percent of all highway deaths--more than 10,200 
people in 2010. Numerous national, State, and local efforts are 
in place to prevent these fatalities, including high-visibility 
law enforcement campaigns and broader application of State 
ignition interlock requirements for drunk driving offenders. 
These activities are among the components of the Campaign to 
Eliminate Drunk Driving, which unites Mothers Against Drunk 
Driving, major auto manufacturers, law enforcement, and other 
stakeholders who share the goal of eliminating drunk driving.
    Since 2008, NHTSA has partnered with leading automobile 
manufacturers in the Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety 
[ACTS] on an ambitious research program to develop in-vehicle 
systems that are publicly acceptable, unobtrusive for drivers 
below the legal limit, reliable, and relatively inexpensive. 
The goal is to make technologies available for voluntary 
installation in production vehicles within the next decade. To 
date, NHTSA and ACTS have made significant progress towards 
achieving this goal. They have completed preliminary device 
performance specifications, conducted a rigorous technical 
review of potential technologies, and finalized proof-of-
concept research to identify technologies which hold the most 
promise. This has led to identification of two technologies--
breath-based and touch-based--which are now being developed for 
installation in a research vehicle for on-the-road testing and 
evaluation starting in fiscal year 2013. The Committee is 
strongly supportive of this promising research, which has the 
potential to prevent thousands of drunk driving deaths 
annually. The Committee recommends a total of $7,000,000 for 
ACTS vehicle testing and continued research. This level of 
funding is $6,000,000 more than the budget request and the 
fiscal year 2012 enacted level.
    The Committee recommends an additional $2,500,000 for 
impaired driving countermeasures. Funding will be used to 
provide technical assistance to States to promote enhanced 
ignition interlock programs, encourage further adoption of 
comprehensive statewide impaired driving programs, and support 
judicial outreach and education as proposed in the 
administration's budget. The Committee has repurposed funds for 
fiscal year 2013 from the seat belt grant program to fund these 
increases.
    Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standard [CAFE].--NHTSA is 
responsible for setting fuel economy standards for cars and 
trucks sold in the United States to reduce energy consumption. 
In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] is 
responsible for calculating the average fuel economy for each 
manufacturer. The President has directed both agencies to align 
their research, performance requirements, and regulatory 
framework to develop a coordinated national program that 
achieves the requirements of the Energy Independence and 
Security Act of 2007 and the Clean Air Act. The Committee 
recommends $10,900,000 for fiscal year 2013 for this 
initiative, as requested. Funding will be used to support the 
regulatory requirements for model years 2017 and beyond. The 
Committee instructs NHTSA, in coordination with EPA, to provide 
a long-range research and regulatory plan to the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations within 180 days of 
enactment describing the: (1) specific research projects that 
each agency is undertaking, their purpose, and intended goal; 
(2) cost estimates associated with each research and regulatory 
activity; and (3) major milestones and estimated completion 
dates for each activity. The plan should include all current 
and future expenditures, starting from fiscal year 2010 until 
all final actions are concluded for the regulation of medium 
and heavy duty trucks for model years 2017-2022.
    Child Hyperthermia Prevention.--The Committee commends 
NHTSA's leadership in increasing public awareness of the risks 
of death and serious injury to children from hyperthermia when 
left unattended in vehicles. The Committee supports the 
agency's plan to undertake a broader coordinated national 
campaign for the warm weather season in 2013, along the lines 
of the successful efforts more than a decade ago that changed 
the culture by convincing more parents and caregivers to place 
children 12 years of age and younger in safer rear seats. A 
similar effort to prevent hyperthermia deaths is certainly 
justified as there have been more than 500 of these deaths in 
vehicles since 1998, an average of 38 per year and rising.
    Tire Rolling Resistance.--The Committee believes reducing 
passenger car and light truck tire rolling resistance, while 
maintaining tire safety, can reduce fuel consumption, lessen 
U.S. dependence on oil imports and reduce consumer costs. 
Rolling resistance is the force required to keep a tire moving 
at a uniform speed. Less energy is needed to move a tire with 
lower rolling resistance. According to a comprehensive study by 
National Academy of Sciences, a 10-percent reduction in rolling 
resistance in the Nation's passenger car fleet could improve 
the fleet's fuel economy by up to 2 percent each year, a 
savings equivalent to the amount of gasoline consumed by 
approximately 2 million American households yearly.
    To encourage greater use of more fuel efficient tires, the 
Committee directs the Administrator to issue guidelines to 
examine the cost-benefit of replacement tires that are 30 
percent more efficient (lower rolling resistance) than the 
least efficient tires available on the market at the time of 
replacement. Guidelines should also require replacement tires 
to continue to meet Federal motor vehicle safety standards and 
Uniform tire quality grading standards.

                     HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANTS

                (LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

                      (LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Liquidation of
                                            contract      Limitation on
                                         authorization     obligations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2012..................     $550,328,000     $550,328,000
Budget estimate, 2013.................      643,000,000      643,000,000
Committee recommendation..............      550,328,000      550,328,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    SAFETEA-LU reauthorized three State grant programs: highway 
safety programs, occupant protection incentive grants, and 
alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures incentive grants. It 
also authorized for the first time an additional five State 
programs: safety belt performance grants, State traffic safety 
information systems improvement grants, high-visibility 
enforcement program, child safety and child booster seat safety 
incentive grants, and motorcyclist safety grants.
    SAFETEA-LU established a new safety belt performance 
incentive grant program under section 406 of title 23, United 
States Code; established a new State traffic safety information 
system improvement program grant program under section 408 of 
title 23, United States Code; amended the alcohol-impaired 
driving countermeasures incentive grant program authorized by 
section 410 of title 23, United States Code; established a new 
program to administer at least two high-visibility traffic 
safety law enforcement campaigns each year to achieve one or 
both of the following objectives: (1) reduce alcohol- or drug-
impaired operation of motor vehicles; and/or (2) increase the 
use of safety belts by occupants of motor vehicles.

                     HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANTS

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of 
$550,328,000 for the highway traffic safety grant programs 
funded under this heading. The recommended limitation is 
$92,672,000 less than the budget estimate and equal to the 
fiscal year 2012 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)............       8,500,000
Distracted Driver Incentive Grants......................      40,000,000
State Traffic Safety Information System Improvement           34,500,000
 Grants (section 408)...................................
Alcohol-Impaired Driving Countermeasures Incentive           139,000,000
 Grants (section 410)...................................
Motorcyclist Safety Grants (section 2010)...............       7,000,000
Child Safety and Child Booster Seat Safety Incentive           7,000,000
 Grants (section 2011)..................................
High Visibility Enforcement Program (section 2009)......      29,000,000
Administrative Expenses.................................      25,328,000
                                                         ---------------
      Total.............................................     550,328,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Distracted Driver.--In 2009, 8,974 people were killed and 
an estimated 417,000 were injured nationwide in crashes that 
were reported to be related to or affected by a distracted 
driver. Distracted driving encompasses a wide range of 
behaviors that take the driver's attention from his or her 
primary driving responsibilities. The Committee commends the 
Secretary's strong leadership on this emerging safety concern 
across all modes of transportation, and supports establishing a 
voluntary incentive grant program for States to encourage the 
enactment and enforcement of laws to prevent distracted 
driving. The Committee has included bill language to reallocate 
$40,000,000 in fiscal year 2013 from the seat belt performance 
grant program to fund a new distracted driving grant program 
for States that enact and enforce laws to prevent distracted 
driving with a focus on texting bans. The Committee has also 
included language to set aside $5,000,000 of the $40,000,000 
for the development, production, and use of broadcast and print 
media advertising to support enforcement of State laws to 
prevent distracted driving.

      ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY 
                             ADMINISTRATION

    Section 140 makes available $130,000 of obligation 
authority for section 402 of title 23 U.S.C. in order 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 from limitations on obligations for the 
current year.
    Section 142 prohibits funds for the implementation of 
section 404 of title 23, United States Code.

                    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. FRA 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, 2012....................................    $178,596,000
Budget estimate, 2013\1\................................     196,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     179,000,000

\1\The amount shown above represents the total level of funding 
requested for FRA's safety programs and operations. The budget includes 
an $80,000,000 user fee as offsetting collections that the Congressional 
Budget Office re-estimated at $40,000,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          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 $179,000,000 for Safety and 
Operations for fiscal year 2013, which is $17,000,000 less than 
the funding included for these activities in the budget request 
and $404,000 more than the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. The 
bill specifies that $12,860,000 shall remain available until 
expended. This funding covers the cost of the Automated Track 
Inspection Program, the Railroad Safety Information System, the 
Southeastern Transportation Study, research and development 
activities, contract support, and Alaska Railroad liabilities.

                   RAILROAD RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2012....................................     $35,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................      35,500,000
Committee recommendation................................      35,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $35,000,000 
for railroad research and development, which is $500,000 less 
than the budget request and equal to the fiscal year 2012 
enacted level.

       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 maintains 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 2013.

          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, 2012....................................    $466,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013\1\................................................
Committee recommendation................................     400,000,000

\1\The President's budget would establish two new trust fund accounts 
for Systems Preservation and Network Development totaling 
$2,546,000,000, of which $1,546,000,000 would be available to Amtrak 
under the new System Preservation Account for both capital and operating 
expenses.

    The Committee provides $400,000,000 for Amtrak operating 
grants. 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 
$66,000,000 less than the fiscal year 2012 enacted level.
    Fleet Plan.--In April, Amtrak issued an updated fleet plan, 
describing the railroad's strategy for replacing its outdated 
rolling stock over the next 30 years. For fiscal year 2014, the 
Committee continues to direct Amtrak to provide a unified 
request that includes funding related to its fleet plan and 
incorporates fleet acquisition into its prioritized list of 
capital projects. Amtrak should also continue to include annual 
information consistent with the comprehensive fleet plan in its 
budget submission, business plan, and 5-year financial plan. 
Future updates to the fleet plan should refine the analysis of 
ridership growth projections, consistent with OIG 
recommendations.

  CAPITAL AND DEBT SERVICE GRANTS TO THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER 
                              CORPORATION

Appropriations, 2012....................................    $952,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013\1\................................................
Committee recommendation................................   1,050,000,000

\1\The President's budget request would establish two new trust fund 
accounts for Systems Preservation and Network Development totaling 
$2,546,000,000, of which $1,546,000,000 would be available to Amtrak 
under the new System Preservation Account for both capital and operating 
expenses.

    The Committee recommends $1,050,000,000 for capital and 
debt service grants for Amtrak, of which $271,000,000 shall be 
available for debt service payments. The amount provided is 
$98,000,000 more than fiscal year 2012. Of the total amount 
recommended, not less than $20,000,000 may be used for the 
Gateway Program.
    ADA Compliance.--The Committee continues to believe that 
compliance with the requirements of the Americans with 
Disabilities Act [ADA] is essential to ensuring that all people 
have equal access to transportation services. In February 2009, 
Amtrak presented its plan for achieving compliance with the ADA 
over a 5-year period. Since then, the corporation has found it 
challenging to define the scope of projects to comply with ADA 
and complete work agreements with its partners at each station. 
Then, in September 2011, DOT issued a final rule amending its 
ADA regulations for level boarding at passenger rail stations. 
The rule requires Amtrak to provide level entry at stations 
where the tracks are not shared with freight rail, but allows 
Amtrak to provide alternative boarding mechanisms at tracks 
shared with freight rail. For any station where Amtrak does not 
plan to provide level entry boarding, Amtrak must submit 
detailed plans and reports regarding alternative boarding 
options for passengers with disabilities to FRA. FRA must then 
review and determine whether to accept Amtrak's proposals.
    Amtrak is now in the process of consulting with DOT to 
clarify certain aspects of the rule and its impact on projects 
currently under or soon expected to start construction. Amtrak 
is also waiting for additional guidance on the historical 
station activity of freight traffic to determine the 
applicability of different requirements at individual stations. 
Once these regulatory interpretation issues are resolved, 
Amtrak must then re-evaluate ADA compliance plans for each of 
the 434 rail stations it serves that were not ADA compliant 
prior to the rule entering into force. Amtrak must revise all 
plans, design specifications, engineering requirements and 
construction estimates. Now that DOT has issued a final rule 
for level boarding, Amtrak is required under the Passenger Rail 
Investment and Improvement Act [PRIIA] to submit a revised ADA 
compliance plan. Until the Committee receives a revised ADA 
compliance plan, no specific amount of funding is provided for 
implementation. However, the Committee expects Amtrak to 
dedicate funds in fiscal year 2013 for approved plans that are 
ready to begin construction.
    In continuing its important ADA compliance efforts, the 
Committee encourages Amtrak to use its funds to address 
compliance requirements that are the responsibility of other 
parties at the stations it serves where the work involved is 
not more than 10 percent of the cost of all ADA compliance work 
at that station, and where doing so would expedite completion 
of its compliance efforts and be a more efficient use of 
resources than compelling those parties to act.

     CAPITAL ASSISTANCE FOR HIGH PERFORMANCE PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE

Appropriations, 2012....................................................
Budget estimate, 2013\1\................................................
Committee recommendation................................    $100,000,000

\1\The Administration requested $1,000,000,000 for a new Network 
Development account for similar activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $100,000,000 for grants to support 
high-performance passenger rail service. The recommendation is 
$100,000,000 more than fiscal year 2012 enacted level, but is 
significantly below the Administration's request for 
$1,000,000,000 for its new Network Development program. The 
funds provided are limited to supporting the improvement of 
existing high-performance passenger rail service. Up to 
$20,000,000 of the funds may be used to support multistate 
planning efforts.
    Positive Train Control.--The Committee notes that positive 
train control systems are an eligible expense for capital 
investment grants to support intercity passenger rail service 
as authorized by section 24402 of title 49, United States Code. 
Positive train control systems are designed to prevent train-
to-train collisions, over-speed derailments, incursions into 
established work zone limits, and the movement of a train 
through a switch left in the wrong position. Passenger 
railroads in the United States are required to deploy these 
systems on an aggressive schedule. The Committee encourages the 
Federal Railroad Administration to consider an applicant's 
obligations to comply with Federal rail safety requirements, 
consistent with section 24402(c), when evaluating grant project 
requests.

                 NORTHEAST CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

                              (RESCISSION)

    The Committee recommends the permanent rescission of 
$4,419,000 previously appropriated.

                    NEXT GENERATION HIGH SPEED RAIL

                              (RESCISSION)

    The Committee recommends the permanent rescission of 
$1,973,000 previously appropriated.

                       ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

    Section 150 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 151 allows the Secretary to receive and use cash or 
spare parts to repair and replace damaged track inspection 
cars.
    Section 152 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 153 limits overtime to $35,000 per employee. 
However, Amtrak's president may waive this restriction for 
specific employees for safety or operational efficiency 
reasons. If the cap is waived, Amtrak is required to notify to 
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 30 
days of the reason for such waiver.

                     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.
    Americans took 10.4 billion trips on public transportation 
in 2011, a modern record only surpassed by the number taken in 
2008, when gas prices spiked above $4 a gallon. Given that gas 
prices are expected to remain high in the future, transit will 
likely play an increasingly important role in how Americans 
commute and travel.
    The most recent authorization for transit programs was 
contained in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users [SAFETEA-LU], 
which expired on September 30, 2009. The authority for these 
programs has been extended through June 30, 2012. The 
Committee's recommendations assume they will be further 
extended under their current structure until the enactment of a 
full reauthorization bill.
    Under the Committee recommendations, a total program level 
of $10,601,069,633 would be provided for the activities of the 
Federal Transit Administration in fiscal year 2013. The 
recommendation is $132,040,000 less than the budget request and 
$51,291,633 greater than the fiscal year 2012 enacted level.

                        ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2012....................................     $98,713,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................................
Committee recommendation................................      99,875,000

                          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 $99,875,000 for the 
agency's salaries and administrative expenses. The recommended 
level of funding is $1,162,000 above the fiscal year 2012 
enacted level to cover the costs of salaries and inflation.
    The Committee continues to support proposals to give FTA 
greater responsibility for overseeing the 27 State Safety 
Oversight agencies, and expects to provide additional funding 
for this work once it is authorized. Rail accidents continue to 
occur with troubling frequency, and the increasing number of 
new systems and Americans who use them argues for giving FTA 
the means to ensure rail transit is safe.
    For the past several years, FTA has worked with the 
American Public Transportation Association [APTA] to broker 
broad agreement on a standard transit bus and light rail 
vehicle that could cut transit agencies' future capital costs. 
The success of this initiative would expedite transit vehicle 
procurement, while providing the maximum benefit from 
taxpayers' investment in transit systems. FTA has evaluated and 
reported to Congress on the feasibility of various alternatives 
to increase the use of standardized rail cars across systems 
around the country, as well as procuring those rail cars in a 
manner that achieves economies of scale. FTA continues to work 
in conjunction with the transit industry, APTA, and other 
stakeholders to develop means for leveraging large joint 
procurements within the transit community and cost effectively 
standardizing purchases of rail equipment and systems. The 
Committee supports these efforts and directs FTA to provide a 
report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by 
October 15, 2012, on its progress to date and the primary 
obstacles to reaching agreement on standard bus and light rail 
vehicles.
    Rail Station Accessibility.--The Committee appreciates the 
FTA's efforts to work with local transit agencies to bring 
their stations into compliance with the Americans with 
Disabilities Act [ADA], and directs the FTA to conduct a survey 
of transit authorities containing one or more key stations that 
are not yet fully compliant with ADA accessibility standards. 
The survey should include detailed information of actions 
planned to achieve full accessibility for these stations, 
including: the level of funds currently budgeted to meet full 
compliance; additional funding beyond what is currently 
budgeted required to achieve full compliance; an estimated date 
when each station will become fully compliant; and any 
additional information the Administrator believes is 
appropriate. The Committee directs the FTA to provide this 
information to the House and Senate Appropriations Committee, 
the Senate Banking Committee, and the House Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee within 150 days of enactment of this 
act.
    Project Management Oversight [PMO] Activities.--The 
Committee directs FTA to continue to submit to the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations the quarterly PMO reports 
for each project with a full funding grant agreement.
    Full Funding Grant Agreements [FFGAs].--SAFETEA-LU, as 
amended and extended, requires that FTA notify the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations, as well as the House 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate 
Committee on Banking, 60 days before executing a full funding 
grant agreement. In its notification to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations, the Committee directs FTA to 
submit the following information: (1) a copy of the proposed 
full funding grant agreement; (2) the total and annual Federal 
appropriations required for the project; (3) the yearly and 
total Federal appropriations that can be planned or anticipated 
for future FFGAs for each fiscal year through 2017; (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. It should 
also highlight and explain any potential cost and schedule 
changes affecting projects. In addition, FTA should notify the 
Committees 10 days before any project in the new starts process 
is given approval by FTA to advance to preliminary engineering 
or final design.

                         FORMULA AND BUS GRANTS

                  (LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORITY)

                      (LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Obligation
                                                           limitation
                                                          (trust fund)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2012..................................    $8,360,565,000
Budget estimate, 2013.................................  ................
                                                             ...........
Committee recommendation..............................     8,360,565,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends limiting obligations in the 
transit formula and bus grants account in fiscal year 2013 to 
$8,360,565,000. The recommendation is consistent with the 
authorized level in SAFETEA-LU as extended.
    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..................................        $51,500,000
Over-the-Road Bus Accessibility Program..............          8,800,000
Urban Area Formula Grants............................      4,160,365,000
Bus and Bus Facilities...............................        984,000,000
Fixed Guideway Modernization.........................      1,666,500,000
Elderly and Persons with Disabilities................        133,500,000
Nonurbanized Area Formula............................        465,000,000
Growing States and High Density States...............        465,000,000
New Freedom..........................................         92,500,000
National Transit Database............................          3,500,000
Alternative Transportation in Parks and Park Lands...         26,900,000
Job Access and Reverse Commute.......................        164,500,000
Planning Programs....................................        113,500,000
Alternatives Analysis................................         25,000,000
                                                      ------------------
      Total..........................................      8,360,565,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Bus Rapid Transit.--As it did in fiscal year 2012, the 
Committee proposes to fund the bus rapid transit projects 
included in the Department's fiscal year 2013 budget request in 
the Bus and Bus Facilities program. These projects are eligible 
for funding from Bus and Bus Facilities, and this shift makes 
it possible for the Committee to better support the rail 
transit projects in the Capital Investment Grants program. The 
Committee expects this change will absorb a small share of the 
funding available to Bus and Bus Facilities, leaving ample 
balances for the FTA's State of Good Repair, Bus Livability, 
and other initiatives.

                RESEARCH AND UNIVERSITY RESEARCH CENTERS

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            General fund
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2012......................................   $44,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013.....................................  ............
Committee recommendation..................................    50,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          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's research program has a long, distinguished record of 
success, having helped pioneer and test compressed natural gas 
[CNG] buses in the 1970s and hybrid diesel bus prototypes in 
the 1980s, leading to the widespread adoption of these 
technologies today. More recently, FTA supported efforts to 
develop the first practical fuel cell buses in the world.
    FTA may make grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and 
other agreements for research, development, demonstration, and 
deployment projects, and evaluation of technology of national 
significance to public transportation. FTA provides transit 
agencies with research results to help make them better 
equipped to improve public transportation and help public 
transportation services meet national transportation needs at 
the lowest reasonable cost. FTA helps transit agencies 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. Earlier this year, 
the Department selected two consortia of schools led by San 
Jose State University and the University of South Florida as 
the first UTCs dedicated to public transportation. The 
Committee has high hopes these UTCs will pursue innovative 
solutions to the problems facing an industry dealing with 
increased ridership, aging infrastructure, and constrained 
finances.
    The Committee recognizes the importance of ensuring safe, 
private transportation is made available for seniors, 
especially in small and rural communities where distance and 
low population density make traditional mass transportation 
difficult. The efficiencies of information management can bring 
together underutilized private transportation capacity by 
combining ride share, car share, volunteer transport, and 
private community transport. The Committee encourages FTA to 
consider the use of suites of software programs that leverage 
many kinds of unused private transportation capacity to promote 
transportation for seniors in small and rural communities.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $50,000,000 for research and 
university research centers. The Committee recommendation is 
$6,000,000 above the fiscal year 2012 enacted level.
    Funding for transit research has dropped precipitously 
since its heyday in the 1970s and early 1980s, while the need 
for Federal support to help develop, test, and promote new 
technologies remains as great as ever. The Committee commends 
FTA for advancing the commercialization of fuel cell electric 
buses through targeted partnerships with industry, and 
encourages FTA to use the resources provided in the bill to 
pursue other such opportunities, even at the expense of the 
program's non-research responsibilities.
    Asset Management.--In 2008, the Committee required FTA to 
assess the condition of the Nation's transit rail 
infrastructure. In April 2009, the agency reported that one-
third of transit agencies' assets are either in marginal or 
poor condition, and that significant reinvestment is necessary 
to address the backlog of capital needs. Given the large gap 
between the level of investment needed to bring rail transit 
into better condition and the amount of resources currently 
available for such investments, it is imperative that every 
dollar invested in rail capital improvements be put to its best 
use.
    Compounding the resource challenge is the general weakness 
of much of the transit sector's ability to manage capital 
assets strategically. Asset management programs would enable 
transit agencies to take inventory of their capital assets, 
assess the condition of those assets, use objective and 
quantitative analysis to estimate reinvestment needs over the 
long term, and prioritize their capital investments by using 
all of the information and analysis that was required under the 
program.
    In 2010, the Committee directed FTA to assume a leadership 
role in improving asset management in transit agencies. 
Specifically, the Committee instructed FTA to develop standards 
for asset management plans with an emphasis on maintaining 
safety, provide technical assistance to transit agencies on 
asset management, and conduct a pilot program to identify best 
practices in the field. In August 2011, FTA awarded 
demonstration funding to six transit agencies. The Committee 
understands FTA will provide an initial assessment of the 
demonstrations, along with an update on its other efforts to 
improve industry practices, in early 2013.

                       CAPITAL INVESTMENT GRANTS

Appropriations, 2012....................................  $1,955,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................................
Committee recommendation................................   2,043,520,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Capital Investment Grants account includes funding for 
two programs authorized under section 5309 of title 49 of the 
United States Code: the New Starts program and the Small Starts 
program. Under New Starts, the FTA provides grants to fund the 
building of new fixed guideway systems or extensions to 
existing fixed guideway systems. Eligible services include 
light rail, rapid rail (heavy rail), commuter rail, and busway/
high occupancy vehicle [HOV] facilities. 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 $2,043,520,000 for 
capital investment grants. The recommended level is $88,520,000 
above the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. The bill also 
rescinds $11,429,055 provided in Public Law 105-178.
    For more than a decade, there has been renewed interest in 
many parts of the country in rail transit, especially in areas 
seeking to find solutions to road congestion, support economic 
development, manage population growth, and reduce air 
pollution. The Committee supports these investments, which it 
believes are essential to maintaining the Nation's economic 
competitiveness. However, given the present fiscal constraints, 
the Committee again proposes to shift bus rapid transit 
projects included in the President's fiscal year 2013 budget 
under the Capital Investment Grants account to the Bus and Bus 
Facilities program within the Formula and Bus Grants account. 
These projects are eligible for funding from Bus and Bus 
Facilities, and this shift will make it possible for the 
Committee to better support the increasing number of rail 
transit projects in the Capital Investment Grants program.
    Appropriations for Full Funding Grant Agreements [FFGA].--
The Committee reiterates direction initially agreed to in the 
fiscal year 2002 conference report that FTA should not sign any 
FFGAs that have a maximum Federal share higher than 60 percent.

      GRANTS TO THE WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY

Appropriations, 2012....................................    $150,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................     135,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     150,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This appropriation provides assistance to the Washington 
Metropolitan Area Transit Authority [WMATA]. The Federal Rail 
Safety Improvements Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-432, title VI, 
section 601) authorized DOT to make up to $150,000,000 
available to WMATA annually for capital and preventive 
maintenance for a 10-year period.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommendation includes $150,000,000 for 
grants to WMATA for capital and preventive maintenance 
expenses. These grants are in addition to the funding support 
local jurisdictions have committed to provide to WMATA. The 
Committee remains committed to supporting the refurbishment and 
modernization of WMATA's infrastructure.
    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 30, 
2015, 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, 
2012 that remain available for expenditure to be transferred to 
the most recent appropriation heading.
    Section 163 allows unobligated funds for new fixed guideway 
system projects in any previous appropriations act to be used 
during this fiscal year to satisfy expenses incurred for such 
projects.
    Section 164 provides flexibility to fund program management 
oversight of activities authorized by section 5316 of title 49, 
United States Code.
    Section 165 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.
    Section 166 provides an exemption from the charter bus 
regulations for the State of Washington.
    Section 167 permits the Secretary to consider significant 
private contributions when calculating the non-Federal share of 
capital costs for New Starts projects.
    Section 168 requires that all Bus Rapid Transit [BRT] or 
busway projects recommended in the President's fiscal year 2013 
budget request be funded from amounts made available to carry 
out the section 5309 bus category in this and future fiscal 
years, although these projects will remain subject to the 
section 5309 New Starts or Small Starts program requirements, 
whichever are appropriate.
    Section 169 rescinds $102,889,367 in unobligated balances 
from various transit programs.

             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). 
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, 2012....................................     $32,259,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................      33,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      32,500,000

                          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 SLSDC is 
responsible.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $32,500,000 for the operations, 
maintenance, and asset renewal of the Saint Lawrence Seaway. 
This amount is $500,000 less than the President's budget 
request and $241,000 more than the fiscal year 2012 enacted 
level. The recommended level includes $15,500,000 to continue 
the agency's Asset Renewal Program [ARP].
    The Seaway is entering its 54th year of operation, which 
means that its infrastructure components are reaching the end 
of their design life. The 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 the two locks operated and maintained by the 
United States (Snell and Eisenhower), the U.S. segment of the 
Seaway International Bridge, maintenance dredging, operational 
systems, facilities, and equipment.
    SLSDC has made significant progress in executing the 
projects identified in the ARP under limited construction 
capacity since receiving initial appropriations in fiscal year 
2009. The Committee directs SLSDC to continue to submit an 
annual report to the Senate and House Appropriations 
Committees, not later than April 30 of each year, summarizing 
the activities of the ARP during the immediate preceding fiscal 
year. The report shall include up-to-date information on the 
status of each project, including: up-to-date cost estimates, 
as well as cost overruns or savings for each project; schedule 
changes and their causes; and updated projections to achieve 
the performance goals for the remaining life of the 10-year 
strategy. SLSDC is directed to include in the reports any other 
relevant information relating to the management, funding, and 
implementation of the ARP, as deemed appropriate by the 
Administrator.

                        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 the Department of Defense's [DOD] 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 that 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, 2012....................................    $174,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................     184,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     184,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Maritime Security Program [MSP] 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 provide intermodal sealift 
support to DOD in times of war or national emergency.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $184,000,000 
for the MSP. This amount is equal to the budget request and 
$10,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2012 enacted level.
    The recommended appropriation, together with unobligated 
carryover balances, provides sufficient funds to satisfy the 
fully authorized payment level for fiscal year 2013.
    The MSP is a successful and critical partnership with the 
Department of Defense and the U.S.-flag commercial maritime 
industry that supports military operations overseas. The MSP 
provides a sealift fleet capacity that would cost the 
Government $13,000,000,000 in capital to reproduce. 
Furthermore, according to the United States Transportation 
Command, it would cost the Government an additional 
$52,000,000,000 to replicate the global intermodal system that 
is made available to the Department of Defense by MSP 
participants who are continuously developing, maintaining, and 
upgrading their logistical support systems. The Committee 
strongly encourages the Department of Transportation to 
continue to support this proven and cost effective program in 
its fiscal year 2014 budget request.

                        OPERATIONS AND TRAINING

Appropriations, 2012....................................    $156,258,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................     146,298,000
Committee recommendation................................     150,896,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $150,896,000 
for Operations and Training at MARAD for fiscal year 2013. This 
amount is $5,362,000 less than the fiscal year 2012 enacted 
level and $4,548,000 more than the budget request.

                         MARITIME ADMINISTRATION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Fiscal year
                                                            2013 Senate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Merchant Marine Academy............................     $80,000,000
    Academy Operations..................................      63,396,000
        Salaries and Benefits...........................      34,289,000
        Operating Expenses..............................      29,107,000
    Capital Asset Management............................      15,000,000
        Capital Improvements............................      10,000,000
        Facilities Maintenance, Repairs, and Equipment..       6,604,000
State Maritime Academies................................      17,100,000
MARAD Operations........................................      53,796,000
    Maritime Program Expenses...........................       5,000,000
        Environment and Compliance......................       4,000,000
        Marview.........................................       1,000,000
                                                         ---------------
          Total, Operations and Training................     150,896,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    United States Merchant Marine Academy.--The United States 
Merchant Marine Academy [USMMA] provides educational programs 
for men and women to become shipboard officers and leaders in 
the transportation field. The Committee is committed to 
ensuring the Academy's midshipmen receive the highest quality 
education in preparation for a commission with the U.S. Naval 
Reserve or other uniformed service upon graduation. The 
Committee remains troubled that for many years, officials at 
the Academy engaged in questionable financial and management 
practices that compromised the integrity of the institution. 
Senior leadership both at MARAD and the Department of 
Transportation failed to exercise sufficient oversight of 
Academy operations and failed to effectively and 
collaboratively manage the physical infrastructure projects 
associated with the Academy's Capital Improvement Program 
[CIP]. The culmination of these issues caused significant 
turmoil in all aspects of the Academy's operations and resulted 
in a crisis of leadership, facilities management, and human 
resource management.
    Thankfully, the current Secretary and Deputy Secretary of 
the Department of Transportation have taken a keen interest in 
reforming and restoring the Academy to a top-notch academic 
institution. However, significant challenges remain to 
achieving this goal.
    Last year, the Committee required the Secretary and the 
Administrator to take steps to improve accountability and 
transparency at the Academy, including developing a strategic 
plan by April 30, 2012. The development of a strategic plan is 
necessary to guide the Academy's instructional program and 
identify clear performance goals. Despite the 2010 
recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Panel, the Secretary did not 
initiate work on the strategic plan until January 2012 and will 
not finalize it until this fall at best. The Secretary's 
failure to deliver this basic organizational assessment is 
inexcusable.
    The Committee directed the Department to provide a report 
by January 30, 2012, on the authorized positions and vacancies 
at the Academy to assess its staffing and alarmingly high 
vacancy rate. The report was submitted 2 months late. The 
staffing report identifies 52 vacancies, 13 of which fall under 
the Assistant Superintendent for Facilities Maintenance and 
Capital Improvements. The lack of focus on fully staffing this 
department is troubling, particularly when the Academy's 
maintenance needs are so dire. The Secretary's 2010 Blue Ribbon 
Panel report ``USMMA: Red Sky in the Morning'' found the 
Academy's facilities department so ``critically understaffed'' 
that it is ``insufficient to support routine maintenance of the 
campus'', leading ``to a more rapid than normal deterioration 
in the conditions of the Academy's facilities''. The Committee 
directs the Administrator to provide quarterly staffing reports 
to the Committee and expects hiring qualified staff in the 
facilities department to be the agency's highest staffing 
priority.
    The Committee also required the Administrator to provide an 
annual report by April 1, 2012, on the status of the CIP in a 
similar format to the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development 
Corporation's annual Asset Renewal Plan. The Administrator has 
failed to provide this report. Therefore, the Committee 
prohibits the use of any CIP funds in fiscal year 2013 until a 
detailed accounting of all CIP projects is submitted to the 
Committee. In addition, the Committee directs the Secretary for 
fiscal year 2013 and each year thereafter to submit an annual 
report to the Committee by April 1 of each year on the CIP. The 
report should include current information on the status of the 
CIP, including, but not limited to: a list of all projects that 
have received funding; cost overruns and cost savings for each 
active project; specific target dates for project completion; 
delays and the cause of delays; schedule changes; up-to-date 
cost projections for each project; and any other deviations 
from the previous year's CIP.
    It is clear the internal processes and organizational 
changes that are needed to restore the Academy will take time 
to be fully implemented. Therefore, the Committee has once 
again included language requiring that all funding for the 
Academy be given directly to the Secretary, and that 50 percent 
of the funding will not be available until MARAD submits a plan 
detailing how the funding will be spent. The Committee believes 
this process will ensure the Secretary's continued engagement, 
as well as sustain the newly developed system of funds control 
and accountability.
    Environment and Compliance.--The Committee commends MARAD's 
initiative to support the domestic maritime industry's efforts 
to comply with emerging international and domestic 
environmental regulatory requirements. Funds provided in fiscal 
year 2013 should be used to continue independent testing of 
ballast water technologies to meet domestic and international 
regulatory requirements, as well as to assist in the testing 
and certification or verification of air emissions reduction 
technology in conjunction with the Environmental Protection 
Agency.

                             SHIP DISPOSAL

Appropriations, 2012....................................      $5,500,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................      10,000,000
Committee Recommendation................................       4,000,000

                          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 MARAD was 
required by law to dispose of by the end of 2006. Currently 
there is a backlog of more than 49 ships awaiting disposal. 
Many of these vessels are 50 or more years old and have the 
potential to pose a significant environmental threat due to the 
presence of hazardous substances, such as asbestos and solid 
and liquid polychlorinated biphenyls [PCBs].

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,000,000 for 
MARAD's Ship Disposal program. This level of funding is 
$1,500,000 less than the fiscal year 2012 enacted level and 
$6,000,000 less than the budget request. This level of funding, 
in addition to the anticipated carryover from previous 
appropriations, is sufficient to meet the terms and conditions 
of the Suisun Bay Reserve Fleet settlement and continued 
activities related to NS Savannah. The Committee directs MARAD 
to take all actions practicable and reasonable to align the 
scope of vessels listed for inspection in the notice of vessel 
visitation to the subsequent notice of vessels available for 
sale. Further, MARAD shall make best value determinations and 
award ship recycling contracts no later than 90 days from the 
close of the ship specific solicitation period for sales offers 
and/or price revisions for vessel dismantlement/recycling 
services.

                     ASSISTANCE TO SMALL SHIPYARDS

Appropriations, 2012....................................      $9,980,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................................
Committee recommendation................................       9,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Assistance to Small Shipyards program provides 
assistance in the form of grants, loans, and loan guarantees to 
small shipyards for capital improvements and training programs, 
as authorized by section 3506 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, 46 U.S.C. 54101.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee provides an appropriation of $9,000,000 for 
assistance to small shipyards. This level of funding is 
$980,000 less than the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. The 
President did not request funding for this program in fiscal 
year 2013.
    The Committee began funding this program in fiscal year 
2008 to assist small shipyards in maritime dependent 
communities to improve the efficiency of their operations by 
providing funding for equipment and other facility upgrades, as 
well as workforce training and apprenticeship programs. A total 
of 141 qualified applicants submitted requests totaling 
$123,800,000 in fiscal year 2012, far exceeding available 
resources. The funding recommended by the Committee will help 
improve the competitiveness of our Nation's shipyard industry.

              MARITIME GUARANTEED LOAN PROGRAM [TITLE XI]

Appropriations, 2012....................................      $3,740,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................       3,750,000
Committee recommendation................................      38,750,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Maritime Guaranteed Loan program was established 
pursuant to title XI of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, as 
amended. The program provides for a full faith and credit 
guarantee by the U.S. Government of debt obligations issued by: 
(1) U.S. or foreign ship-owners for the purposes of financing 
or refinancing either U.S.-flag vessels or eligible export 
vessels constructed, reconstructed, or reconditioned in U.S. 
shipyards; and (2) U.S. shipyards, for the purpose of financing 
advanced shipbuilding technology of privately owned general 
shipyard facilities located in the United States. Under the 
Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, appropriations to cover the 
estimated costs of a project must be obtained prior to the 
issuance of any approvals for title XI financing.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee provides an appropriation of $38,750,000 for 
the loan guarantee program, of which $3,750,000 shall be used 
for administrative expenses. This level of funding is 
$35,000,000 more than the President's budget request and 
$35,010,000 more than the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. The 
Committee recognizes the importance that the title XI program 
provides for the advancement of shipbuilding, aiding the U.S.-
flag fleet, and sustainment of jobs for this critical sector of 
our national defense.

           ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION

    Section 170 authorizes the Maritime Administration to 
furnish utilities and to service and make repairs to any lease, 
contract, or occupancy involving Government property under the 
control of MARAD. Rental payments received pursuant to this 
provision shall be credited to the Treasury as miscellaneous 
receipts.

         Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

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

                          OPERATIONAL EXPENSES

                         (PIPELINE SAFETY FUND)

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2012....................................     $21,360,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................      21,047,000
Committee recommendation................................      21,047,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $21,047,000 for this account, of 
which $639,000 is to be derived from the Pipeline Safety Fund, 
and of which $1,000,000 may be transferred to the Office of 
Pipeline Safety for Information Grants to Communities. This 
level of funding is equal to the budget request and $313,000 
less than the fiscal year 2012 enacted level.

                       HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY

Appropriations, 2012....................................     $42,338,000
Budget estimate, 2013\1\................................      50,673,000
Committee recommendation................................      43,025,000

\1\Includes a user fee as offsetting collections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                       HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $43,025,000 
for hazardous materials safety, of which $1,725,000 shall 
remain available until September 30, 2015. The amount provided 
is $7,648,000 less than the budget request and $687,000 more 
than the fiscal year 2012 enacted level.
    In the fiscal year 2012 and 2013 budget proposals, PHMSA 
proposed the creation of a user fee to reduce the burden on the 
Federal taxpayer for financing special permit and approvals 
activities. The Committee finds that the program provides 
benefits to identifiable users above and beyond what is 
provided normally to the public, and the establishment of a 
user fee is fully justified under GAO guidelines and 
authorities granted by 31 U.S.C. 9701. However, due to concerns 
from some members of the Committee and industry partners, the 
subcommittee cannot accept the user fee proposal at this time.

                            PIPELINE SAFETY

                         (PIPELINE SAFETY FUND)

                    (OIL SPILL LIABILITY TRUST FUND)

                  (PIPELINE SAFETY DESIGN REVIEW FUND)

Appropriations, 2012....................................    $109,252,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................     176,010,000
Committee recommendation................................     131,844,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $131,844,000 
for the Office of Pipeline Safety. The amount is $22,592,000 
more than the fiscal year 2012 enacted level and $40,166,000 
less than the budget request. Of the funding provided, 
$18,573,000 shall be derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust 
Fund, $111,271,000 shall be derived from the Pipeline Safety 
Fund, and $2,000,000 shall be derived from the Pipeline Safety 
Design Review Fund.
    This level of funding provides additional resources to hire 
10 inspection and enforcement personnel as authorized by the 
Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty and Job Creation Act of 
2011, Public Law 112-90. Funds are also provided to meet the 
many reporting and research requirements of the act regarding 
longitudinal seam failures, leak detection, diluted bitumen, 
automatic and remotely controlled shut-off valves, integrity 
management, high consequence mapping, covered and buried 
pipelines, damage prevention, gathering lines and nonpetroleum 
liquids. Additionally, $1,500,000 is provided to conduct 
research on the development of technology necessary to conduct 
effective inline inspection of unpiggable pipelines in High 
Consequence Areas. Last, the amount of funds provided 
accommodates a $10,000,000 increase to the State Pipeline 
Safety Grant Program, $11,004,000 less than the budget request. 
Funds shall be distributed to States as part of the base grant 
program and are not intended to be used for any increases in 
PHMSA personnel.
    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. 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.

                     EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS GRANTS

                     (EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUND)

Appropriations, 2012....................................     $28,318,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................      28,318,000
Committee recommendation................................      28,318,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Hazardous 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 periodically update a 
mandatory training curriculum for emergency responders.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $28,318,000 and an equal 
obligation limitation for the emergency preparedness grant 
program.

   ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION--PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY 
                             ADMINISTRATION

    Section 180 clarifies the definition of ``project'' in 
section 60117(n)(1)(B) of title 49, United States Code, as 
authorized by the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and 
Job Creation Act of 2011 and allows cost recovery for hazardous 
liquid pipeline projects to be based on the project costs 
provided to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or other 
applicable regulatory agency.

                      Office of Inspector General


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2012....................................     $79,624,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................      84,499,000
Committee recommendation................................      84,499,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommendation provides $84,499,000 for 
activities of the Office of the Inspector General, which is 
equal to the President's budget request and $4,875,000 more 
than the fiscal year 2012 enacted level.
    Asset Forfeiture.--When the Federal Government uses asset 
forfeiture authority, it punishes and deters criminal activity 
by depriving criminals of property used or acquired through 
illegal activities. Certain law enforcement agencies 
participate in the Treasury Department's Treasury Forfeiture 
Fund or the Justice Department's Asset Forfeiture Fund. These 
agencies can use forfeited funds to pay expenses related to the 
investigation of illegal activities, such as contracting with 
forensic accountants who can reconstruct financial transactions 
and identify forfeitable assets in complex grant and 
procurement fraud cases. In order to strengthen the law 
enforcement activities of the OIG, the Committee includes a 
provision that would allow the office to participate in asset 
forfeiture programs.
    Audit Reports.--The Committee requests the Inspector 
General to continue to forward copies of all audit reports to 
the Committee immediately after they are issued, and to 
continue to make the Committee aware immediately of any review 
that recommends cancellation or modifications to any major 
acquisition project or grant, or which recommends significant 
budgetary savings. The OIG is also directed to withhold from 
public distribution for a period of 15 days any final audit or 
investigative report which was requested by the House or Senate 
Committees on Appropriations.
    Sole-Source Contracts.--The Committee has included a 
provision in section 407 that requires all departments and 
agencies in this act to report to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations on all sole-source contracts, 
including the contractor, the amount of the contract, and the 
rationale for a sole-source procurement as opposed to a market-
based procurement. The Committee directs the IG to assess any 
conflicts of interest with regard to these contracts and DOT.
    Unfair Business Practices.--The bill maintains language 
which authorizes the OIG to investigate allegations of fraud 
and unfair or deceptive practices and unfair methods of 
competition by air carriers and ticket agents.

                      Surface Transportation Board


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Crediting
                                         Appropriation      offsetting
                                                           collections
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2012..................      $29,310,000       $1,250,000
Budget estimate, 2013.................       31,250,000        1,250,000
Committee recommendation..............       29,300,000        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 nonlicensing regulation of motor 
carriers and water carriers.
    STB's rail oversight activities include 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, intercity passenger train 
service, rate regulation involving noncontiguous domestic water 
transportation, household goods carriers, and collectively 
determined motor carrier rates.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a total appropriation of 
$29,300,000. This funding level is $1,950,000 less than the 
President's request and $10,000 less than the fiscal year 2012 
enacted level. Included in the recommendation is $1,250,000 in 
fees, which will offset the appropriated funding.

            General Provisions--Department of Transportation

    Section 190 allows funds for maintenance and operation of 
aircraft; motor vehicles; liability insurance; uniforms; or 
allowances, as authorized by law.
    Section 191 limits appropriations for services authorized 
by 5 U.S.C. 3109 not to exceed the rate for an Executive Level 
IV.
    Section 192 prohibits funds in this act for salaries and 
expenses of more than 110 political and Presidential appointees 
in the Department of Transportation.
    Section 193 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 194 prohibits the use of funds in this act to make 
a grant or announce the intention to make a grant unless the 
Secretary of Transportation notifies the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations at least 3 full business days 
before making the grant or the announcement.
    Section 195 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 to be credited to appropriations of the Department of 
Transportation.
    Section 196 requires amounts from improper payments to a 
third-party contractor that are lawfully recovered by the 
Department of Transportation to be available to cover expenses 
incurred in recovery of such payments.
    Section 197 establishes requirements for reprogramming 
actions by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
    Section 198 prohibits the Surface Transportation Board from 
charging filing fees for rate or practice complaints that are 
greater than the fees authorized for district court civil 
suits.

                                TITLE II

              DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

    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.
    The Committee reiterates that the Department must limit the 
reprogramming of funds between the programs, projects, and 
activities within each account without prior approval of the 
Committees on Appropriations. Unless otherwise identified in 
the bill or report, the most detailed allocation of funds 
presented in the budget justifications is approved, with any 
deviation from such approved allocation subject to the normal 
reprogramming requirements. Except as specifically provided 
otherwise, it is the intent of the Committee that all carryover 
funds in the various accounts, including recaptures and de-
obligations, are subject to the normal reprogramming 
requirements outlined above. No change may be made to any 
program, project, or activity if it is construed to be new 
policy or a change in policy, without prior approval of the 
Committees on Appropriations. Finally, the Committee expects to 
be notified regarding reorganizations of offices, programs or 
activities prior to the implementation of such reorganizations, 
as well as be notified, on a monthly basis, of all ongoing 
litigation, including any negotiations or discussions, planned 
or ongoing, regarding a consent decree between the Department 
and any other entity, including the estimated costs of such 
decrees.

               Administration, Operations, and Management

Appropriations, 2012....................................    $537,789,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................     532,546,000
Committee recommendation................................     527,690,000

    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 leadership and support services to ensure the Department 
performs its core mission and is compliant with all legal, 
operational, and financial guidelines. The AOM account funds 
the salaries and expenses of the Immediate Office of the 
Secretary, the Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary and the 
Chief Operating Officer, the Office of Hearings and Appeals, 
the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, the 
Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations, the 
Office of General Counsel, the Office of the Chief Financial 
Officer, the Office of Public Affairs, the Office of the Chief 
Procurement Officer, the Office of Departmental Equal 
Employment Opportunity, the Office of Field Policy and 
Management, the Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities, 
the Office of Strategic Planning and Management, the Office of 
the Chief Human Capital Officer, the Office of the Chief 
Information Officer, and the Center for Faith-Based and 
Community Initiatives.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $527,690,000 
for this account, which is $4,856,000 less than the budget 
request and $10,099,000 more than the fiscal year 2012 enacted 
level.
    Funds are made available as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immediate Office of the Secretary.......................      $3,623,000
Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary and Chief             1,206,000
 Operating Officer......................................
Office of Hearings and Appeals..........................       1,711,000
Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization..         705,000
Office of the Chief Financial Officer...................      48,321,000
Office of the General Counsel...........................      94,433,000
Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations.       2,411,000
Office of Public Affairs................................       3,502,000
Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer...............     248,950,000
Office of Field Policy and Management...................      54,965,000
Office of the Chief Procurement Officer.................      16,563,000
Office of Departmental Equal Employment Opportunity.....       3,500,000
Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives........       1,404,000
Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities...........       2,642,000
Office of Strategic Planning and Management.............       4,884,000
Office of the Chief Information Officer.................      38,870,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee has not included funding for the Office of 
Departmental Operations and Coordination. Based on discussions 
with the Department, the Committee has concluded that 
activities handled by this office do not merit a separate 
office. As a result, 44 full-time equivalents [FTEs] working on 
enforcement and investigation of standards have been shifted to 
the Office of Field Policy Management. The remaining 20 FTEs 
have been reallocated to other management or program offices to 
address more pressing needs.
    Budget Documents.--For several years, the Committee has 
directed the Department to provide more details of the budget 
request in its Congressional justifications. The Committee 
notes that the budget documents have improved significantly 
this year over previous years. In particular, the request for 
salaries and expenses funding now includes information on FTE 
usage and nonpersonnel expenses by office. In addition, more 
data-driven analysis is included to support policy proposals. 
The Committee appreciates the efforts of the Department to 
continue to improve both its analysis and presentation of 
staffing and programmatic needs.
    Procurement.--The Office of the Chief Procurement Officer 
is responsible for obtaining all contracted goods and services 
for the Department. As such, this office is involved in 
everything from research projects to information technology 
investments. The Committee understands that the office is 
undergoing changes to increase its effectiveness. To monitor 
the impact of these efforts, the Committee directs HUD to 
continue to provide bi-annual updates to the Committees on 
Appropriations on the average time it takes for the office to 
execute contracts and its use of sole-source contracts, 
including comparisons with prior years.

                 Program Offices Salaries and Expenses


                       PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING

Appropriations, 2012....................................    $200,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................     211,634,000
Committee recommendation................................     206,500,000

    This account provides salary and benefits funding to 
support staff in headquarters and in 46 field offices 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 $206,500,000 
for this account, which is $5,134,000 less than the budget 
request and $6,500,000 more than the fiscal year 2012 enacted 
level. The Committee is able to provide this increase by 
reducing funding for administrative activities and dedicating 
these funds instead to oversight. Of the amount provided above 
the fiscal year 2012 enacted level, $2,500,000 shall be used to 
increase inspections of section 8 units.
    PIH's responsibilities include the oversight of public 
housing agencies [PHAs] across the country that manage public 
housing and participate in the section 8 tenant-based rental 
assistance program. These programs serve more than 3 million 
low-income individuals and families across the country. Section 
8 also represents the largest single item in HUD's budget. The 
oversight of these programs is therefore critical to protecting 
both residents and taxpayers. The Committee has not included 
all of the funding requested but agrees that additional 
resources are warranted to increase oversight, particularly of 
PHAs. The Committee has included funding for the following 
priority areas: oversight of troubled PHAs, Field Office 
monitoring and oversight, and HUD-VASH and homelessness 
activities. If sufficient resources are available, HUD may hire 
personnel to help oversee Choice Neighborhoods and Jobs-Plus. 
Finally, the Committee directs HUD to provide quarterly 
staffing reports.

                   COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2012....................................    $100,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................     103,882,000
Committee recommendation................................     103,500,000

    This account provides salary and benefits funding for 
Community Planning and Development [CPD] staff in headquarters 
and in 43 field offices. CPD's mission is to support successful 
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 home 
ownership. 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 $103,500,000 
for the staffing within this office, which is $382,000 less 
than the budget request and $3,500,000 more than the fiscal 
year 2012 enacted level. The Committee believes that the 
justification for additional FTEs is warranted to help conduct 
oversight of grantees. The Committee is achieving this increase 
by shifting administrative dollars to program offices to 
improve oversight.

                                HOUSING

Appropriations, 2012....................................    $391,500,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................     398,832,000
Committee recommendation................................     398,500,000

    This account provides salary and benefits funding to 
support staff in headquarters and in 52 field locations 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 and handicapped, and to conduct several regulatory 
functions. The Office also administers Federal Housing 
Administration [FHA] programs. FHA administers HUD's mortgage 
and loan insurance programs which facilitate the financing of 
new construction, rehabilitation or the purchase of existing 
dwelling units. The Office also provides services to maintain 
and preserve homeownership, especially for underserved 
populations. 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 $398,500,000 
for staffing in the Office of Housing, which is $332,000 less 
than the budget request and $7,000,000 more than the fiscal 
year 2012 enacted level. The Committee has also directed that 
at least $8,500,000 be dedicated to the Office of Risk and 
Regulatory Affairs.
    The Office of Housing includes the Federal Housing 
Administration [FHA], which as a result of the housing crisis 
is currently playing an outsized role in the market. FHA's 
ability to provide continued access to liquidity has helped 
provide some stability to the housing market, but its increased 
role does not come without risk. Sufficient staff with the 
appropriate expertise is critical to mitigating this risk 
through strong oversight. The Committee is providing an 
increase in this office by reducing funding for administrative 
offices and shifting those resources to program offices to 
support oversight. The Committee expects funding to support 
oversight of FHA's insurance programs, as well as its housing 
programs, such as project-based section 8.

                    POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH

Appropriations, 2012....................................     $22,211,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................      21,394,000
Committee recommendation................................      22,326,000

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $22,326,000 
for this account, which is $932,000 more than the budget 
request and $115,000 more than the fiscal year 2012 enacted 
level.
    The Committee expects that since limited research dollars 
are available, HUD will more effectively use the existing staff 
in PD&R to conduct housing research instead of relying on 
outside research contracts.

                   FAIR HOUSING AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

Appropriations, 2012....................................     $72,600,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................      74,296,000
Committee recommendation................................      72,904,000

    This account provides salary and benefits funding to 
support staff in headquarters and in 42 field locations in the 
Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity [FHEO]. FHEO is 
responsible for investigating, resolving, and prosecuting 
complaints of housing discrimination, as well as 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 $72,904,000, 
which is $1,392,000 less than the budget request and $304,000 
more than the fiscal year 2012 enacted level.

            OFFICE OF HEALTHY HOMES AND LEAD HAZARD CONTROL

Appropriations, 2012....................................      $7,400,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................       6,816,000
Committee recommendation................................       7,433,000

    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 $7,433,000 for 
this account, which is $617,000 more than the budget request 
and $33,000 more than the fiscal year 2012 enacted level.

                    RENTAL ASSISTANCE DEMONSTRATION

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    Rental Assistance Demonstration [RAD] is intended to test a 
model to preserve public housing. Participation in the program 
by public housing agencies would be voluntary and involve the 
conversion to an improved form of property-based rental 
assistance. This form of rental assistance would enable public 
housing agencies to leverage private sector resources in order 
to recapitalize this housing stock and maintain these units of 
affordable housing.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommendation does not include any funding 
for the Rental Assistance Demonstration [RAD], consistent with 
the President's request. The Committee included language in 
fiscal year 2012 giving the Department authority to conduct RAD 
to test its ability to leverage private sector dollars to 
preserve the Nation's invaluable supply of public housing. The 
Committee looks forward to seeing the result of this 
demonstration.

                       Public and Indian Housing


                     TENANT-BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE

Appropriations, 2012..................................\1\$18,914,369,000
Budget estimate, 2013..................................\1\19,074,283,000
Committee recommendation...............................\1\19,396,335,000

\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 2.2 million families. The program also funds 
incremental vouchers to assist vouchers for tenants who live in 
projects where the owner of the project has decided to leave 
the section 8 program. The program also provides for the 
replacement of units lost from the assisted housing inventory 
through its tenant protection vouchers. Under these programs, 
eligible low-income families pay 30 percent of their adjusted 
income for rent, and the Federal Government is responsible for 
the remainder of the rent, up to the fair market rent or some 
other payment standard. This account also provides funding for 
administrative fees for public housing authorities, mainstream 
vouchers, the Family Self-Sufficiency [FSS] and Housing and 
Urban Development Veterans Supportive Housing [HUD-VASH] 
programs. Under FSS, families receive job training and 
employment that should lead to a decrease in their dependency 
on government assistance and help them move toward economic 
self-sufficiency.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$19,396,335,000 for fiscal year 2013, including $4,000,000,000 
as an advance appropriation to be made available on October 1, 
2013. This amount is $322,052,000 more than the budget request 
and $481,966,000 more than the fiscal year 2012 enacted level.
    The Committee recommends $17,495,000,000 for the renewal 
costs of section 8 vouchers, which is $257,052,000 more than 
the budget request and $252,649,000 more than the fiscal year 
2012 enacted level.
    The section 8 rental assistance program is a critical tool 
that enables more than 2 million low-income individuals and 
families to access safe, stable and affordable housing in the 
private market.
    In recognition of the section 8 program's central role in 
ensuring housing for vulnerable Americans, the Committee has 
worked to provide sufficient resources to support existing 
section 8 programs and ensure that no current voucher holders 
are put at risk of losing their housing. The increase above the 
President's request will help meet the cost of renewing 
incremental vouchers for the first time that were funded in 
prior years, including HUD-Veterans Affairs Supported Housing 
[HUD-VASH] vouchers. The Committee will continue to monitor 
both leasing data and reserve balances to ensure sufficient 
funding for the program.
    In addition, the Committee has not included certain 
authorizing provisions proposed in the budget, including 
mandating new or higher minimum rents. The Department has not 
provided sufficient assurance to the Committee that 
implementation of the minimum rent provision would not 
adversely affect vulnerable tenants. Given that section 8 
tenants have an average income of $12,549 and some have no 
income, the Committee does not feel it is responsible to 
mandate new or higher contributions from the program's poorest 
families. The Committee understands that the authorizing 
committees are considering similar proposals, and hopes a broad 
authorizing bill can be passed.
    While the Committee has not accepted all the requested 
cost-saving proposals, the Committee appreciates the 
Department's efforts to look for ways to control program costs. 
The Committee recognizes that the costs in the section 8 
program are dictated in large part by employment conditions, 
supply and demand in the private rental market, and the 
behavior of the individuals in the program, all of which HUD 
has limited ability to control. However, with the current 
fiscal limitations expected to remain for the foreseeable 
future, HUD must continue to work to find ways to better 
control costs, while protecting the most vulnerable.
    The Committee is aware that some PHAs, particularly those 
participating in the Moving to Work demonstration, have 
implemented policies that have resulted in cost savings. 
Examples of these changes include adjusting the unit size for 
which tenants are eligible, adjusting payment standard 
policies, modifying utility allowances and removing exclusions 
for certain types of income. The Committee is encouraged by 
these ideas since they have the potential to control costs with 
minimal impact on low-income tenants. Moreover, many of these 
changes may only require changes to regulation to implement 
across all programs. The Committee wants an assessment of these 
and other practices that may improve the efficiency of the 
program and reduce costs. Therefore, the Committee directs HUD 
to provide a report to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations 180 days after the enactment of this act that 
includes an assessment of regulatory changes that PHAs are 
currently using or could use to improve program management and 
control costs.
    In addition, HUD must improve its ability to monitor and 
predict program costs. While revisions to estimates are 
expected, large variations in estimates undermine the 
Committee's ability to protect vulnerable tenants.
    Inspections and Oversight.--Property owners that 
participate in the section 8 program are responsible for 
ensuring subsidized units meet HUD's housing quality standards, 
while public housing agencies [PHA] are responsible for 
inspecting units for compliance. HUD is responsible for 
ensuring that PHAs meet their oversight responsibilities, 
including unit inspections. Recent media reports uncovered 
multiple incidents of poor living conditions in certain Housing 
Choice Voucher [HCV] units. The Committee is aware that the PHA 
responsible for oversight of these units and HUD have taken 
action to address the incidents and the HUD Office of Inspector 
General has opened an audit. In addition, HUD is conducting a 
broad review of inspection practices in the section 8 program.
    The Committee is concerned that these instances may not be 
unique and directs HUD to take meaningful and timely steps to 
strengthen oversight and quality control of PHA performance in 
the critical area of inspections. The Committee directs HUD to 
continue its ongoing efforts to strengthen inspection oversight 
and quality control. HUD is working to extend quality assurance 
audits by field office personnel to all troubled and near 
troubled PHAs, and the Committee encourages HUD to extend these 
activities to all PHAs with HCV oversight responsibilities. An 
additional $2,500,000 has been provided under the Office of 
Public and Indian Housing Salaries and Expenses account to 
support HUD's expansion of these efforts. HUD is also working 
to create conformity of HCV housing quality standards with the 
Uniform Physical Conditions Standards in order to establish a 
single inspection system for use across HUD programs. Last, HUD 
is developing and implementing inspection modules as part of 
the Next Generation Management System technology initiative, 
which will improve its oversight abilities.
    While necessary pilot testing and technology upgrades may 
not be fully implemented in fiscal year 2013, the Committee 
directs HUD to work expeditiously toward realizing its plans to 
improve inspection oversight. The Committee directs HUD to 
submit a report to the Committee within 180 days of enactment 
of this act that summarizes progress in carrying out these 
plans, identifies remaining milestones for implementation, and 
lays out a schedule for projected completion.
    Set-Asides for Special Circumstances.--The Committee has 
provided a set-aside of $75,000,000 to allow the Secretary to 
adjust allocations to PHAs under certain circumstances. 
Qualifying factors include: (1) public housing agencies that 
have experienced a significant increase, as determined by the 
Secretary, in renewal costs of tenant-based rental assistance 
resulting from unforeseen circumstances and voucher utilization 
or the impact from portability under section 8(r) of the act; 
(2) public housing agencies with vouchers that were not in use 
during the previous 12-month period in order to be available to 
meet a commitment pursuant to section 8(o)(13) of the act; and 
(3) for adjustments or costs associated with HUD-VASH vouchers. 
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.
    HUD-Veterans Affairs Supported Housing [HUD-VASH].--The 
Committee has included $75,000,000 to support more than 10,000 
additional HUD-VASH vouchers consistent with the budget 
request. As the only Federal permanent supportive housing 
program dedicated exclusively to veterans, HUD-VASH is critical 
to serving veterans with high needs that face severe barriers 
to housing, especially the chronically homeless. The 
effectiveness of the HUD-VASH program in getting veterans off 
the street and into housing was demonstrated in recent data 
released by HUD and VA from the annual point-in-time count. The 
data show that between 2010 and 2011, veterans homelessness 
declined by 12 percent, from 76,000 veterans experiencing 
chronic homelessness on a given night to 67,000, a significant 
improvement. The Committee will continue to work with HUD and 
the VA to achieve the goal of ending veterans homelessness by 
2015.
    To reach this goal, HUD-VASH vouchers must be targeted to 
the most vulnerable. Therefore, the Committee continues to 
require that vouchers be allocated based on need. The Committee 
also continues to request that HUD and the VA be mindful of the 
needs of rural areas when allocating vouchers. Rural areas can 
often present challenges in delivering case management services 
to areas that are far from VA Medical Centers. Moreover, the 
smaller number of veterans in need may make the hiring of a 
case manager to serve them impractical. HUD and the VA should 
seek innovative ways to meet the needs of veterans who are far 
from VA Medical Centers, including making use of existing local 
providers to provide case management services.
    The ability to achieve the goal of ending veteran 
homelessness requires more than simply providing vouchers to 
areas of need. The ultimate success of this program will be 
demonstrated by veterans remaining housed and off the street. 
The Committee expects HUD to work with the VA to track the 
stability of participating veterans, so that if housing 
stability isn't being achieved, program modifications can be 
made. In addition, the Committee encourages HUD and the VA to 
ensure consistent measures of HUD-VASH utilization and 
stability.
    Administrative Fees.--The Committee recommends 
$1,575,000,000 for administrative fees, which is equal to the 
budget request and $225,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2012 
enacted level. In recent years, the Committee has reduced the 
amount of funding provided to PHAs to help them operate their 
programs. However, the impact of these reductions is beginning 
to adversely affect the ability of PHAs to serve tenants. As 
HUD noted in its Congressional justification and in testimony 
before the Committee, in the past year, several PHAs have 
transferred their programs, while others refused new HUD-VASH 
vouchers because of insufficient administrative fees. As a 
result, the Committee has agreed to the Administration's 
request to increase administrative fees.
    Tenant Protection Vouchers.--Within the amount provided for 
tenant protection vouchers, the Committee has included a set-
aside of $5,000,000 to ensure that vulnerable tenants living in 
buildings with maturing mortgages don't lose their housing or 
become severely rent burdened. The Committee is concerned by 
HUD's recent notice on how the funding provided last year would 
be allocated, and in particular that it would be done by 
project via lottery. The Committee understands that there are 
challenges with implementing this provision, and does not want 
to create perverse incentives for owners to increase rents. 
However, it is important that the limited number of vouchers 
available for this purpose are provided to tenants with the 
highest needs.
    Family Self-Sufficiency.--The Committee has continued a 
set-aside of $60,000,000 to support the Family Self-Sufficiency 
program, which helps section 8 residents find gainful 
employment and increase their earnings. At this time, the 
Committee is not funding the FSS program as a separate account 
and opening it up to participants in other programs. The 
Committee is concerned that the level of funding requested was 
insufficient to meet the needs of all expected participants. 
The Committee looks forward to working with the Department and 
the authorizing committees for ways to expand the program and 
increase its impact.
    Mainstream Vouchers.--A total of $111,335,000 is included 
under this heading to support the renewal of vouchers 
previously funded under the heading ``Housing for Persons with 
Disabilities'', but which have long been administered by the 
Housing Choice Voucher office. These vouchers are not included 
as part of the renewal base because the Committee wants to 
ensure that these vouchers remain dedicated to serving persons 
with disabilities as intended.

                        HOUSING CERTIFICATE FUND

                         (INCLUDING RESCISSION)

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Housing Certificate Fund until fiscal year 2005 
provided funding for both the project-based and tenant-based 
components of the section 8 program. Project-based rental 
assistance and tenant-based rental assistance are now 
separately funded accounts. The Housing Certificate Fund 
retains balances from previous years' appropriations.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee has not included a rescission from the 
Housing Certificate Fund in fiscal year 2013, consistent with 
the President's request. The Committee has included language 
that will allow unobligated balances from specific accounts to 
be used to renew or amend Project-Based Rental Assistance 
contracts.

                      PUBLIC HOUSING CAPITAL FUND

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2012....................................  $1,875,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................   2,070,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,985,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,985,000,000 
for the Public Housing Capital Fund, which is $85,000,000 less 
than the budget request and $110,000,000 more than the fiscal 
year 2012 enacted level.
    Of the amount made available under this section, 
$50,000,000 is for supportive services for residents of public 
housing under the Resident Opportunity and Self-Sufficiency 
[ROSS] program, and up to $5,000,000 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 performed by the 
Real Estate Assessment Center [REAC].
    The Committee has also set aside $20,000,000 for emergency 
capital needs including safety and security measures necessary 
to address crime and drug-related activity, as well as needs 
resulting from unforeseen or unpreventable emergencies and 
natural disasters, excluding presidentially declared 
emergencies and natural disasters. The Committee reminds HUD 
that safety and security funding is an eligible use of these 
funds. The Committee continues this eligibility because there 
are public housing agencies facing safety and security issues 
that rely on these funds to protect their tenants. The 
Committee believes that these funds will support funding for 
both repairs from disasters and safety and security 
improvements. Therefore the Committee directs the Department to 
fund eligible projects with a portion of these funds as quickly 
as possible.
    The Public Housing Capital Fund supports the maintenance of 
critical affordable housing, which provides more than 1.1 
million low-income households with affordable housing. 
Unfortunately, limited resources have affected the ability of 
public housing authorities to upgrade and preserve these 
facilities. The regular deferral of maintenance has resulted in 
a significant backlog of capital needs, which over the long-
term, increase the cost of such maintenance, and can result in 
lost units. A recent HUD study estimated the backlog of public 
housing capital improvements to be approximately 
$25,600,000,000 as of June 2008. While some progress was noted 
since the last study was conducted in 1998, and funding 
provided for capital improvements in the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act will help, the backlog remains significant.
    In response to the growing needs of the aging public 
housing portfolio and limited Federal funding, public housing 
authorities have found ways to leverage private sector funding 
to make capital improvements. Recently, Moody's asked for 
comments on its plans to downgrade the credit rating on public 
housing bonds as a result of decreasing appropriations for 
public housing programs. The Committee is concerned that 
additional budget cuts could further jeopardize PHAs' ability 
to access private sector funding, endangering public housing. 
The increase provided is not sufficient to address the capital 
needs of public housing, but represents a commitment to this 
valuable housing stock.
    Jobs-Plus.--The Committee has included up to $15,000,000 
for the Jobs-Plus Initiative, similar to what was proposed in 
the budget. This initiative is based on a demonstration the 
Department began in 1998 to improve employment opportunities 
and earnings of public housing residents. The demonstration 
combined employment-related services and activities, financial 
incentives to work, and community support. The data showed 
that, on average, compared to other public housing residents, 
those in the program earned an additional $1,300 per year from 
2000-2006. As a result, these residents were either able to 
leave public housing or contribute more to their housing costs. 
The Committee supports HUD's efforts to find ways to help 
public housing residents find employment and achieve greater 
economic self-sufficiency. It also agrees with the focus on 
strong partnerships with local Workforce Investment Boards. 
Through such partnerships, PHAs can leverage existing systems, 
services, and resources to have a greater impact on their 
residents.
    In reviewing the Jobs-Plus proposal, it became apparent 
that there was overlap between the services that were critical 
to a successful Jobs-Plus program and those being offered as 
part of the ROSS program. Therefore the Committee has included 
funding for Jobs-Plus for the additional incentives and 
community outreach and expects the services aspects to be 
funded with other sources. The Committee believes the funding 
for these additional activities will strengthen existing ROSS 
programs. The Committee also hopes that communities will be 
able to successfully leverage other resources to provide the 
necessary intensive services that lead to the best outcomes. 
The Committee expects that HUD will use existing research and 
data to ensure that grantees implement Jobs-Plus programs 
effectively. The activities highlighted include onsite services 
and community engagement. The Committee also hopes the lessons 
learned from this can be applied to programs for section 8 
residents.
    While the Committee has given the Secretary some authority 
to set-aside a portion of the ROSS funds for use in this 
demonstration, the Committee is also mindful of the fact that 
ROSS funds activities beyond employment training and readiness. 
In fact, as much as 25 percent of the funding provides services 
to elderly residents. Therefore the Committee expects HUD to 
use caution in designing this initiative so as not to adversely 
impact those already being served in the ROSS program.

                     PUBLIC HOUSING OPERATING FUND

Appropriations, 2012....................................  $3,961,850,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................   4,524,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   4,591,000,000

                          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 $4,591,000,000 
for the public housing operating fund, which is $67,000,000 
more than the budget request and $629,150,000 more than the 
fiscal year 2012 enacted level. The Committee has not included 
all of the cost-saving provisions proposed in the budget 
because of their effect on low-income tenants. The increase 
above the budget request will support the proposed proration 
without the use of these offsets.
    Literacy Programs.--The Committee notes the importance of 
education and financial literacy in helping families improve 
life skills and increase their economic opportunities. An 
evaluation of the Family Self-Sufficiency [FSS] Program 
conducted by HUD found that families that exited the program 
before graduation had less education than program graduates. 
Increasing educational and financial literacy services for 
public housing residents offers an opportunity to increase the 
success of participants in FSS and other employment programs. 
The Committee encourages HUD to work with national community-
based literacy organizations to identify models that 
successfully incorporate adult literacy programs into HUD 
sponsored housing initiatives. Successful models should link 
these programs to job readiness and post secondary transition 
initiatives, which will help adults with low literacy skills 
become more financially literate and gain the skills necessary 
to make informed decisions about the use and management of 
money. HUD should develop and share best practices with PHAs 
and other housing providers to expand services to adult 
learners.

                          CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS

Appropriations, 2012....................................    $120,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................     150,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     120,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Choice Neighborhoods Initiative provides 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 residents.
    Choice Neighborhoods grants will fund the preservation, 
rehabilitation, and transformation of public and HUD-assisted 
housing as well as their neighborhoods. 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.
    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 Department of Justice, to leverage additional 
resources. Where possible, the program will be coordinated with 
the Department of Education's Promise Neighborhoods Initiative.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $120,000,000 
for the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative. This amount is equal 
to the fiscal year 2012 enacted level and $30,000,000 less than 
the amount requested by the President. 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 $80,000,000 of the funding provided shall be 
awarded to projects where public housing authorities are the 
lead applicant.
    Choice Neighborhoods recognizes that community 
transformation requires more than replacing housing. The 
creation of vibrant, sustainable communities also requires 
greater access to transportation, jobs and services that will 
increase opportunities for community residents. However, HUD 
funding cannot support all of these activities. The Committee 
has been encouraged by the ability of Choice Neighborhood 
grantees to leverage significant resources with their grant 
awards. The first five Choice Neighborhood implementation grant 
recipients used the combined $122,000,000 they were awarded to 
leverage $1,600,000,000 in other resources. The Committee 
agrees with the emphasis that HUD has placed on ensuring that 
projects gain financial support from other sources, as well as 
its focus on strong local and Federal partnerships.
    Some of the partners in Choice Neighborhood projects will 
provide residents with greater access to services. Dr. Susan 
Popkin from the Urban Institute has conducted research on HOPE 
VI projects and the effect of redevelopment on residents. She 
has stressed that integrating health, employment and other 
supportive services into redevelopment projects is critical to 
improving the lives of residents, particularly those with the 
highest needs. The Committee encourages HUD to ensure that 
grantees utilize this research and other best practices to 
develop and implement strategies to transform not just 
neighborhoods, but the lives of residents.

                  NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANTS

Appropriations, 2012....................................    $650,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................     650,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     650,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This account funds the Native American Housing Block Grants 
Program, as authorized under title I of the Native American 
Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 
[NAHASDA]. This program provides a funding allocation on a 
formula basis to Indian tribes and their tribally designated 
housing entities in order to help 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 $650,000,000 
for the Native American Housing Block Grants program, of which 
$2,000,000 is set aside for a credit subsidy to support a loan 
level not to exceed $18,332,000 for the section 601 Loan 
Guarantee Program. The recommended level of funding is equal to 
the amount provided in fiscal year 2012 and the budget request.
    As the Nation struggles with high unemployment and economic 
challenges, the Committee recognizes that these challenges have 
long plagued Native Americans. The most recent data suggests 
that Native Americans are twice as likely to live in poverty as 
the rest of the Nation. As a result, the housing challenges on 
tribal lands are daunting. For example, nearly three times as 
many Native Americans live in overcrowded housing as compared 
to the rest of the Nation.
    Technical Assistance.--The Committee recommends $4,000,000 
for technical assistance through a national organization 
representing Native American housing interests, and $4,000,000 
for inspections of Indian housing units, contract expertise, 
training, technical assistance, oversight, and management.
    The Committee noted GAO's determination that limited 
capacity hinders the ability of many tribes to effectively 
address their housing needs. The Committee expects HUD to use 
the technical assistance funding provided to aid tribes with 
capacity challenges, especially tribes receiving small grant 
awards. The funding should be used for training, contract 
expertise, and other services necessary to improve data 
collection, increase leveraging, and address other needs 
identified by tribes. The Committee expects that any assistance 
provided by HUD will reflect the unique needs and culture of 
Native Americans.
    As HUD works to address the needs of tribes, and especially 
smaller tribes, the Committee hopes that HUD will look to 
identify opportunities to coordinate with other agencies, 
including the Department of Agriculture and the Indian Health 
Service.

                  NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANT

Appropriations, 2012....................................     $13,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................      13,000,000
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, in order 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 
equal to the fiscal year 2012 enacted level and the budget 
request. Of the amount provided, $300,000 may be for training 
and technical assistance activities, including up to $100,000 
for related travel for HUD employees.

           INDIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Limitation on
                                        Program account     guaranteed
                                                              loans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2012..................       $6,000,000     $360,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013.................        7,000,000      900,000,000
Committee recommendation..............        6,000,000      633,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          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 $6,000,000 in 
program subsidies to support a loan level of $633,000,000. This 
subsidy amount is $1,000,000 less than the budget request and 
equal to the fiscal year 2012 enacted subsidy level.

      NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Limitation on
                                        Program account     guaranteed
                                                              loans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2012..................         $386,000      $41,504,000
Budget estimate, 2013.................        1,000,000      107,000,000
Committee recommendation..............          386,000       41,504,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          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 Hawaiian 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 $386,000 in 
program subsidies to support a loan level of $41,504,000, which 
is $614,000 less in subsidies than the budget request and equal 
to the subsidy and loan levels provided in fiscal year 2012.

                   Community Planning and Development


          HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS [HOPWA]

Appropriations, 2012....................................    $332,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................     330,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     330,000,000

                          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 service needs of persons 
living with HIV/AIDS and their families.
    By statute, 90 percent of formula-appropriated funds are 
distributed to qualifying States and metropolitan areas on the 
basis of the number of AIDS cases and incidence of AIDS 
reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention by 
March 31 of the year preceding the fiscal year. The remaining 
10 percent of funds are awarded through a national competition, 
with priority given to the renewal of funding for expiring 
agreements consistent with appropriations act requirements.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $330,000,000 
for the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS [HOPWA] 
program. This level of funding is equal to the President's 
budget request and is $2,000,000 less than the fiscal year 2012 
enacted level. The Committee continues to include language 
requiring HUD to allocate these funds in a manner that 
preserves existing HOPWA programs, to the extent that those 
programs are determined to be meeting the needs of persons with 
AIDS.
    The HOPWA program currently provides short-term and 
permanent housing assistance and stabilizing supportive 
services to more than 56,400 households in 134 eligible areas 
nationwide. Of the households receiving assistance, more than 
90 percent have extremely low or very low incomes. According to 
grantee annual reports from 2011, 15 percent of new clients, 
representing 4,507 households, were homeless at program entry.
    The HOPWA program has proven effective at helping 
individuals with HIV/AIDS avoid homelessness and achieve 
housing stability. Research has demonstrated that stable 
housing provides a foundation for recipients to improve health, 
increase economic security, and move toward self-sufficiency. 
Grantees report that 90 percent of households receiving 
assistance in 2011 achieved housing stability and successfully 
accessed or maintained sources of income.
    Research also demonstrates that housing assistance and 
support services are a cost-effective alternative to 
hospitalization, emergency room services, and other higher 
levels of care. A Chicago Housing for Health Partnership study 
reports that supportive housing efforts cost an average of $34 
per day, compared to hospitalization costs of $2,168 per day or 
nursing care at $108 per day. Furthermore, research indicates 
that housing is a primary factor in promoting HIV prevention 
and in helping to avoid the lifetime costs of infection, 
estimated at more than $600,000. These costs would largely fall 
on public systems for low-income/HOPWA eligible households.
    While the HOPWA program has demonstrated success, there is 
still substantial work to be done to meet the housing demand of 
low-income persons with HIV/AIDS. HOPWA grantees report they 
are only able to directly address about one-third of the 
identified eligible housing need at program's current funding 
level.

                       community development fund

Appropriations, 2012\1\.................................  $3,408,090,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................   3,143,090,000
Committee recommendation................................   3,210,000,000

\1\Includes $100,000,000 in disaster relief funding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          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. Of the funds appropriated, 70 percent are 
distributed to entitlement communities and 30 percent are 
distributed to nonentitlement communities after deducting 
designated amounts for set-asides for insular areas and Indian 
CDBG.
    The resources provided under this program will also fund 
the Sustainable Communities Initiative, which is part of the 
Partnership for Sustainable Communities, and includes HUD and 
the Department of Transportation [DOT]. This effort will 
improve coordination of transportation and housing investments 
that result in more regional and local sustainable development 
patterns, better strategies to increase economic 
competitiveness, 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.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,210,000,000 
for the Community Development Fund in fiscal year 2013. This 
level is $66,910,000 more than the budget request and 
$198,090,000 less than the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. 
However, the fiscal year 2012 amount included $400,000,000 for 
Disaster CDBG, of which $100,000,000 was designated as disaster 
relief, that is not included in the Committee recommendation.
    The Committee has provided $3,100,000,000 for Community 
Development Block Grants. The recommended amount is 
$151,910,000 more than the budget request and the fiscal year 
2012 enacted level. 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. According to HUD data, in 2011, an 
estimated 80,000 additional jobs were supported for the year 
through CDBG-funded construction and services. The Committee 
believes that investments through CDBG are important to 
creating jobs and improving communities.
    The Committee includes $60,000,000 for grants to Indian 
tribes for essential economic and community development 
activities which is equal to the budget request and the fiscal 
year 2012 enacted level.
    Sustainable Communities Initiative.--The Committee has 
recommended $50,000,000 to support the Sustainable Communities 
Initiative. The funding provided will support an interagency 
collaboration among HUD, DOT, and the Environmental Protection 
Agency [EPA]. The Committee notes that GAO has recognized the 
potential of this partnership to improve Federal collaboration. 
In its annual report on duplication, overlap and fragmentation, 
it cited the partnership as an example of Federal collaboration 
that will begin to develop a common set of performance 
measures.
    The Committee believes that the value of Regional Planning 
and Community Challenge Grants is in helping communities 
develop and implement strategies to increase economic 
competitiveness and better align Federal resources. The initial 
grantees are already demonstrating success in achieving these 
outcomes. As a result of plans developed through this program, 
which outline how communities will address their infrastructure 
and economic development needs, communities are strategically 
targeting their Federal funding and drawing financial support 
from private developers and industries. For this reason, the 
Committee directs HUD to give greater weight when evaluating 
funding applications to projects that are focused on increasing 
economic competitiveness through such strategies as better 
utilizing or repurposing existing assets or creating jobs where 
people live. Moreover, the Committee believes applicants must 
demonstrate through their plans how they will realign Federal 
investments to reduce overlap or duplication.
    Small and Rural Communities.--The Committee continues to be 
mindful of the needs of small and rural communities and has 
included a provision that requires that at least 25 percent of 
the funding provided be awarded to communities with a 
population less than 500,000. The Committee supports HUD's 
recognition of the needs of smaller communities, including the 
additional set-aside it has created for communities with a 
population of less than 200,000. The Committee expects HUD to 
continue to pay special attention to the unique needs of small 
and rural communities that would also benefit from coordinated 
transportation and housing planning.

         COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LOAN GUARANTEES PROGRAM ACCOUNT

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Limitation on
                                        Program account     guaranteed
                                                              loans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2012..................       $5,952,000     $240,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013.................  ...............      500,000,000
Committee recommendation..............  ...............      500,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommendation includes the President's 
proposal to make this a fee-based program, and provides no 
appropriation. However, the bill supports a loan level 
guarantee of $500,000,000 for the section 108 loan guarantees 
account for fiscal year 2013. This guaranteed loan level is 
$260,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2012 level and equal to 
the President's request.
    This program enables CDBG 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.

                  HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2012....................................  $1,000,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................   1,000,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,000,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    Title II of the National Affordable Housing Act, as 
amended, authorizes the HOME Investment Partnerships Program. 
This program provides assistance to States and local 
governments for the purpose of expanding the supply and 
affordability of housing to low-income and very low-income 
people. Eligible activities include tenant-based rental 
assistance, acquisition and rehabilitation of affordable rental 
and ownership housing, and housing construction. 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 $1,000,000,000 
for the HOME Investment Partnership Program. This amount is 
equal to the fiscal year 2012 enacted level and the budget 
request.
    The Committee has retained bill language from fiscal year 
2012 designed to reform and strengthen the HOME program. These 
reforms sought to address criticism raised by the HUD-OIG and 
media about languishing projects, unqualified developers, and 
lax oversight by the Department. The Committee notes that HUD 
has published a proposed rule that will permanently incorporate 
these and other reforms into HOME regulations. Once a rule is 
finalized, the Committee will evaluate if the reform provisions 
included in this bill are still necessary.
    In addition to the reforms included in the fiscal year 2012 
bill, the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 
required HUD to submit a report on the steps being taken to 
improve data quality and management, as well as grantee 
oversight and accountability. HUD submitted a report to the 
Committees in response to this request in March 2012. It 
included an explanation of modifications HUD is making to the 
Integrated Disbursement and Information System, which it uses 
to monitor grantees and track the status of HOME funds. The 
report also included planned improvements to grantee oversight 
and monitoring.
    The Committee is encouraged by the program changes HUD 
outlined in the report, and wants to ensure that these planned 
reforms are implemented in a timely manner. Therefore, the 
Committee directs HUD to submit a follow-up report to the House 
and Senate Committees on Appropriations by February 15, 2013, 
on the status of the program reforms it has outlined. This 
report should include details on outcomes of the reforms 
implemented to date, as well as target dates for any reforms 
not yet put into place.
    Program Oversight.--The Committee notes that HUD has 
established a process that automatically cancels projects that 
have not spent funds in the first 12 months after funds are 
committed to them. HUD established this process to discourage 
participating jurisdictions from committing funds to projects 
before they are ready. After instituting this process, the 
number of projects automatically cancelled has been decreasing, 
in part because participating jurisdictions are better 
evaluating project readiness. The Committee believes that the 
automatic cancellation process represents an additional 
oversight tool. However, HUD has resisted suggestions that 
participating jurisdictions seek HUD approval to restart a 
project once it has been automatically cancelled. It argues 
that in many cases projects that are automatically cancelled 
are experiencing reasonable, but unpredictable delays, so 
further HUD review would divert staff from more effective 
oversight work. While HUD staff should focus most of their 
attention on high-risk grantees and projects, integrating the 
automatic cancellation system into oversight activities makes 
sense and can be achieved without undermining the focus on high 
risk grantees. By requiring participating jurisdictions to 
validate project readiness with HUD staff before recommitting 
funds to projects that have been automatically cancelled, HUD 
will put an additional check in place to help prevent projects 
from getting off track and improve timely performance of scarce 
federal resources. The Committee directs HUD to develop 
guidance on how staff should use automatic cancellations to 
improve HUD's oversight of grantees and prevent projects that 
are not ready from moving forward. HUD should include 
information on the guidance it develops in the follow-up report 
it is required to submit to the Committees.

        SELF-HELP AND ASSISTED HOMEOWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2012....................................     $53,500,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................................
Committee recommendation................................      53,500,000

                          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. These funds increase nonprofit organizations' ability 
to leverage funds from other sources. 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 programs help to 
develop the capacity of nonprofit community development 
entities to undertake community development and affordable 
housing projects.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $53,500,000 for the Self-Help and 
Assisted Homeownership Program, which is $53,500,000 more than 
the budget request and equal to the fiscal year 2012 enacted 
level. This amount includes $15,000,000 for SHOP, as authorized 
under section 11 of the Housing Opportunity Extension Act of 
1996.
    The Committee recommends $35,000,000 for capacity building 
as authorized by section 4 of the HUD Demonstration Act of 
1993, and notes that funding provided under this section 
requires a statutory 3-to-1 match to further leverage resources 
to assist more communities. The Committee provides $5,000,000 
to carry out capacity building activities in rural communities.
    During the economic crisis, the need for affordable housing 
has only increased. Congress has provided funding through 
programs such as the Neighborhood Stabilization Program to 
create additional affordable housing and support economic 
development in communities across the Nation, especially those 
hardest hit by the foreclosure crisis and recession. However, 
the success of these efforts relies in large part on the 
capacity of States, local governments, and organizations to 
develop and implement effective housing and community 
development plans. The funding recommended under this program 
is intended to ensure that these communities have the skills 
and technical capabilities necessary to undertake effective 
community development activities. In addition, resources have 
been targeted to rural communities to address their unique 
needs and challenges.

                       HOMELESS ASSISTANCE GRANTS

Appropriations, 2012....................................  $1,901,190,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................   2,231,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   2,146,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,146,000,000 
for Homeless Assistance Grants in fiscal year 2013. This amount 
is $85,000,000 less than the President's request, and 
$244,810,000 more than the fiscal year 2012 enacted level.
    As part of the Committee recommendation, at least 
$1,841,262,000 will support the Continuum of Care Program, 
including the renewal of existing projects, and the Rural 
Housing Stability Assistance Program. Based on the renewal 
burden, HUD may also support planning, as authorized. The 
recommendation also includes at least $286,000,000 for the 
emergency solutions grants program [ESG]. ESG will allow 
communities to take advantage of the additional flexibility 
provided under the Homeless Emergency and Rapid Transition to 
Housing [HEARTH] Act to do prevention and rapid re-housing. The 
Committee notes that renewal needs may change, and the 
Committee expects that any reduction in renewal burden will be 
used to increase ESG.
    The most recent Annual Homeless Assessment Report [AHAR] 
was released by the Department in June 2011. The report showed 
an 11-percent reduction in chronic homelessness since 2007. 
However, the data also show that homelessness has increased 20 
percent, and the number of people using homeless shelters in 
suburban and rural areas has increased 57 percent. According to 
the report, families now represent a larger share of the 
shelter population than ever before.
    As part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, 
Congress funded the Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-
housing program [HPRP] to assist low-income Americans hit hard 
by the recession. As of December 2011, over 1,215,000 people 
have benefited from the program, which offers lower cost 
interventions. These include short-term rental assistance, or 
assistance with security deposits or back rent, which allows 
families to stay in their homes or quickly leave homelessness. 
While many communities had not done prevention and rapid re-
housing prior to HPRP, ESG will allow them to continue these 
activities. The Committee has been impressed with results from 
HPRP, particularly rapid re-housing. Communities that have 
dedicated a larger share of their HPRP to rapid re-housing have 
demonstrated success in helping families achieve long-term 
housing stability at reasonable cost. For example, preliminary 
data show that in Michigan, where most of the funding was 
dedicated to rapid re-housing, only 6 percent of persons 
assisted returned to homelessness. Philadelphia, which used a 
similar approach, has seen only 4 percent of program 
participants return to homelessness. The Committee supports 
HUD's efforts to encourage communities to dedicate a greater 
share of their ESG funding to rapid re-housing activities 
instead of prevention. The Committee notes that the second HPRP 
report is due in May 2012, and the Committee expects HUD to use 
this data from this report to help communities effectively 
target ESG funding to the programs that have the greatest 
impact on reducing homelessness.
    Annual Homeless Assessment Report [AHAR].--The Annual 
Homeless Assessment Report stems from congressional directives 
begun in 2001 that charged the Department with collecting 
homeless data through the implementation of a new Homeless 
Management Information System [HMIS]. The AHAR report includes 
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 is encouraged that Federal 
agencies are sharing homeless data and working towards using 
HMIS as a platform for gathering information in other Federal 
programs. Having consistent national data will allow the 
Federal Government to better understand the needs of the 
homeless and better align Federal services to meet these needs. 
To support continued data collection and the AHAR report, the 
Committee has included $8,000,000 for data analysis and 
technical assistance.
    The Committee requests that HUD submit the AHAR report by 
June 17, 2013. 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 directs HUD to continue to 
include 5-year projections of the costs of renewing existing 
projects as part of the fiscal year 2014 budget justification. 
This should include estimated costs of renewing permanent 
supportive housing.

                            Housing Programs


                    PROJECT-BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE

Appropriations, 2012\1\.................................  $9,339,672,000
Budget estimate, 2013\1\................................   8,700,400,000
Committee recommendation\1\.............................   9,875,795,000

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

                          PROJECT DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The section 8 project-based rental assistance [PBRA] 
program provides more than 1.2 million low-income Americans 
with safe, stable, and sanitary housing. For many years, the 
program was plagued by inadequate budgets that threatened the 
supply of affordable housing. Moreover, the policy of short-
funding contracts devised to keep the program within budget 
jeopardized the Department's credibility, created unnecessary 
administrative inefficiencies and reduced investor confidence. 
The Committee provided significant resources in the American 
Recovery and Reinvestment Act to address the shortfall and 
enable HUD to fully fund contracts. Sufficient resources have 
been provided each year since then, putting the program back on 
sound footing and restoring investor confidence. The Committee 
is concerned the administration is proposing to return to these 
shortsighted practices by proposing to short-fund contracts in 
fiscal year 2013, which would result in two-thirds of the 
housing portfolio receiving partial funding.
    The Committee rejects the administration's proposal and 
recommends a total appropriation of $9,875,795,000 for the 
annual renewal of project-based contracts, of which up to 
$260,000,000 is for the cost of contract administrators. The 
recommended level of funding is $536,123,000 more than the 
amount provided in fiscal year 2012 and $1,175,395,000 more 
than the budget request. The resources provided would fully 
fund PRBA contracts for fiscal year 2013. The Committee's 
recommendation also includes several cost-saving measures 
proposed in the administration's budget, including applying 
residual receipts to offset assistance payments for new and old 
regulations contracts; limiting exception rent levels to the 
operating cost adjustment factor [OCAF]; applying Small Area 
Fair Market Rents as a benchmark for rents subject to 
comparability; and shortening vacancy payments.
    Oversight of Property Owners.--The Committee places a 
priority on providing access to affordable housing for the 
Nation's low income. Therefore the Committee is disturbed that 
some properties continue to receive Federal subsidies despite 
unsafe or unsanitary conditions. It is incumbent upon HUD to 
ensure that these properties are safe for residents. Moreover, 
if owners fail to maintain their properties in accordance with 
HUD standards, they should be held accountable. While there is 
a tension between holding property owners accountable and 
ensuring tenants don't lose their housing, HUD has tools at its 
disposal to hold owners accountable without putting tenants at 
risk. The Committee recommendation includes a general provision 
that requires HUD to take specific steps to ensure that 
physical deficiencies in properties are quickly addressed, and 
requires the Secretary to take explicit actions if the owner 
fails to maintain them. These actions include imposing civil 
money penalties, working to secure a different owner for the 
property, or transferring the section 8 contract to another the 
property. The Committee wants to take care to preserve critical 
project-based section 8 contracts, and believes this goal can 
be achieved while holding property owners accountable for their 
actions.
    The Committee expects HUD to move quickly to identify 
problem properties and owners and find an appropriate remedy. 
The Committee directs HUD to provide bi-annual reports to the 
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on the number of 
projects that receive multiple exigent health and safety 
violations; physical inspection scores below 30; and actions 
being taken to address safety concerns, including how often 
civil money penalties are imposed, contracts are transferred to 
another property or ownership is transferred. The Committee 
expects that with increased enforcement these numbers will 
quickly be reduced.

                        HOUSING FOR THE ELDERLY

Appropriations, 2012....................................    $374,627,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................     475,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     375,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This account funds 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 contracts [PRAC] to support operational costs 
for such units.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $375,000,000 
for the section 202 program. This level is $100,000,000 below 
the budget request and $373,000 above the fiscal year 2012 
enacted level. The Committee recommends $70,000,000 for service 
coordinators and the continuation of existing congregate 
service grants, and $20,000,000 for the conversion of projects 
to assisted living housing, or for substantial rehabilitation 
for emergency capital repairs.
    The section 202 program provides nearly 400,000 federally 
assisted, privately owned affordable apartments for the 
elderly. An additional 120 projects are in the pipeline that 
will provide 4,380 housing units in future years as the 
construction of new developments is completed, using funding 
appropriated in prior years. However, the Committee recognizes 
that the supply of affordable housing to assist low-income 
elderly is insufficient to meet current demand. The shortage is 
expected to increase for the foreseeable future as the number 
of Americans aged 65 and older grows. The Seniors Commission 
projects that by 2020, there will be an estimated 1.3 million 
elderly with incomes at or below 150 percent of poverty. 
Unfortunately, due to severe budget constraints, the Committee 
is unable to continue to invest in the construction of new 
housing units. Assuming the current average per-unit rental 
assistance rate, the section 202 program will need at least an 
additional $31,000,000 to fund rental assistance contracts in 
future years, as housing units under construction become 
available for occupancy. Knowing that budgets will only become 
more constrained over time, the construction of new units is 
not financially sustainable at this time.

                 HOUSING FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

Appropriations, 2012....................................    $165,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................     150,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     150,000,000

                          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. Funding may be made available for 
PRAC to support operational costs for such units. Funding for 
mainstream vouchers, formerly funded under this heading, has 
been moved to the Tenant-Based Rental Assistance account.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $150,000,000 
for the section 811 program. This level is equal to the budget 
request and $15,000,000 below the fiscal year 2012 enacted 
level. Due to severe discretionary budget constraints, no funds 
are provided for capital assistance to construct new affordable 
housing units for persons with disabilities. However, this 
level of funding supports PRAC renewals and amendments, and 
allows the Secretary to provide project rental assistance to 
State housing finance agencies and other appropriate entities 
as authorized under section 811(b)(3) of the Cranston-Gonzalez 
National Affordable Housing Act.

                     HOUSING COUNSELING ASSISTANCE

Appropriations, 2012....................................     $45,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................      55,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      55,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $55,000,000 
for the Housing Counseling Assistance program, which is equal 
to the budget request and $10,000,000 more than the fiscal year 
2012 enacted level. The funds provided will help individuals 
and families across the country make better-informed housing 
decisions. The Committee has included language requiring HUD to 
obligate counseling grants within 120 days of enactment of this 
act to ensure that funding is made quickly available to clients 
in need of services.
    The Housing Counseling Assistance program serves a range of 
clients and needs. Those receiving counseling include 
distressed homeowners facing delinquency or foreclosure, 
seniors seeking a Home Equity Conversion Mortgage [HECM], low-
income renters seeking affordable housing, as well as 
prospective homebuyers looking to purchase their first home. By 
design, this program allows local agencies to provide the type 
of counseling services their clients need.
    In recent years, HUD's Housing Counseling program has been 
criticized for the way it was run. In response, HUD is working 
to improve program management and execution. As an example, 
this year, HUD met the requirement to award funds to grantees 
within 120 days of enactment of the fiscal year 2012 bill. This 
compares to the previous process where awards weren't made in 
the same fiscal year in which the funding was appropriated.
    In addition, HUD has sought to improve management of the 
program. It has restructured its staff, so that housing 
counseling personnel are dedicated full time to the program 
instead of having a larger staff that splits its time between 
counseling and other activities within the Office of Housing. 
HUD's budget reflects efforts to further improve program 
management through a proposal to reorganize staff and create 
the Office of Housing Counseling, as authorized. This new 
structure will provide more clarity into the roles and 
responsibilities of the office, and how staff will manage these 
different responsibilities.
    The Department has also sought to find more effective ways 
to monitor grantees and track their performance. In support of 
these efforts, the Committee has included $3,500,000, as 
requested, for administrative contract services. This increase 
of $1,000,000 above the fiscal year 2012 enacted level will 
support activities, such as improving risk models and analytics 
for new standards. The Committee expects these investments to 
help HUD better monitor its grantees and provide better data on 
program outcomes.

                    OTHER ASSISTED HOUSING PROGRAMS

                       RENTAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee does not recommend an appropriation for HUD-
assisted, State-aided, noninsured rental housing projects, 
consistent with the budget request. In fiscal year 2012, 
$1,300,000 was provided for this purpose. The Committee notes 
that HUD can meet amendment requirements with carryover 
balances. However, appropriations may be required to meet these 
needs in the future.

                            RENT SUPPLEMENT

    The Committee does not recommend a rescission of balances 
from section 236 payments to State-aided, noninsured projects, 
which is consistent with the budget request. In fiscal year 
2012, the Committee included a rescission of $231,600,000 in 
unobligated balances in this account, leaving no balances to 
rescind in 2013.

                         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, 2012....................................      $6,500,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................       8,000,000
Committee recommendation................................       5,500,000

                          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 $5,500,000 to support the 
manufactured housing standards programs, of which up to 
$4,000,000 is expected to be derived from fees collected and 
deposited in the Manufactured Housing Fees Trust Fund account 
and not more than $1,500,000 shall be available from the 
general fund. The total amount recommended is $2,500,000 below 
the budget request and $1,000,000 below the fiscal year 2012 
enacted level.
    The Committee continues language allowing the Department to 
collect fees from program participants for the dispute 
resolution and installment programs mandated by the 
Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000. These fees are to 
be deposited into the Trust Fund and may be used to support the 
manufactured housing standards programs subject to the overall 
cap placed on the account. The Committee expects the Department 
to move forward with this authority.
    The Committee notes that carryover in the program will 
allow HUD to continue its current activities within the amount 
provided. However, the Committee recognizes that manufactured 
housing production has declined substantially since peak 
industry production in 1998, and has continued to decline in 
2012 due to a variety of factors. Expenditures supporting the 
programs should reflect and correspond with this decline, which 
has specifically reduced the number of inspections and 
inspection hours required for new units.

                     Federal Housing Administration


               mutual mortgage insurance program account


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Limitation on       Limitation on      Administrative
                                                         direct loans      guaranteed loans    contract expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2012................................         $50,000,000    $400,000,000,000        $207,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013...............................          50,000,000     400,000,000,000         215,000,000
Committee recommendation............................          50,000,000     400,000,000,000         215,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                GENERAL AND SPECIAL RISK PROGRAM ACCOUNT

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Limitation on       Limitation on
                                     direct loans      guaranteed loans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2012............         $20,000,000     $25,000,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013...........          20,000,000      25,000,000,000
Committee recommendation........          20,000,000      25,000,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Administrative expenses for GSR are funded within the Office of
  Housing.

                          program description

    The Federal Housing Administration [FHA] fund covers the 
mortgage and loan insurance activity of HUD mortgage/loan 
insurance programs. These include the mutual mortgage insurance 
[MMI] fund, cooperative management housing insurance [CMHI] 
fund, general insurance [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 $215,000,000 for administrative 
contract expenses, of which up to $71,500,000 may be 
transferred to the Working Capital Fund to be used solely for 
the maintenance of FHA information technology systems.
    For the GI/SRI account, the Committee recommends 
$25,000,000,000 as a limitation on guaranteed loans and a 
limitation on direct loans of $20,000,000. In fiscal year 2013, 
FHA will not require positive subsidy appropriations for new 
commitments issued under any of its active programs.
    Since its inception in 1934, FHA has played a critical role 
in meeting the demands of borrowers that the private market 
would not serve--creating housing products that have insured 
over 34 million homes.
    Since the foreclosure crisis began, FHA's presence in the 
housing market has expanded dramatically. FHA has provided 
mortgage insurance to eligible first time homebuyers, as well 
as existing homeowners seeking to refinance, enabling millions 
of Americans to take advantage of low-interest rates and 
affordable home prices. In this role, FHA has provided much-
needed liquidity to the market. Yet, this increased role comes 
with its own risks. In 2010, FHA's capital reserve account fell 
below the 2-percent level required by Congress. Again this past 
fall, the actuarial report showed that the reserve account was 
well below the 2-percent level. Given the conditions in the 
housing market, the losses to the fund are not surprising, but 
they are a serious concern.
    The Committee was likewise troubled when the budget 
suggested $688,000,000 would be needed to ensure the solvency 
of FHA's MMI fund. Since the budget was released, several 
changes have mitigated the risk that an appropriation would be 
necessary. Nonetheless, the Committee remains concerned about 
the health of the MMI fund. To its credit, HUD has taken a 
series of steps to increase the solvency of the MMI fund. It 
has moved aggressively to recover losses from FHA lenders who 
violated its rules. As of March 2012, FHA has recovered over 
$900,000,000 for underwriting or servicing violations, and the 
Committee expects the Department to continue working with the 
HUD Office of Inspector General to hold lenders accountable for 
violations of FHA rules.
    Moreover, FHA has increased insurance premiums to bring in 
additional revenue to cover losses. This year, HUD announced 
increases to premiums, which the Administration had already 
increased three times since taking office. The premium changes 
announced this year include: an increase of 75 basis points in 
the upfront premium for new mortgages, an increase of 10 basis 
points in the annual premium for all new mortgages; and a 35-
basis-point increase in the annual premium for new ``jumbo'' 
mortgages. These changes will not only improve the solvency of 
the MMI fund, but increasing the costs of FHA insurance will 
also help to make room for private capital.
    The Committee expects HUD to continue to monitor the 
solvency of the MMI fund and take all steps necessary to avoid 
the need for taxpayer funding. As part of HUD's effort to 
better monitor and evaluate risk, the Committee is pleased that 
HUD will begin using stochastic modeling as part of the 2012 
actuarial review. This new model will better capture risk, 
including economic risks.
    Management of REO Properties.--Foreclosed properties can 
have a devastating effect on neighborhoods, leaving homes 
vacant and reducing property values. Unfortunately, the 
negative impact of real estate owned [REO] properties on 
neighborhoods is exacerbated when they are not properly 
maintained. In addition, when servicers fail to properly 
maintain properties that are conveyed to FHA, the amount of 
money the government can recoup through resale is reduced. The 
Committee is aware that some servicers have pointed to FHA 
mortgagee letter [ML] 2010-18 as the reason why properties were 
not maintained in accordance with State and local laws and 
regulations. ML 2010-18 was issued to make clear that servicers 
wouldn't be compensated for excessive repairs or maintenance on 
properties conveyed to HUD after foreclosure. However, there 
should be no question that every property that is conveyed to 
HUD, and for which a claim is paid, must comply with State and 
local codes. The Committee directs HUD to clarify this 
requirement to ensure that mortgagees that intend to convey 
property to HUD must adhere to State and local laws and 
regulations.
    The Committee notes that in July 2010, HUD announced a new 
Management and Marketing program to handle Single Family REO 
disposition. The revisions in the program were designed to: 
ensure properties are conveyed in accordance with HUD 
guidelines, improve oversight of properties, eliminate 
conflicts of interest, and spur competition. As a result, HUD 
has increased sales of REO properties and reduced the number of 
days a property stays on the market. The Committee is 
encouraged by these improvements and expects HUD to continue to 
monitor its REO properties and work to reduce losses associated 
with them.
    Multifamily Housing.--As a result of the housing crisis, 
many Americans are exiting homeownership or delaying their 
purchase of a home. This has caused increase demand for 
multifamily housing, as evidenced by falling vacancy rates. 
Consequently, demand for FHA multifamily loans has also 
increased. According to HUD, FHA's volume in fiscal year 2011 
was three times as much as fiscal year 2008. This increased 
volume has brought additional risk to HUD. The Committee 
expects FHA to continue to monitor this expanded portfolio and 
take the steps necessary to reduce risk and help encourage the 
return of private capital.

                Government National Mortgage Association


guarantees of mortgage-backed securities loan guarantee program account


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Limitation on
                                                          personnel,
                                     Limitation on     compensation and
                                   guaranteed loans     administrative
                                                           expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2012............    $500,000,000,000         $19,500,000
Budget estimate, 2013...........     500,000,000,000          21,000,000
Committee recommendation........     500,000,000,000          20,500,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          program description

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

                        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 2012 enacted 
level. The bill allows Ginnie Mae to use $20,500,000 for 
salaries and expenses. This is $1,000,000 more than the fiscal 
year 2012 enacted level and $500,000 below the President's 
request.
    Since the near collapse of the private mortgage market, 
homeowners have relied on Federal programs, such as FHA, to 
purchase or refinance homes. Given that Ginnie Mae serves as a 
secondary market for FHA, its market share has also grown 
dramatically. In 2007, Ginnie Mae's market share was just over 
5 percent; today it is nearly 26 percent. The Committee 
understands the important role that Ginnie Mae as well as FHA 
are currently playing in providing liquidity to the housing 
market. However, this increased role cannot come at the price 
of greater risk for the American taxpayer.
    The HUD Inspector General has raised concerns about Ginnie 
Mae's focus on risk, particularly its ability to identify 
fraudulent lenders. The Committee notes that the leadership at 
Ginnie Mae has taken positive steps to address potential risks, 
including bringing on additional staff to focus on risk. The 
Committee also approved a requested reorganization of Ginnie 
Mae that will reinforce the work to identify and mitigate risk. 
The Committee expects Ginnie Mae to work closely with the 
Office of the Inspector General to implement measures that will 
strengthen risk management practices.

                    Policy Development and Research


                        research and technology

Appropriations, 2012....................................     $46,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................      52,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      46,000,000

                          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 $46,000,000 
for research, technology, and community development activities 
in fiscal year 2013. This level is equal to the fiscal year 
2012 enacted level and $6,000,000 less than the budget request. 
The recommendation does not include funding for the Doctoral 
Dissertation Research Program.
    The Committee supports the administration's focus on 
collecting and utilizing data to develop housing policy. 
However, in the current fiscal environment, priority must be 
given to programs that directly serve low-income Americans who 
rely on HUD programs. Given the budget reductions, the 
Committee encourages HUD to partner with other researchers to 
pursue valuable housing research opportunities. To facilitate 
these partnerships and leverage other Federal and philanthropic 
funding sources, the Committee continues language to enable HUD 
to pursue cooperative agreements with other entities without 
having to go through a competition in cases where there is 
substantial leveraging.

                   Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity


                        fair housing activities

Appropriations, 2012....................................     $70,847,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................      68,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      68,000,000

                          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 $68,000,000 
for the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. This 
amount is equal to the budget request and $2,847,000 less than 
the 2012 enacted level. Of the amounts provided, $24,100,000 is 
for FHAP; $1,500,000 is for the National Fair Housing Training 
Academy; and $42,500,000 is for FHIP. The bill also includes 
$300,000 for the creation, promotion, and dissemination of 
translated materials that support the assistance of persons 
with limited English proficiency.
    The Committee supports the efforts of HUD and its local 
partners to prevent and combat housing discrimination. It is 
clear from HUD's fiscal year 2010 Annual Report on Fair Housing 
that Americans continue to experience housing discrimination, 
most often based on disability and race. The funding provided 
through the FHAP and FHIP programs helps HUD and local agencies 
investigate and work to resolve potential fair housing 
violations.
    While the Committee supports the important work that HUD 
and its local partners do, the current budget environment 
requires the Committee to pare back some of the activities it 
currently funds.
    Section 3.--The Committee notes a statutory requirement 
included in the United States Housing Act of 1968 that when HUD 
resources are used for certain housing or community development 
activities, grantees and contractors must try to provide 
training and employment opportunities to low- and very low-
income persons and businesses located nearby. This preference 
provides public housing residents and other low-income persons 
with the chance to improve their financial circumstances and 
increase their self-sufficiency. It also supports small 
businesses in communities where HUD funding is being spent. 
This administration brought renewed attention to this 
requirement by more closely tracking grantees' fulfillment of 
it. While the Committee is concerned that some grantees are 
still not completing a required report, the Committee notes the 
progress made in increasing participation and will continue to 
monitor HUD's ability to ensure this requirement is met. HUD 
should also identify any barriers that limit its application.

            Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control

Appropriations, 2012....................................    $120,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................     120,000,000
Committee Recommendation................................     120,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    Title X of the Housing and Community Development Act of 
1992 established the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard 
Reduction Act, under which HUD is authorized to make grants to 
States, localities, and Native American tribes to conduct lead-
based paint hazard reduction and abatement activities in 
private, low-income housing. Lead poisoning is a significant 
environmental health hazard, particularly for young children 
and pregnant women, and can result in neurological damage, 
learning disabilities, and impaired growth. Based on the most 
recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
[CDC], about 250,000 children have elevated blood levels, down 
from 1.7 million in the late 1980s. Despite this improvement, 
lead poisoning remains a serious childhood environmental health 
condition, with some 1.1 percent of all children aged 1 to 5 
years having elevated blood levels. This percentage is much 
higher for low-income children living in housing constructed 
prior to 1978.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $120,000,000 
for lead-based paint hazard reduction and abatement activities 
for fiscal year 2013, of which $30,000,000 is for the Healthy 
Homes Initiative. This amount is equal to the President's 
budget request and the amount available in fiscal year 2012. Of 
this amount, the Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$48,500,000 to the Lead Hazard Reduction Program, which was 
established in fiscal year 2003 to focus on major urban areas 
where children are disproportionately at risk for lead 
poisoning. The Committee encourages HUD to continue to work 
with grantees on lead-based abatement hazards programs so that 
information on lead hazard abatements, risk assessment data, 
and blood levels is readily available to the public through 
publications and Internet sites.

                          Working Capital Fund

Appropriations, 2012....................................    $199,035,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................     170,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     230,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Working Capital Fund, authorized by the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965, finances HUD's 
technology infrastructure and the processes and practices that 
support the flow of information on a centralized basis.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $230,000,000 
for the Working Capital Fund [WCF] for fiscal year 2013. This 
level of funding is $30,965,000 more than the fiscal year 2012 
enacted level and $60,000,000 more than the budget request. The 
Working Capital Fund is also supported with additional funding 
provided through a transfer of $71,500,000 from the FHA's 
Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund as proposed by the President.
    The Committee recommendation includes at least $60,000,000 
for development, modernization and enhancement activities 
requested as part of the Transformation Initiative [TI]. Last 
year, the administration requested, and the Committee approved, 
moving technology modernization activities from the TI account 
to the Working Capital Fund. Since HUD had requested this shift 
in order to have consistent management of all IT activities, 
the Committee was surprised that this year's budget proposed to 
return to a practice of funding these activities out of TI. The 
Committee has rejected this proposal, and instead continues 
funding modernization activities under the WCF. However, the 
Committee recognizes the value of distinguishing these major 
capital improvements from the activities traditionally funded 
as part of the WCF, and has therefore set aside a minimum 
amount of funding for Development, Modernization and 
Enhancement [DME] activities. The Committee continues to stress 
the importance of FHA Modernization and Next Generation 
Management System, which are critical to management and 
oversight of the Department's largest programs.
    In addition, the Committee continues to require HUD to 
develop an expenditure plan for the modernization activities, 
which will be reviewed by GAO. The Committee notes that GAO has 
reviewed the most recent spend-plan and concluded that it has 
met the statutory requirements. Importantly, GAO views the plan 
as a document which the Committee can use to monitor HUD's 
work. While the Committee notes the improvement HUD has made, 
there is still work to do to make sure that projects achieve 
their goals. At the request of the Committee, GAO will 
undertake a deeper look at a few of HUD's major modernization 
projects to assess its ability to execute against the plans it 
has developed. The Committee looks forward to this assessment 
and working with GAO and the Department to ensure HUD can 
successfully complete these long-overdue technology 
improvements.
    HIFMIP.--One of HUD's key modernization projects is the HUD 
Integrated Financial Management Improvement Project [HIFMIP], 
which will update the Department's aging financial system. A 
sound financial system is essential to a well-functioning 
department, and HUD's current system is outdated and 
inefficient. However, the HIFMIP project has encountered delay 
and cost issues. The Committee is frustrated that many of the 
problems are the result of inadequate project management and 
governance. The current problems with HIFMIP underscore some of 
the challenges that HUD still faces. HUD must work to increase 
the number of qualified project managers and ensure that they 
are assigned to critical projects. Moreover, HUD must continue 
to improve its procurement process to ensure that it lets sound 
contracts with clear deliverables for which contractors can be 
held accountable. Finally, HUD must continue to improve 
communication across offices, while ensuring a clear 
delineation of responsibilities. HUD's overall success with 
HIFMIP, and all of its modernization projects, depends on 
strengthening these types of management skills.
    While the Committee remains concerned about its execution, 
the Committee appreciates the steps that HUD took to address 
the risks associated with this project, particularly gathering 
together outside experts to evaluate the best way to move 
forward. The Committee expects that HUD will make this project 
a priority and improve the oversight and governance of it. The 
Committee will continue to monitor this and other projects HUD 
is undertaking.

                      Office of Inspector General

Appropriations, 2012....................................    $124,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................     125,600,000
Committee recommendation................................     125,194,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $125,194,000 
for the Office of Inspector General [OIG]. The amount of 
funding is $1,194,000 more than the fiscal year 2012 enacted 
level and $406,000 less than the President's request.
    The Committee is encouraged by HUD's new Inspector General 
and his focus on not only the important audit and 
investigations work to uncover waste, fraud and abuse, but also 
on ways to prevent misuse of Federal funds. Audits and 
investigations are critical parts of any OIG; however, the 
Committee is also interested in policy and program changes to 
strengthen HUD programs. The OIG's work in this area has 
historically been limited. Therefore, the Committee was pleased 
by the IG's stated intention to elevate and bolster the work of 
the Inspections and Evaluations unit. The Committee welcomes 
this vision and sees the potential of increased focus on this 
work as important to improving HUD policies and the OIG's 
ability to respond to emerging issues. The Committee looks 
forward to seeing the results of these changes and to policy 
recommendations that will assist the Committee in its work.
    In addition, the Committee is aware that the IG is focused 
on improving its own IT capabilities. By improving its 
technology, the OIG should have the ability to mine its own and 
HUD's data to identify areas of risk. The Committee supports 
these efforts to develop the staff and technology necessary to 
improve the OIG's capabilities.

                       Transformation Initiative

Appropriations, 2012....................................     $50,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................  \1\120,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      43,000,000

\1\This amount is by transfer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          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 three elements: (1) research, evaluation, 
and program metrics; (2) program demonstrations; and (3) 
technical assistance and capacity building. Funding to support 
these activities is provided by transfer from HUD programs.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee includes $43,000,000 for the Transformation 
Initiative [TI]. This amount is $7,000,000 less than the fiscal 
year 2012 enacted level. The President's budget had instead 
proposed up to $120,000,000 for TI through transfers of up to 
0.5 percent from HUD programs.
    In fiscal year 2010, the administration launched TI to 
improve the operations and capacity of HUD. TI funds research 
and demonstrations to better equip HUD to address the Nation's 
housing needs. In addition to improving HUD's own operations, 
TI also includes funding to improve the capacity and 
performance of its grantees through technical assistance [TA]. 
The Committee believes that the funding provided will help HUD 
develop evidence-based policies and improve program outcomes.
    Within the reduced level of funding provided, the Committee 
will allow HUD to determine the appropriate use of funding 
among the requested projects. However, the Committee continues 
to emphasize the importance of fully funding projects. The 
Committee expects the following projects, designed to improve 
program management or reduce costs, to be adequately funded: 
research on energy efficiency and utility costs, disaster 
resiliency focused on mitigating damage from disasters, the 
Moving to Work Evaluation, and PIH Integrated TA focused on 
troubled PHAs. The recommendation does not include funding for 
the Natural Experiments Grant Program or Demonstration and 
Related Small Grants.
    The Committee continues to value the technical assistance 
provided through TI. The Committee supports HUD's intent to 
refocus its technical assistance on improving outcomes, and not 
just concentrating on timely execution of activities and 
funding. While the Committee continues to support the goals of 
OneCPD, the Committee notes that the program still has balances 
to draw down from prior year funding. As a result, the 
Committee has not included the requirement from previous years 
that at least $23,000,000 be spent on this activity. Instead, 
the Committee expects HUD to use existing funding to meet the 
needs of CPD grantees and to focus TA funding for fiscal year 
2013 on technical assistance for troubled public housing 
authorities and other housing providers. Following the 
execution of the existing OneCPD funds, the Committee 
anticipates providing additional funding to continue this type 
of targeted, risk-based TA.

                       BROWNFIELDS REDEVELOPMENT

    The Committee notes that the Brownfields program has not 
been funded since fiscal year 2010, given other Federal 
appropriations are available for the same purpose through the 
Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]. The Committee therefore 
encourages the administration to consider legislation to 
permanently eliminate the program within HUD.

    General Provisions--Department of Housing and Urban Development

    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 the use of 
funds under the Fair Housing Act.
    Sec. 203. This section continues the fiscal year 2012 
clarification of the allocation of HOPWA funding for fiscal 
year 2006 and beyond as well as the fiscal year 2012 
corrections to the award of HOPWA funding.
    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 requires public housing authorities 
to set flat rents at levels no lower than 80 percent of the 
fair market rent, except that PHAs will have to phase-in flat 
rent increases as necessary to ensure that a family's existing 
rental payment does not increase by more than 35 percent.
    Sec. 210. This section requires HUD to submit its fiscal 
year 2013 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 2013. 
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 related to athletic scholarships.
    Sec. 216. This section eliminates a cap on Home Equity 
Conversion Mortgages.
    Sec. 217. This section requires HUD to maintain section 8 
assistance on HUD-held or owned multifamily housing.
    Sec. 218. This section authorizes the Secretary to waive 
certain requirements on adjusted income for certain assisted 
living projects for counties in Michigan.
    Sec. 219. This section requires HUD to report quarterly to 
the Appropriations Committees on the use of sole-source 
contracting by HUD.
    Sec. 220. This section allows the recipient of a section 
202 grant to establish a single-asset nonprofit entity to own 
the project and may lend grant funds to such entity.
    Sec. 221. This section clarifies the use of the 108 loan 
guaranteed program for nonentitlement communities.
    Sec. 222. This section extends the HOPE VI program until 
September 30, 2013.
    Sec. 223. This section allows public housing authorities 
with less than 400 units to be exempt from management 
requirements in the operating fund rule.
    Sec. 224. This section restricts the Secretary from 
imposing any requirement or guideline relating to asset 
management that restricts or limits the use of capital funds 
for central office costs, up to the limit established in QWHRA.
    Sec. 225. This section requires allotment holders to meet 
certain criteria of the CFO.
    Sec. 226. This section requires HUD to take certain actions 
against owners receiving rental subsidies that do not maintain 
safe properties.
    Sec. 227. This section limits attorney fees.
    Sec. 228. The section modifies the NOFA process to include 
the Internet.
    Sec. 229. This section changes the frequency of submitting 
reports to the Committees on Appropriations on actions related 
to disaster supplementals from quarterly to annually.
    Sec. 230. This section establishes reprogramming and 
reallocation requirements within HUD's salaries and expenses 
accounts.
    Sec. 231. This section allows the Disaster Housing 
Assistance Programs to be considered a program of the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development for the purpose of 
income verification and matching.
    Sec. 232. This section allows the Secretary to transfer 
funding from salaries and expenses accounts to the ``Working 
Capital Fund'' to support technology improvements.
    Sec. 233. This section eliminates an unnecessary transfer 
from the Rental Housing Assistance Fund to the Flexible Subsidy 
Fund.
    Sec. 234. This section continues to allow critical access 
hospitals to be insured under section 242 of the National 
Housing Act.
    Sec. 235. This section changes the definition of a PHA that 
operates public housing to include a consortium of PHAs.
    Sec. 236. This section modifies the requirements for low-
income targeting to better target rental assistance to the 
working poor.
    Sec. 237. This section streamlines the inspection of units 
and allows them to use alternative Federal inspection standards 
to reduce duplication and focus more on risk-based inspections.
    Sec. 238. This section makes a technical correction to the 
Rental Assistance Demonstration included in the fiscal year 
2012 bill in order to help preserve moderate rehabilitation 
properties.
    Sec. 239. This section makes changes to the HOME Investment 
Partnership program.

                               TITLE III

                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                              Access Board

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2012....................................      $7,400,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................       7,400,000
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, and for medical diagnostic 
equipment under section 510 of the Rehabilitation Act. The 
Access Board also enforces the Architectural Barriers Act. In 
addition, the Board provides training and technical assistance 
on the guidelines and standards it develops to Government 
agencies, public and private organizations, individuals and 
businesses on the removal of accessibility barriers.
    In 2002, the Access Board was given additional 
responsibilities under the Help America Vote Act. The Board 
serves on the Board of Advisors and the Technical Guidelines 
Development Committee, which helps the 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 equal to the fiscal 
year 2012 enacted level and the President's fiscal year 2013 
request.

                      Federal Maritime Commission


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2012....................................     $24,100,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................      26,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      25,000,000

                          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's mission is to foster a fair, efficient, and reliable 
international ocean transportation system and to protect the 
public from unfair and deceptive practices. To accomplish this 
mission, FMC regulates the international waterborne commerce of 
the United States. In addition, FMC has responsibility for 
licensing and bonding ocean transportation intermediaries and 
assuring that vessel owners or operators establish financial 
responsibility to pay judgments for death or injury to 
passengers, or nonperformance of a cruise, on voyages from U.S. 
ports.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $25,000,000 for the salaries and 
expenses of the Federal Maritime Commission [FMC] for fiscal 
year 2013. This amount is $1,000,000 less than the budget 
request and $900,000 more than the fiscal year 2012 enacted 
level.
    The Committee commends FMC's continued efforts to assist 
American exporters to resolve supply chain disruptions due to 
insufficient domestic container supply. Facilitating the 
accessibility of U.S. exports to foreign markets is a key 
factor in the Nation's economic recovery. The Committee also 
supports FMC's continued efforts to protect consumers from 
potentially unlawful, unfair, or deceptive ocean transportation 
practices related to the movement of household goods or 
personal property in international oceanborne trade.

                National Railroad Passenger Corporation


                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2012....................................     $20,500,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................      22,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      19,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $19,000,000 for the Amtrak Office 
of Inspector General [OIG]. This funding level is $3,000,000 
less than the budget request and $1,500,000 less than the 
fiscal year 2012 enacted level. The Committee retains language 
that requires the Amtrak OIG to submit a budget request in 
similar format and substance to those submitted by other 
executive agencies in the Federal Government.
    The Committee commends the progress the OIG has made to 
institute an appropriate separation of duties, financial 
systems and hiring practices. The Committee continues to direct 
the OIG to report on its progress in addressing the 
recommendations of the Council of Inspectors General on 
Integrity and Efficiency and the recommendations of the 
National Academy of Public Administrators in its semi-annual 
report.

                  National Transportation Safety Board


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2012....................................    $102,400,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................     102,400,000
Committee recommendation................................     102,400,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    Initially established along with the Department of 
Transportation, 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 or the U.S. Coast Guard Commandant, or when 
civil penalties are assessed by FAA.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $102,400,000 for the National 
Transportation Safety Board, which is equal to the budget 
request and the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. The Committee 
has also continued to include language that allows NTSB to make 
payments on its lease for the NTSB training facility with 
funding provided in the bill.

                 Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation


          PAYMENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT CORPORATION

Appropriations, 2012....................................    $215,300,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................     213,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     215,300,000

                          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 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 $215,300,000 
for the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation [NRC] for fiscal 
year 2013. This amount is $2,300,000 more than the budget 
request and equal to the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. The 
Committee has included $135,300,000 to support NeighborWorks 
core programs, and 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 2014 budget justification.
    Housing Counseling Assistance.--The Committee has included 
$80,000,000 to continue the National Foreclosure Mitigation 
Counseling Program [NFMC] initiated by Congress in fiscal year 
2008. NFMC is not a permanent program, but it is clear that 
resources are still warranted to address the elevated levels of 
foreclosures. Moreover, with the announcement of the recent 
mortgage servicing settlement, more families may be facing 
foreclosure or could use a housing counselor to help access 
assistance that banks are required to provide to homeowners.
    The Committee believes that the outcomes associated with 
NFMC demonstrate the impact it is having on people's lives. 
According to a report by the Urban Institute issued in December 
2011 on the program, homeowners were 89 percent more likely to 
receive a loan modification cure on the first attempt than 
noncounseled homeowners. The report also found that 9 months 
after receiving a modification, counseled homeowners were 67 
times more likely to remain current on their mortgage. One of 
the important factors in this increased stability is the 
financial management skills gained through the counseling 
process, which will have a long-term impact on homeowners.
    Mortgage Rescue Scams.--Since 2009, NeighborWorks America 
has been working to raise awareness of mortgage rescue scams 
and help vulnerable homeowners access legitimate forms of 
assistance. This campaign targets at-risk communities and 
populations through public service announcements, public media 
and the Internet. The $25,000,000,000 settlement recently 
announced among the five largest servicers, the Federal 
Government and the State attorneys general will provide relief 
to homeowners affected by the foreclosure crisis. 
Unfortunately, it also offers a new opportunity for scammers to 
take advantage of troubled homeowners. The Committee is aware 
that NeighborWorks is warning homeowners of these dangers and 
directing them toward legitimate assistance. NeighborWorks is 
also working with other partners, such as the Department of 
Justice and Federal Trade Commission to stop rescue scams. The 
Committee expects NeighborWorks to continue working with its 
partners to address this important issue.
    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, 2012....................................      $3,300,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................       3,600,000
Committee recommendation................................       3,600,000

                          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 19 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 $3,600,000 for 
the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness [USICH]. 
This amount is equal to the budget request and $300,000 more 
than the fiscal year 2012 enacted level.
    In June 2010, the Interagency Council on Homelessness 
released Opening Doors: The Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent 
and End Homelessness. This plan includes goals for ending 
homelessness in America, including: finishing the job of ending 
chronic homelessness in 5 years; preventing and ending 
homelessness among veterans in 5 years; preventing and ending 
homelessness for families, youth and children in 10 years; and 
setting a path to ending all types of homelessness. This plan 
includes the strategies that will be necessary to achieve these 
goals. The plan also outlines steps that will improve the 
effectiveness of Federal programs to meet the needs of those 
experiencing homelessness.
    The Committee notes the work that USICH is doing to improve 
Federal collaboration. These efforts include working to develop 
a common vocabulary around homelessness and to standardize and 
share data across Federal agencies. Standardizing language and 
data will allow Federal, State, and local governments to better 
understand the homeless population and how to effectively 
target resources to meet their needs. It also supports the 
meetings that USICH has held to bring Federal agencies 
together, and to engage with communities where homelessness is 
most prevalent.
    The Committee notes that in a February 2012 report on ways 
to reduce duplication, overlap, and fragmentation in the 
Federal Government, GAO found that progress was being made in 
addressing redundancies in providing homeless assistance. It 
also cited the importance of Federal agencies aligning their 
programs with the Federal Strategic Plan to End Homelessness in 
fully addressing GAO's concerns. The Committee expects USICH to 
continue its efforts to better align Federal strategies around 
homelessness to improve the effectiveness of Federal 
investments and meet the goals established in the plan to 
prevent and end homelessness.

                                TITLE IV

                      GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS ACT

    Section 401 requires pay raises to be absorbed within 
appropriated levels in this act or previous appropriations 
acts.
    Section 402 prohibits pay and other expenses for non-
Federal parties in regulatory or adjudicatory proceedings 
funded in this act.
    Section 403 prohibits obligations beyond the current fiscal 
year and prohibits transfers of funds unless expressly so 
provided herein.
    Section 404 limits expenditures for consulting service 
through procurement contracts where such expenditures are a 
matter of public record and available for public inspection.
    Section 405 authorizes the reprogramming of funds and 
specifies the reprogramming procedures for agencies funded by 
this act.
    Section 406 ensures that 50 percent of unobligated balances 
may remain available for certain purposes.
    Section 407 requires departments and agencies under this 
act to report information regarding all sole-source contracts.
    Section 408 prohibits the use of funds for employee 
training unless such training bears directly upon the 
performance of official duties.
    Section 409 prohibits the use of funds for eminent domain 
unless such taking is employed for public use.
    Section 410 prohibits funds in this act to be transferred 
without express authority.
    Section 411 protects employment rights of Federal employees 
who return to their civilian jobs after assignment with the 
Armed Forces.
    Section 412 prohibits the use of funds for activities not 
in compliance with the Buy American Act.
    Section 413 prohibits funding for any person or entity 
convicted of violating the Buy American Act.
    Section 414 prohibits funds for first-class airline 
accommodation in contravention of section 301-10.122 and 301-
10.123 of title 41 CFR.
    Section 415 prohibits funds from being used to purchase 
light bulbs for an office building unless, to the extent 
practicable, the light bulb has an Energy Star or Federal 
Energy Management Program designation.
    Section 416 prohibits funds in this act or any prior act 
for going to the group ACORN or any of its affiliates, 
subsidiaries, or allied organizations.
    Section 417 requires the Department of Transportation and 
the Department of Housing and Urban Development to post on 
their web sites basic information about each of their programs 
that provides grants or credit assistance through a competitive 
process, including information about program applicants and 
recipients of grants and credit assistance.
    Section 418 requires all agencies and departments funded in 
this act to report vehicle fleet inventory and associated costs 
to Congress at the end of fiscal year 2013.

  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 2012:

                 Title I--Department of Transportation

    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 Hawaiian Housing Block Grant
    Native Hawaiian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund
    Housing Opportunities for Persons with Aids
    Community Development Fund:
        Community Development Block Grants
        Sustainable Communities Initiative
    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
    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 April 19, 2012, 
the Committee ordered favorably reported en bloc an original 
bill (S. 2323) making appropriations for the Departments of 
Commerce and Justice, and Science, and Related Agencies for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes, 
and reported an original bill (S. 2322) making appropriations 
for the Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban 
Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2013, and for other purposes, provided, that each 
bill be subject to further amendment and that each bill be 
consistent with its spending allocations, by a recorded vote of 
28-1, a quorum being present. The vote was as follows:
        Yeas                          Nays
Chairman Inouye                     Mr. Johnson (WI)
Mr. Leahy
Mr. Harkin
Ms. Mikulski
Mr. Kohl
Mrs. Murray
Mrs. Feinstein
Mr. Durbin
Mr. Johnson (SD)
Ms. Landrieu
Mr. Reed
Mr. Lautenberg
Mr. Nelson
Mr. Pryor
Mr. Tester
Mr. Brown
Mr. Cochran
Mr. McConnell
Mr. Shelby
Mrs. Hutchison
Mr. Alexander
Ms. Collins
Ms. Murkowski
Mr. Graham
Mr. Coats
Mr. Blunt
Mr. Moran
Mr. Hoeven

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

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

                      TITLE 12--BANKS AND BANKING


                      Chapter 13--National Housing


                   Subchapter II--Mortgage Insurance


Sec.  1715z-7. Mortgage insurance for hospitals

(a) Purpose

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

(i) Termination of exemption for critical access hospitals

        (1) In general

            The exemption for critical access hospitals under 
        subsection (b)(1)(B) of this section shall have no 
        effect after [July 31, 2011] July 31, 2016.
                                ------                                


                           TITLE 23--HIGHWAYS


                    CHAPTER 1--FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS


Sec. 127. Vehicle weight limitations--Interstate System

    (a) In General.--

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (h) Waiver For a Route in State of Maine During Periods of 
National Emergency.--
            (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other 
        provision of this section, the Secretary, in 
        consultation with the Secretary of Defense, may waive 
        or limit the application of any vehicle weight limit 
        established under this section with respect to the 
        portion of InterstateRoute 95 in the State of Maine 
        between Augusta and Bangor for the purpose of making 
        bulk shipments of jet fuel to the Air NationalGuard 
        Base at Bangor International Airport during a period of 
        national emergency in order to respond to the effects 
        of the national emergency.
            (2) Applicability.--Emergency limits established 
        under paragraph (1) shall preempt any inconsistent 
        State vehicle weight limits.
    (i) Operation of Vehicles on Certain Wisconsin Highways.--
If any segment of the United States Route 41 corridor described 
in section 1105(c)(57) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-240; 105 Stat. 2032; 119 
Stat. 1209), is designated as a route on the Interstate System, 
a vehicle that could operate legally on the segment before the 
date of the designation may continue to operate on the segment 
without regard to any requirement under subsection (a).

                TITLE 42--THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE


                     Chapter 8--Low-Income Housing


           Subchapter I--General Program of Assisted Housing


Sec. 1437a. Rental payments

(a) Families included; rent options; minimum amount; occupancy 
            by police officers and over-income families

    (1) * * *
    (2) Rental payments for public housing families.--
            (A) Authority for family to select.--
                    (i) Flat rents.--[Except as otherwise 
                provided under this clause, each] Each public 
                housing agency shall establish, for each 
                dwelling unit in public housing owned or 
                operated by the agency, a flat rental amount 
                for the dwelling unit, which shall not be lower 
                than 80 percent of the applicable fair market 
                rental established under section 8(c) of this 
                Act and which shall--

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                [The rental amount for a dwelling unit shall be 
                considered to comply with the requirements of 
                this clause if such amount does not exceed the 
                actual monthly costs to the public housing 
                agency attributable to providing and operating 
                the dwelling unit. The preceding sentence may 
                not be construed to require establishment of 
                rental amounts equal to or based on operating 
                costs or to prevent public housing agencies 
                from developing flat rents required under this 
                clause in any other manner that may comply with 
                this clause.] Public housing agencies must 
                comply by September 30, 2013, with the 
                requirement of this clause, except that if a 
                new flat rental amount for a dwelling unit will 
                increase a family's existing rental payment by 
                more than 35 percent, the new flat rental 
                amount shall be phased in as necessary to 
                ensure that the family's existing rental 
                payment does not increase by more than 35 
                percent annually. The preceding sentence shall 
                not be construed to require establishment of 
                rental amounts equal to 80 percent of the fair 
                market rental in years when the fair market 
                rental falls from the prior year.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

(b) Definition of terms under this chapter

    (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

[(2)] (A) The term ``low-income families'' means those families 
whose incomes do not exceed 80 per centum of the median income 
for the area, as determined by the Secretary with adjustments 
for smaller and larger families, except that the Secretary may 
establish income ceilings higher or lower than 80 per centum of 
the median for the area on the basis of the Secretary's 
findings that such variations are necessary because of 
prevailing levels of construction costs or unusually high or 
low family incomes.
                (B) The term ``very low-income families'' means 
                low-income families whose incomes do not exceed 
                50 per centum of the median family income for 
                the area, as determined by the Secretary with 
                adjustments for smaller and larger families, 
                except that the Secretary may establish income 
                ceilings higher or lower than 50 per centum of 
                the median for the area on the basis of the 
                Secretary's findings that such variations are 
                necessary because of unusually high or low 
                family incomes.
                (C) The term extremely low-income families 
                means very low-income families whose incomes do 
                not exceed the higher of--
                        (i) the poverty guidelines updated 
                        periodically by the Department of 
                        Health and Human Services under the 
                        authority of section 673(2) of the 
                        Community Services Block Grant Act 
                        applicable to a family of the size 
                        involved (except that this clause shall 
                        not apply in the case of public housing 
                        agencies located in Puerto Rico or any 
                        other territory or possession of the 
                        United States); or
                        (ii) 30 percent of the median family 
                        income for the area, as determined by 
                        the Secretary, with adjustments for 
                        smaller and larger families (except 
                        that the Secretary may establish income 
                        ceilings higher or lower than 30 
                        percent of the median for the area on 
                        the basis of the Secretary's findings 
                        that such variations are necessary 
                        because of unusually high or low family 
                        incomes).
                (D) Such ceilings shall be established in 
                consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture 
                for any rural area, as defined in section 1490 
                of this title, taking into account the subsidy 
                characteristics and types of programs to which 
                such ceilings apply. In determining median 
                incomes (of persons, families, or households) 
                for an area or establishing any ceilings or 
                limits based on income under this chapter, the 
                Secretary shall determine or establish area 
                median incomes and income ceilings and limits 
                for Westchester and Rockland Counties, in the 
                State of New York, as if each such county were 
                an area not contained within the metropolitan 
                statistical area in which it is located. In 
                determining such area median incomes or 
                establishing such income ceilings or limits for 
                the portion of such metropolitan statistical 
                area that does not include Westchester or 
                Rockland Counties, the Secretary shall 
                determine or establish area median incomes and 
                income ceilings and limits as if such portion 
                included Westchester and Rockland Counties. In 
                determining areas that are designated as 
                difficult development areas for purposes of the 
                low-income housing tax credit, the Secretary 
                shall include Westchester and Rockland 
                Counties, New York, in the New York City 
                metropolitan area.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

        (6) Public housing agency.--
                (A) In general.--Except as provided in 
                subparagraph (B), the term ``public housing 
                agency '' means any State, county, 
                municipality, or other governmental entity or 
                public body (or agency or instrumentality 
                thereof) which is authorized to engage in or 
                assist in the development or operation of 
                public housing, or a consortium of such 
                entities or bodies as approved by the 
                Secretary.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 1437f. Low-income housing assistance

(a) Authorization for assistance payments

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

(o) Voucher program

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

        (1) Authority

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

        (8) Inspection of units by PHAs

                (A) In general

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                [(D) Annual inspections

                    [Each public housing agency providing 
                assistance under this subsection (or other 
                entity, as provided in paragraph (11)) shall 
                make an annual inspection of each assisted 
                dwelling unit during the term of the housing 
                assistance payments contract for the unit to 
                determine whether the unit is maintained in 
                accordance with the requirements under 
                subparagraph (A). The agency (or other entity) 
                shall retain the records of the inspection for 
                a reasonable time and shall make the records 
                available upon request to the Secretary, the 
                Inspector General for the Department of Housing 
                and Urban Development, and any auditor 
                conducting an audit under section 1437c(h) of 
                this title.]
                    (D) Biennial inspections.--
                            (i) Requirement.--Each public 
                        housing agency providing assistance 
                        under this subsection (or other entity, 
                        as provided in paragraph (11)) shall, 
                        for each assisted dwelling unit, make 
                        inspections not less often than 
                        biennially during the term of the 
                        housing assistance payments contract 
                        for the unit to determine whether the 
                        unit is maintained in accordance with 
                        the requirements under subparagraph 
                        (A).
                            (ii) Use of alternative inspection 
                        method.--The requirements under clause 
                        (i) may be complied with by use of 
                        inspections that qualify as an 
                        alternative inspection method pursuant 
                        to subparagraph (E).
                            (iii) Records.--The public housing 
                        agency (or other entity) shall retain 
                        the records of the inspection for a 
                        reasonable time and shall make the 
                        records available upon request to the 
                        Secretary, the Inspector General for 
                        the Department of Housing and Urban 
                        Development, and any auditor conducting 
                        an audit under section 5(h) of this 
                        Act.
                    (E) Alternative inspection method.--An 
                inspection of a property shall qualify as an 
                alternative inspection method for purposes of 
                this subparagraph if--
                            (i) the inspection was conducted 
                        pursuant to requirements under a 
                        Federal, State, or local housing 
                        program (including the Home investment 
                        partnership program under title II of 
                        the Cranston-Gonzalez National 
                        Affordable Housing Act and the low-
                        income housing tax credit program under 
                        section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code 
                        of 1986); and
                            (ii) pursuant to such inspection, 
                        the property was determined to meet the 
                        standards or requirements regarding 
                        housing quality or safety applicable to 
                        properties assisted under such program, 
                        and, if a non-Federal standard or 
                        requirement was used, the public 
                        housing agency has certified to the 
                        Secretary that such standard or 
                        requirement provides the same (or 
                        greater) protection to occupants of 
                        dwelling units meeting such standard or 
                        requirement as would the housing 
                        quality standards under subparagraph 
                        (B).
                    (F) Interim inspections.--Upon notification 
                to the public housing agency, by a family (on 
                whose behalf tenant-based rental assistance is 
                provided under this subsection) or by a 
                government official, that the dwelling unit for 
                which such assistance is provided does not 
                comply with the housing quality standards under 
                subparagraph (B), the public housing agency 
                shall inspect the dwelling unit--
                            (i) in the case of any condition 
                        that is life-threatening, within 24 
                        hours after the agency's receipt of 
                        such notification; and
                            (ii) in the case of any condition 
                        that is not life-threatening, within 15 
                        days after the agency's receipt of such 
                        notification.
                (E) (G) Inspection guidelines

                    The Secretary shall establish procedural 
                guidelines and performance standards to 
                facilitate inspections of dwelling units and 
                conform such inspections with practices 
                utilized in the private housing market. Such 
                guidelines and standards shall take into 
                consideration variations in local laws and 
                practices of public housing agencies and shall 
                provide flexibility to authorities appropriate 
                to facilitate efficient provision of assistance 
                under this subsection.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 1437n. Eligibility for assisted housing

(a) Income eligibility for public housing

        (1) Income mix within projects

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

        (2) PHA income mix

            (A)\1\Targeting.--Except as provided in paragraph 
        (4), of the public housing dwelling units of a public 
        housing agency made available for occupancy in any 
        fiscal year by eligible families, not less than 40 
        percent shall be occupied by [families whose incomes at 
        the time of commencement of occupancy do not exceed 30 
        percent of the area median income, as determined by the 
        Secretary with adjustments for smaller and larger 
        families; except that the Secretary may establish 
        income ceilings higher or lower than 30 percent of the 
        area median income on the basis of the Secretary's 
        findings that such variations are necessary because of 
        unusually high or low family incomes] extremely low-
        income families.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\So in original. No subpar. (B) has been enacted.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Income eligibility for tenant-based section 1437f 
            assistance

        (1) In general

            Of the families initially provided tenant based 
        assistance under section 1437f of this title by a 
        public housing agency in any fiscal year, not less than 
        75 percent shall be [families whose incomes do not 
        exceed 30 percent of the area median income, as 
        determined by the Secretary with adjustments for 
        smaller and larger families; except that the Secretary 
        may establish income ceilings higher or lower than 30 
        percent of the area median income on the basis of the 
        Secretary's findings that such variations are necessary 
        because of unusually high or low family incomes] 
        extremely low-income families.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

(c) Income eligibility for project-based section 1437f 
            assistance

        (1) Pre-1981 act projects

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

        (3) Targeting

            For each project assisted under a contract for 
        project-based assistance, of the dwelling units that 
        become available for occupancy in any fiscal year that 
        are assisted under the contract, not less than 40 
        percent shall be available for leasing only by 
        [families whose incomes at the time of commencement of 
        occupancy do not exceed 30 percent of the area median 
        income, as determined by the Secretary with adjustments 
        for smaller and larger families; except that the 
        Secretary may establish income ceilings higher or lower 
        than 30 percent of the area median income on the basis 
        of the Secretary's findings that such variations are 
        necessary because of unusually high or low family 
        incomes] extremely low-income families.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


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

(a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

(m) Funding

    (1) Authorization of appropriations

            There are authorized to be appropriated for grants 
        under this section $574,000,000 for [fiscal year 2010.] 
        fiscal year 2013.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

(o) Sunset

    No assistance may be provided under this section after 
[September 30, 2010.] September 30, 2013.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                CHAPTER 130--NATIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING


            SUBCHAPTER II--INVESTMENT IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING


                  Part A--Home Investment Partnerships


Sec. 12755. Tenant and participant protections

(a) Lease

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

(b) Termination of tenancy

    An owner shall not terminate the tenancy or refuse to renew 
the lease of a tenant of rental housing assisted under this 
subchapter except for serious or repeated violation of the 
terms and conditions of the lease, for violation of applicable 
Federal, State, or local law, or for other good cause. Any 
termination or refusal to renew must be preceded by not less 
than 30 days by the owner's service upon the tenant of a 
written notice specifying the grounds for the action. Such 30 
day waiting period is not required if the grounds for the 
termination or refusal to renew involve a direct threat to the 
safety of the tenants or employees of the housing, or an 
imminent and serious threat to the property (and the 
termination or refusal to renew is in accordance with the 
requirements of State or local law).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                 Part B--Community Housing Partnership


Sec. 12771. Set-aside for community housing development organizations

(a) In general

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

(b) Recapture and reuse

    If any funds reserved under subsection (a) of this section 
remain uninvested for a period of 24 months, then the Secretary 
shall deduct such funds from the line of credit in the 
participating jurisdiction's HOME Investment Trust Fund and 
[make such funds available by direct reallocation (1) to other 
participating jurisdictions for affordable housing developed, 
sponsored or owned by community housing development 
organizations, or (2) to nonprofit intermediary organizations 
to carry out activities that develop the capacity of community 
housing development organizations consistent with section 12773 
of this title, with preference to community housing development 
organizations serving the jurisdiction from which the funds 
were recaptured] reallocate the funds by formula in accordance 
with13 section 217(d) of this Act (42 U.S.C. 12747(d)).

[(c) Direct reallocation criteria

    [Insofar as practicable, direct reallocations under this 
section shall be made according to the selection criteria 
established under section 12747(c) of this title.]
                                ------                                


                        TITLE 49--TRANSPORTATION


                 PART B--AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT AND NOISE

                    Chapter 471--Airport Development


                   Subchapter I--Airport Improvement


Sec. 47124. Agreements for State and local operation of airport 
                    facilities

    (a) Government Relief From Liability.-- * * *
    (b) Air Traffic Control Contract Program.--(1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (3) Contract Air Traffic Control Tower Program.--(A) In 
general.-- * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (D) Costs exceeding benefits.--If the costs of operating an 
air traffic tower under the program exceed the benefits, the 
airport sponsor or State or local government having 
jurisdiction over the airport shall pay the portion of the 
costs that exceed such [benefit.] benefit, with the maximum 
allowable local cost share capped at 20 percent.
                                ------                                


DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS TO ADDRESS 
  HURRICANES IN THE GULF OF MEXICO, AND PANDEMIC INFLUENZA ACT, 2006, 
                           PUBLIC LAW 109-148


                               DIVISION B


EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS TO ADDRESS HURRICANES IN THE GULF 
                 OF MEXICO AND PANDEMIC INFLUENZA, 2006


                                TITLE I


EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS TO ADDRESS HURRICANES IN THE GULF 
                               OF MEXICO


                               CHAPTER 9


              DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT


                   Community Planning and Development


                       COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND

    For an additional amount for the ``Community development 
fund'', for necessary expenses related to disaster relief, 
long-term recovery, and restoration of infrastructure in the 
most impacted and distressed areas related to the consequences 
of hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico in 2005 in States for which 
the President declared a major disaster under title IV of the 
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act 
(42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.) in conjunction with Hurricane Katrina, 
Rita, or Wilma, $11,500,000,000, to remain available until 
expended, for activities authorized under title I of the 
Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-
383): Provided, That no State shall receive more than 54 
percent of the amount provided under this heading: Provided 
further, That funds provided under this heading shall be 
administered through an entity or entities designated by the 
Governor of each State: Provided further, That such funds may 
not be used for activities reimbursable by or for which funds 
are made available by the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
or the Army Corps of Engineers: Provided further, That funds 
allocated under this heading shall not adversely affect the 
amount of any formula assistance received by a State under this 
heading: Provided further, That each State may use up to five 
percent of its allocation for administrative costs: Provided 
further, That Louisiana and Mississippi may each use up to 
$20,000,000 (with up to $400,000 each for technical assistance) 
from funds made available under this heading for LISC and the 
Enterprise Foundation for activities authorized by section 4 of 
the HUD Demonstration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 9816 note), as in 
effect immediately before June 12, 1997, and for activities 
authorized under section 11 of the Housing Opportunity Program 
Extension Act of 1996, including demolition, site clearance and 
remediation, and program administration: Provided further, That 
in administering the funds under this heading, the Secretary of 
Housing and Urban Development shall waive, or specify 
alternative requirements for, any provision of any statute or 
regulation that the Secretary administers in connection with 
the obligation by the Secretary or the use by the recipient of 
these funds or guarantees (except for requirements related to 
fair housing, nondiscrimination, labor standards, and the 
environment), upon a request by the State that such waiver is 
required to facilitate the use of such funds or guarantees, and 
a finding by the Secretary that such waiver would not be 
inconsistent with the overall purpose of the statute, as 
modified: Provided further, That the Secretary may waive the 
requirement that activities benefit persons of low and moderate 
income, except that at least 50 percent of the funds made 
available under this heading must benefit primarily persons of 
low and moderate income unless the Secretary otherwise makes a 
finding of compelling need: Provided further, That the 
Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register any waiver of 
any statute or regulation that the Secretary administers 
pursuant to title I of the Housing and Community Development 
Act of 1974 no later than 5 days before the effective date of 
such waiver: Provided further, That every waiver made by the 
Secretary must be reconsidered according to the three previous 
provisos on the two-year anniversary of the day the Secretary 
published the waiver in the Federal Register: Provided further, 
That prior to the obligation of funds each State shall submit a 
plan to the Secretary detailing the proposed use of all funds, 
including criteria for eligibility and how the use of these 
funds will address long-term recovery and restoration of 
infrastructure: Provided further, That each State will report 
[quarterly] annually to the Committees on Appropriations on all 
awards and uses of funds made available under this heading, 
including specifically identifying all awards of sole-source 
contracts and the rationale for making the award on a sole-
source basis: Provided further, That the Secretary shall notify 
the Committees on Appropriations on any proposed allocation of 
any funds and any related waivers made pursuant to these 
provisions under this heading no later than 5 days before such 
waiver is made: Provided further, That the Secretary shall 
establish procedures to prevent recipients from receiving any 
duplication of benefits and report [quarterly] annually to the 
Committees on Appropriations with regard to all steps taken to 
prevent fraud and abuse of funds made available under this 
heading including duplication of benefits: Provided further, 
That the amounts provided under this heading are designated as 
an emergency requirement pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. 
Res. 95 (109th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the 
budget for fiscal year 2006.
                                ------                                


 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR DEFENSE, THE GLOBAL WAR 
      ON TERROR, AND HURRICANE RECOVERY, 2006, PUBLIC LAW 109-234


                                TITLE II


             FURTHER HURRICANE DISASTER RELIEF AND RECOVERY


                               CHAPTER 9


              DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT


                   Community Planning and Development


                       COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

    For an additional amount for the ``Community development 
fund'', for necessary expenses related to disaster relief, 
long-term recovery, and restoration of infrastructure in the 
most impacted and distressed areas related to the consequences 
of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, or Wilma in States for which the 
President declared a major disaster under title IV of the 
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act 
(42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), $5,200,000,000, to remain available 
until expended, for activities authorized under title I of the 
Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-
383): Provided, That funds provided under this heading shall be 
administered through an entity or entities designated by the 
Governor of each State: Provided further, That such funds may 
not be used for activities reimbursable by or for which funds 
are made available by the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
or the Army Corps of Engineers: Provided further, That funds 
allocated under this heading shall not adversely affect the 
amount of any formula assistance received by a State under this 
heading: Provided further, That each State may use up to five 
percent of its allocation for administrative costs: Provided 
further, That not less than $1,000,000,000 from funds made 
available on a pro-rata basis according to the allocation made 
to each State under this heading shall be used for repair, 
rehabilitation, and reconstruction (including demolition, site 
clearance and remediation) of the affordable rental housing 
stock (including public and other HUD-assisted housing) in the 
impacted areas: Provided further, That no State shall receive 
more than $4,200,000,000: Provided further, That in 
administering the funds under this heading, the Secretary of 
Housing and Urban Development may waive, or specify alternative 
requirements for, any provision of any statute or regulation 
that the Secretary administers in connection with the 
obligation by the Secretary or the use by the recipient of 
these funds or guarantees (except for requirements related to 
fair housing, nondiscrimination, labor standards, and the 
environment), upon a request by the State that such waiver is 
required to facilitate the use of such funds or guarantees, and 
a finding by the Secretary that such waiver would not be 
inconsistent with the overall purpose of the statute: Provided 
further, That the Secretary may waive the requirement that 
activities benefit persons of low and moderate income, except 
that at least 50 percent of the funds made available under this 
heading must benefit primarily persons of low and moderate 
income unless the Secretary otherwise makes a finding of 
compelling need: Provided further, That the Secretary shall 
publish in the Federal Register any waiver of any statute or 
regulation that the Secretary administers pursuant to title I 
of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 no later 
than 5 days before the effective date of such waiver: Provided 
further, That every waiver made by the Secretary must be 
reconsidered according to the three previous provisos on the 
two-year anniversary of the day the Secretary published the 
waiver in the Federal Register: Provided further, That prior to 
the obligation of funds each State shall submit a plan to the 
Secretary detailing the proposed use of all funds, including 
criteria for eligibility and how the use of these funds will 
address long-term recovery and restoration of infrastructure: 
Provided further, That prior to the obligation of funds to each 
State, the Secretary shall ensure that such plan gives priority 
to infrastructure development and rehabilitation and the 
rehabilitation and reconstruction of the affordable rental 
housing stock including public and other HUD-assisted housing: 
Provided further, That each State will report [quarterly] 
annually to the Committees on Appropriations on all awards and 
uses of funds made available under this heading, including 
specifically identifying all awards of sole-source contracts 
and the rationale for making the award on a sole-source basis: 
Provided further, That the Secretary shall notify the 
Committees on Appropriations on any proposed allocation of any 
funds and any related waivers made pursuant to these provisions 
under this heading no later than 5 days before such waiver is 
made: Provided further, That the Secretary shall establish 
procedures to prevent recipients from receiving any duplication 
of benefits and report [quarterly] annually to the Committees 
on Appropriations with regard to all steps taken to prevent 
fraud and abuse of funds made available under this heading 
including duplication of benefits: Provided further, That of 
the amounts made available under this heading, $12,000,000 
shall be transferred to ``Management and Administration, 
Salaries and Expenses'', of which $7,000,000 is for the 
administrative costs, including IT costs, of the KDHAP/DVP 
voucher program; $9,000,000 shall be transferred to the Office 
of Inspector General; and $6,000,000 shall be transferred to 
HUD's Working Capital Fund: Provided further, That none of the 
funds provided under this heading may be used by a State or 
locality as a matching requirement, share, or contribution for 
any other Federal program: Provided further, That the amounts 
provided under this heading are designated as an emergency 
requirement pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th 
Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal 
year 2006.
                                ------                                


       SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008, PUBLIC LAW 110-252


                       TITLE II--DOMESTIC MATTERS


                CHAPTER 6--HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT


              DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT


                   Community Planning and Development


                       COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND

    For an additional amount for ``Community Development 
Fund'', for necessary expenses related to disaster relief, 
long-term recovery, and restoration of infrastructure in areas 
covered by a declaration of major disaster under title IV of 
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance 
Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.) as a result of recent natural 
disasters, $300,000,000, to remain available until expended, 
for activities authorized under title I of the Housing and 
Community Development Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-383): 
Provided, That funds provided under this heading shall be 
administered through an entity or entities designated by the 
Governor of each State: Provided further, That such funds may 
not be used for activities reimbursable by or for which funds 
are made available by the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
or the Army Corps of Engineers: Provided further, That funds 
allocated under this heading shall not adversely affect the 
amount of any formula assistance received by a State under this 
heading: Provided further, That each State may use up to five 
percent of its allocation for administrative costs: Provided 
further, That in administering the funds under this heading, 
the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall waive, or 
specify alternative requirements for, any provision of any 
statute or regulation that the Secretary administers in 
connection with the obligation by the Secretary or the use by 
the recipient of these funds or guarantees (except for 
requirements related to fair housing, nondiscrimination, labor 
standards, and the environment), upon a request by the State 
that such waiver is required to facilitate the use of such 
funds or guarantees, and a finding by the Secretary that such 
waiver would not be inconsistent with the overall purpose of 
the statute, as modified: Provided further, That the Secretary 
may waive the requirement that activities benefit persons of 
low and moderate income, except that at least 50 percent of the 
funds made available under this heading must benefit primarily 
persons of low and moderate income unless the Secretary 
otherwise makes Federal Register, a finding of compelling need: 
Provided further, That the Secretary shall publish in the 
Federal Register any waiver of any statute or regulation that 
the Secretary administers pursuant to title I of the Housing 
and Community Development Act of 1974 no later than 5 days 
before the effective date of such waiver: Provided further, 
That every waiver made by the Secretary must be reconsidered 
according to the three previous provisos on the two-year 
anniversary of the day the Secretary published the waiver in 
the Federal Register: Provided further, That prior to the 
obligation of funds each State shall submit a plan to the 
Secretary detailing the proposed use of all funds, including 
criteria for eligibility and how the use of these funds will 
address long-term recovery and restoration of infrastructure: 
Provided further, That each State will report [quarterly] 
annually to the Committees on Appropriations on all awards and 
uses of funds made available under this heading, including 
specifically identifying all awards of sole-source contracts 
and the rationale for making the award on a sole-source basis: 
Provided further, That the Secretary shall notify the 
Committees on Appropriations on any proposed allocation of any 
funds and any related waivers made pursuant to these provisions 
under this heading no later than 5 days before such waiver is 
made: Provided further, That the Secretary shall establish 
procedures to prevent recipients from receiving any duplication 
of benefits and report [quarterly] annually to the Committees 
on Appropriations with regard to all steps taken to prevent 
fraud and abuse of funds made available under this heading 
including duplication of benefits.
                                ------                                


       CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008, PUBLIC LAW 110-161


DIVISION K--TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED 
                   AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008


                                TITLE II


              DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT


                            Housing Programs


                         [FLEXIBLE SUBSIDY FUND

                          [(TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

    [From the Rental Housing Assistance Fund, all uncommitted 
balances of excess rental charges as of September 30, 2007, and 
any collections made during fiscal year 2008 and all subsequent 
fiscal years, shall be transferred to the Flexible Subsidy 
Fund, as authorized by section 236(g) of the National Housing 
Act.]
                                ------                                


      CONSOLIDATED SECURITY, DISASTER ASSISTANCE, AND CONTINUING 
              APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2009, PUBLIC LAW 110-329


 DIVISION B--DISASTER RELIEF AND RECOVERY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS 
                               ACT, 2008


          TITLE I--RELIEF AND RECOVERY FROM NATURAL DISASTERS


      CHAPTER 10--TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT


              DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT


                   Community Planning and Development


                       COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND

    For an additional amount for the ``Community Development 
Fund'', for necessary expenses related to disaster relief, 
long-term recovery, and restoration of infrastructure, housing, 
and economic revitalization in areas affected by hurricanes, 
floods, and other natural disasters occurring during 2008 for 
which the President declared a major disaster under title IV of 
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance 
Act of 1974, $6,500,000,000, to remain available until 
expended, for activities authorized under title I of the 
Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-
383): Provided, That funds provided under this heading shall be 
administered through an entity or entities designated by the 
Governor of each State: Provided further, That such funds may 
not be used for activities reimbursable by, or for which funds 
are made available by, the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
or the Army Corps of Engineers: Provided further, That funds 
allocated under this heading shall not adversely affect the 
amount of any formula assistance received by a State under the 
Community Development Fund: Provided further, That each State 
may use up to 5 percent of its allocation for administrative 
costs: Provided further, That $6,500,000 shall be available for 
use by the Assistant Secretary of Community Planning and 
Development for the administrative costs, including information 
technology costs, with respect to amounts made available under 
this section and under section 2301(a) of the Housing and 
Economic Recovery Act of 2008: Provided further, That not less 
than $650,000,000 from funds made available on a pro-rata basis 
according to the allocation made to each State under this 
heading shall be used for repair, rehabilitation, and 
reconstruction (including demolition, site clearance and 
remediation) of the affordable rental housing stock (including 
public and other HUD-assisted housing) in the impacted areas 
where there is a demonstrated need as determined by the 
Secretary: Provided further, That in administering the funds 
under this heading, the Secretary of Housing and Urban 
Development may waive, or specify alternative requirements for, 
any provision of any statute or regulation that the Secretary 
administers in connection with the obligation by the Secretary 
or the use by the recipient of these funds or guarantees 
(except for requirements related to fair housing, 
nondiscrimination, labor standards, and the environment), upon 
a request by a State explaining why such waiver is required to 
facilitate the use of such funds or guarantees, if the 
Secretary finds that such waiver would not be inconsistent with 
the overall purpose of title I of the Housing and Community 
Development Act of 1974: Provided further, That a waiver 
granted by the Secretary under the preceding proviso may not 
reduce the percentage of funds which must be used for 
activities that benefit persons of low and moderate income to 
less than 50 percent, unless the Secretary specifically finds 
that there is compelling need to further reduce or eliminate 
the percentage requirement: Provided further, That the 
Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register any waiver of 
any statute or regulation that the Secretary administers 
pursuant to title I of the Housing and Community Development 
Act of 1974 no later than 5 days before the effective date of 
such waiver: Provided further, That every waiver made by the 
Secretary must be reconsidered according to the three previous 
provisos on the 2-year anniversary of the day the Secretary 
published the waiver in the Federal Register: Provided further, 
That the Secretary shall allocate to the states not less than 
33 percent of the funding provided under this heading within 60 
days after the enactment of this Act based on the best 
estimates available of relative damage and anticipated 
assistance from other Federal sources: Provided further, That 
prior to the obligation of funds each State shall submit a plan 
to the Secretary detailing the proposed use of all funds, 
including criteria for eligibility and how the use of these 
funds will address long-term recovery and restoration of 
infrastructure: Provided further, That each State will report 
[quarterly] annually to the Committees on Appropriations on all 
awards and uses of funds made available under this heading, 
including specifically identifying all awards of sole-source 
contracts and the rationale for making the award on a sole-
source basis: Provided further, That the Secretary shall notify 
the Committees on Appropriations of any proposed allocation of 
any funds and any related waivers made pursuant to the 
provisions under this heading no later than 5 days before such 
allocation or waiver is made: Provided further, That the 
Secretary shall establish procedures to prevent recipients from 
receiving any duplication of benefits and report [quarterly] 
annually to the Committees on Appropriations with regard to all 
steps taken to prevent fraud and abuse of funds made available 
under this heading including duplication of benefits: Provided 
further, That none of the funds provided under this heading may 
be used by a State or locality as a matching requirement, 
share, or contribution for any other Federal program.
                                ------                                


 CONSOLIDATED AND FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2012, PUBLIC 
                               LAW 112-55


DIVISION C--TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED 
                                AGENCIES


                                TITLE II


              DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT


                    Rental Assistance Demonstration

    To conduct a demonstration designed to preserve and improve 
public housing and certain other multifamily housing through 
the voluntary conversion of properties with assistance under 
section 9 of the United States Housing Act of 1937, 
(hereinafter, ``the Act''), or the moderate rehabilitation 
program under section 8(e)(2) of the Act (except for funds 
allocated under such section for single room occupancy 
dwellings as authorized by title IV of the McKinney-Vento 
Homeless Assistance Act), to properties with assistance under a 
project-based subsidy contract under section 8 of the Act, 
which shall be eligible for renewal under section 524 of the 
Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 
1997, or assistance under section 8(o)(13) of the Act, the 
Secretary may transfer amounts provided through contracts under 
section 8(e)(2) of the Act or under the headings ``Public 
Housing Capital Fund'' and ``Public Housing Operating Fund'' to 
the headings ``Tenant-Based Rental Assistance'' or ``Project-
Based Rental Assistance'': Provided, That the initial long-term 
contract under which converted assistance is made available may 
allow for rental adjustments only by an operating cost factor 
established by the Secretary, and shall be subject to the 
availability of appropriations for each year of such term: 
Provided further, That project applications may be received 
under this demonstration until September 30, 2015: Provided 
further, That any increase in cost for ``Tenant-Based Rental 
Assistance'' or ``Project-Based Rental Assistance'' associated 
with such conversion shall be equal to amounts transferred from 
``Public Housing Capital Fund'' and ``Public Housing Operating 
Fund'' or other account from which it was transferred: Provided 
further, That not more than 60,000 units currently receiving 
assistance under section 9 [or section 8(e)(2)] of the Act 
shall be converted under the authority provided under this 
heading:

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


    General Provisions--Department of Housing and Urban Development


              (INCLUDING RESCISSION AND TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

    Sec. 203. (a) Notwithstanding section 854(c)(1)(A) of the 
AIDS Housing Opportunity Act (42 U.S.C. 12903(c)(1)(A)), from 
any amounts made available under this title for [fiscal year 
2012] fiscal years 2012 and 2013 that are allocated under such 
section, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall 
allocate and make a grant, in the amount determined under 
subsection (b), for any State that--

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (2) is not otherwise eligible for an allocation for 
        [fiscal year 2012] fiscal years 2012 and 2013 under 
        such clause (ii) because the areas in the State outside 
        of the metropolitan statistical areas that qualify 
        under clause (i) in [fiscal year 2011] fiscal years 
        2012 and 2013 do not have the number of cases of 
        acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) required 
        under such clause.
    (b) The amount of the allocation and grant for any State 
described in subsection (a) shall be an amount based on the 
cumulative number of AIDS cases in the areas of that State that 
are outside of metropolitan statistical areas that qualify 
under clause (i) of such section 854(c)(1)(A) in [fiscal year 
2012] fiscal years 2012 and 2013, in proportion to AIDS cases 
among cities and States that qualify under clauses (i) and (ii) 
of such section and States deemed eligible under subsection 
(a).
    (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the amount 
allocated for [fiscal year 2012] fiscal years 2012 and 2013 
under section 854(c) of the AIDS Housing Opportunity Act (42 
U.S.C. 12903(c)), to the city of New York, New York, on behalf 
of the New York-Wayne-White Plains, New York-New Jersey 
Metropolitan Division (hereafter ``metropolitan division'') of 
the New York-Newark-Edison, NY-NJ-PA Metropolitan Statistical 
Area, shall be adjusted by the Secretary of Housing and Urban 
Development by:

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (d) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the amount 
allocated for [fiscal year 2012] fiscal years 2012 and 2013 
under section 854(c) of the AIDS Housing Opportunity Act (42 
U.S.C. 12903(c)) to areas with a higher than average per capita 
incidence of AIDS, shall be adjusted by the Secretary on the 
basis of area incidence reported over a 3-year period.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    Sec. 209. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
the amount allocated for [fiscal year 2012] fiscal years 2012 
and 2013 under section 854(c) of the AIDS Housing Opportunity 
Act (42 U.S.C. 12903(c)), to the city of Wilmington, Delaware, 
on behalf of the Wilmington, Delaware-Maryland-New Jersey 
Metropolitan Division (hereafter ``metropolitan division''), 
shall be adjusted by the Secretary of Housing and Urban 
Development by allocating to the State of New Jersey the 
proportion of the metropolitan division's amount that is based 
on the number of cases of AIDS reported in the portion of the 
metropolitan division that is located in New Jersey, and 
adjusting for the proportion of the metropolitan division's 
high incidence bonus if this area in New Jersey also has a 
higher than average per capita incidence of AIDS. The State of 
New Jersey shall use amounts allocated to the State under this 
subsection to carry out eligible activities under section 855 
of the AIDS Housing Opportunity Act (42 U.S.C. 12904) in the 
portion of the metropolitan division that is located in New 
Jersey.
    (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall allocate to 
Wake County, North Carolina, the amounts that otherwise would 
be allocated for [fiscal year 2012] fiscal years 2012 and 2013 
under section 854(c) of the AIDS Housing Opportunity Act (42 
U.S.C. 12903(c)) to the city of Raleigh, North Carolina, on 
behalf of the Raleigh-Cary North Carolina Metropolitan 
Statistical Area. Any amounts allocated to Wake County shall be 
used to carry out eligible activities under section 855 of such 
Act (42 U.S.C. 12904) within such metropolitan statistical 
area.
    (c) Notwithstanding section 854(c) of the AIDS Housing 
Opportunity Act (42 U.S.C. 12903(c)), the Secretary of Housing 
and Urban Development may adjust the allocation of the amounts 
that otherwise would be allocated for [fiscal year 2012] fiscal 
years 2012 and 2013 under section 854(c) of such Act, upon the 
written request of an applicant, in conjunction with the 
State(s), for a formula allocation on behalf of a metropolitan 
statistical area, to designate the State or States in which the 
metropolitan statistical area is located as the eligible 
grantee(s) of the allocation. In the case that a metropolitan 
statistical area involves more than one State, such amounts 
allocated to each State shall be in proportion to the number of 
cases of AIDS reported in the portion of the metropolitan 
statistical area located in that State. Any amounts allocated 
to a State under this section shall be used to carry out 
eligible activities within the portion of the metropolitan 
statistical area located in that State.

                        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 2013: Subcommittee on Transportation and Housing and
 Urban Development, and Related Agencies
    Mandatory...............................................  ...........  ...........  ...........        (\1\)
    Discretionary...........................................       53,438       53,438      115,604   \1\115,554
        Security............................................          184          184           NA           NA
        Nonsecurity.........................................       53,254       53,254           NA           NA
Projections of outlays associated with the recommendation:
    2013....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........    \2\38,645
    2014....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........       32,742
    2015....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........       13,979
    2016....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........        6,073
    2017 and future years...................................  ...........  ...........  ...........        7,192
Financial assistance to State and local governments for                NA       32,454           NA       30,677
 2013.......................................................

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
\2\Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.

NA: Not applicable.


  COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL
                                                                        YEAR 2013
                                                                [In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Senate Committee recommendation
                                                                                                                            compared with (+ or -)
                             Item                                     2012         Budget estimate      Committee    -----------------------------------
                                                                  appropriation                      recommendation         2012
                                                                                                                        appropriation    Budget estimate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                    Office of the Secretary

Salaries and expenses.........................................          102,481           110,450           108,097            +5,616            -2,353
    Immediate Office of the Secretary.........................           (2,618)           (2,635)           (2,635)             (+17)  ................
    Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary..................             (984)             (992)             (992)              (+8)  ................
    Office of the General Counsel.............................          (19,515)          (19,615)          (19,615)            (+100)  ................
    Office of the Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy          (10,107)          (11,248)          (11,248)          (+1,141)  ................
    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs.          (10,538)          (13,201)          (12,825)          (+2,287)            (-376)
    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs           (2,500)           (2,601)           (2,514)             (+14)             (-87)
    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration......          (25,469)          (28,672)          (27,095)          (+1,626)          (-1,577)
    Office of Public Affairs..................................           (2,020)           (2,254)           (2,034)             (+14)            (-220)
    Office of the Executive Secretariat.......................           (1,595)           (1,701)           (1,608)             (+13)             (-93)
    Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization....           (1,369)           (1,539)           (1,539)            (+170)  ................
    Office of Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response..          (10,778)          (10,875)          (10,875)             (+97)  ................
    Office of the Chief Information Officer...................          (14,988)          (15,117)          (15,117)            (+129)  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................................          102,481           110,450           108,097            +5,616            -2,353

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology.  ................           13,670            13,500           +13,500              -170
National infrastructure investments (General Fund)............          500,000   ................          500,000   ................         +500,000
    (Legislative proposal)....................................  ................          500,000   ................  ................         -500,000
Livable communities initiative................................  ................            5,000   ................  ................           -5,000
Financial management capital..................................            4,990            10,000            10,000            +5,010   ................
Cyber security initiatives....................................           10,000             6,000             6,000            -4,000   ................
Office of Civil Rights........................................            9,384             9,773             9,773              +389   ................
Transportation planning, research, and development............            9,000            10,000             8,000            -1,000            -2,000
Working capital fund..........................................         (172,000)  ................         (174,128)          (+2,128)        (+174,128)
Minority business resource center program.....................              922             1,285               922   ................             -363
    (Limitation on guaranteed loans)..........................          (18,367)          (21,955)          (18,367)  ................          (-3,588)
Minority business outreach....................................            3,068             3,234             3,234              +166   ................
Payments to air carriers (Airport & Airway Trust Fund)........          143,000           114,000           114,000           -29,000   ................
Rescission of excess compensation for general aviation                   -3,254   ................  ................           +3,254   ................
 operations (Sec. 106)........................................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Office of the Secretary..........................          779,591           783,412           773,526            -6,065            -9,886

                Federal Aviation Administration

Operations....................................................        9,653,395         9,718,000         9,698,396           +45,001           -19,604
    Air traffic organization..................................       (7,442,738)       (7,513,850)       (7,496,279)         (+53,541)         (-17,571)
    Aviation safety...........................................       (1,252,991)       (1,255,000)       (1,255,000)          (+2,009)  ................
    Commercial space transportation...........................          (16,271)          (16,700)          (16,271)  ................            (-429)
    Finance and management....................................         (582,117)         (573,591)         (573,591)          (-8,526)  ................
    Human resources programs..................................          (98,858)  ................  ................         (-98,858)  ................
    Staff offices.............................................         (200,286)         (298,395)         (297,191)         (+96,905)          (-1,204)
    NextGen...................................................          (60,134)          (60,064)          (60,064)             (-70)  ................

Facilities & equipment (Airport & Airway Trust Fund)..........        2,730,731         2,850,000         2,750,000           +19,269          -100,000

Research, engineering, and development (Airport & Airway Trust          167,556           180,000           160,000            -7,556           -20,000
 Fund)........................................................
    Rescission................................................  ................          -26,184           -26,184           -26,184   ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................................          167,556           153,816           133,816           -33,740           -20,000

Grants-in-aid for airports (Airport and Airway Trust Fund)           (3,435,000)       (3,400,000)       (3,400,000)         (-35,000)  ................
 (Liquidation of contract authorization)......................
    (Limitation on obligations)...............................       (3,350,000)       (3,350,000)       (3,350,000)  ................  ................
    Administration............................................         (101,000)         (103,000)         (103,000)          (+2,000)  ................
    Airport Cooperative Research Program......................          (15,000)          (15,000)          (15,000)  ................  ................
    Airport technology research...............................          (29,250)          (29,300)          (29,300)             (+50)  ................
    Small community air service development program...........           (6,000)  ................           (6,000)  ................          (+6,000)
    Chapter 471 reform obligation limitation reduction          ................        (-926,000)  ................  ................        (+926,000)
     (legislative proposal)...................................

Aviation Insurance Revolving Fund (Sec. 117)..................  ................           -1,000   ................  ................           +1,000
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Federal Aviation Administration..................       12,551,682        12,720,816        12,582,212           +30,530          -138,604
          Appropriations......................................      (12,551,682)      (12,747,000)      (12,608,396)         (+56,714)        (-138,604)
          Rescissions.........................................  ................         (-26,184)         (-26,184)         (-26,184)  ................
      (Limitations on obligations)............................       (3,350,000)       (2,424,000)       (3,350,000)  ................        (+926,000)

      Total budgetary resources...............................      (15,901,682)      (15,144,816)      (15,932,212)         (+30,530)        (+787,396)

                Federal Highway Administration

Limitation on administrative expenses.........................         (412,000)         (437,780)         (426,476)         (+14,476)         (-11,304)

Federal-aid highways (Highway Trust Fund):
    (Liquidation of contract authorization)...................      (39,882,583)      (42,569,000)      (39,882,583)  ................      (-2,686,417)
        (Limitation on obligations)...........................      (39,143,583)      (41,830,000)      (39,143,583)  ................      (-2,686,417)
        (Exempt contract authority)...........................         (739,000)         (739,000)         (739,000)  ................  ................
        Emergency relief (disaster relief category)...........        1,662,000   ................  ................       -1,662,000   ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Federal Highway Administration...............        1,662,000   ................  ................       -1,662,000   ................
              Appropriations..................................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
          (Limitations on obligations)........................      (39,143,583)      (41,830,000)      (39,143,583)  ................      (-2,686,417)
          (Exempt contract authority).........................         (739,000)         (739,000)         (739,000)  ................  ................

          Total budgetary resources...........................      (41,544,583)      (42,569,000)      (39,882,583)      (-1,662,000)      (-2,686,417)

          Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

Motor carrier safety operations and programs (Highway Trust            (247,724)         (250,000)         (247,594)            (-130)          (-2,406)
 Fund) (Liquidation of contract authorization)................
    (Limitation on obligations)...............................         (247,724)         (250,000)         (247,594)            (-130)          (-2,406)

Motor carrier safety grants (Highway Trust Fund) (Liquidation          (307,000)         (330,000)         (308,624)          (+1,624)         (-21,376)
 of contract authorization)...................................
    (Limitation on obligations)...............................         (307,000)         (330,000)         (308,624)          (+1,624)         (-21,376)
    CVISN contract authority (Sec. 131).......................            1,000   ................  ................           -1,000   ................
    Rescission of contract authority..........................           -1,000   ................  ................           +1,000   ................

National Motor carrier safety (Highway Trust Fund)              ................  ................          (16,000)         (+16,000)         (+16,000)
 (Liquidation of contract authorization)......................
    (Limitation on obligations)...............................  ................  ................          (16,000)         (+16,000)         (+16,000)
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration......  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
      (Limitations on obligations)............................         (554,724)         (580,000)         (572,218)         (+17,494)          (-7,782)

        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Operations and research (general fund)........................          140,146   ................          136,686            -3,460          +136,686
    Vehicle safety............................................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
Operations and research (Highway Trust Fund) (Liquidation of           (109,500)         (338,000)         (122,360)         (+12,860)        (-215,640)
 contract authorization)......................................
    (Limitation on obligations)...............................         (109,500)         (338,000)         (122,360)         (+12,860)        (-215,640)
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................................          140,146   ................          136,686            -3,460          +136,686

Highway traffic safety grants (Highway Trust Fund)                     (550,328)         (643,000)         (550,328)  ................         (-92,672)
 (Liquidation of contract authorization)......................
    (Limitation on obligations)...............................         (550,328)         (643,000)         (550,328)  ................         (-92,672)
        Highway safety programs (23 USC 402)..................         (235,000)         (317,500)         (235,000)  ................         (-82,500)
        Occupant protection incentive grants (23 USC 405).....          (25,000)          (40,000)          (25,000)  ................         (-15,000)
        Safety belt performance grants (23 USC 406)...........          (48,500)  ................           (8,500)         (-40,000)          (+8,500)
        Distracted driving prevention.........................  ................          (50,000)          (40,000)         (+40,000)         (-10,000)
        State traffic safety information system improvement             (34,500)          (34,500)          (34,500)  ................  ................
         (23 USC 408).........................................
        Impaired driving countermeasures (23 USC 410).........         (139,000)         (139,000)         (139,000)  ................  ................
        Grant administration..................................          (25,328)          (18,000)          (25,328)  ................          (+7,328)
        High visibility enforcement...........................          (29,000)          (37,000)          (29,000)  ................          (-8,000)
        Child safety and booster seat grants..................           (7,000)  ................           (7,000)  ................          (+7,000)
        Motorcyclist safety...................................           (7,000)           (7,000)           (7,000)  ................  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, National Highway Traffic Safety Admin........          140,146   ................          136,686            -3,460          +136,686
              Appropriations..................................         (140,146)  ................         (136,686)          (-3,460)        (+136,686)
              (Limitations on obligations)....................         (659,828)         (981,000)         (672,688)         (+12,860)        (-308,312)

          Total budgetary resources...........................         (799,974)         (981,000)         (809,374)          (+9,400)        (-171,626)

                Federal Railroad Administration

Safety and operations.........................................          178,596           196,000           179,000              +404           -17,000
    Offsetting fee collections (legislative proposal).........  ................          -40,000   ................  ................          +40,000
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Direct appropriation..................................          178,596           156,000           179,000              +404           +23,000

Railroad research and development.............................           35,000            35,500            35,000   ................             -500
System Preservation (limitation on obligations)...............  ................       (1,546,000)  ................  ................      (-1,546,000)
Network Development (limitation on obligations)...............  ................       (1,000,000)  ................  ................      (-1,000,000)
Next Gen High Speed Rail Service (rescission).................  ................           -1,973            -1,973            -1,973   ................
Northeast Corridor Improvement Program (rescission)...........  ................           -4,419            -4,419            -4,419   ................
Capital assistance for high performance passenger rail service  ................  ................          100,000          +100,000          +100,000
                                                               =========================================================================================

National Railroad Passenger Corporation:
    Operating grants to the National Railroad Passenger                 466,000   ................          400,000           -66,000          +400,000
     Corporation..............................................
    Capital and debt service grants to the National Railroad            952,000   ................        1,050,000           +98,000        +1,050,000
     Passenger Corporation....................................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................................        1,418,000   ................        1,450,000           +32,000        +1,450,000
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Federal Railroad Administration..................        1,631,596           185,108         1,757,608          +126,012        +1,572,500
          (Limitations on obligations)........................  ................       (2,546,000)  ................  ................      (-2,546,000)

                Federal Transit Administration

Administrative expenses.......................................           98,713   ................           99,875            +1,162           +99,875

Formula and Bus Grants (Hwy Trust Fund, Mass Transit Account         (9,400,000)  ................       (9,400,000)  ................      (+9,400,000)
 (Liquidation of contract authorization)......................
    (Limitation on obligations)...............................       (8,360,565)  ................       (8,360,565)  ................      (+8,360,565)
    Rescission (General Fund).................................  ................          -72,496           -72,496           -72,496   ................

Research and technology deployment (limitation on obligations)  ................         (120,957)  ................  ................        (-120,957)

Transit Formula Grants (Hwy Trust Fund, Mass Transit Account    ................       (9,500,000)  ................  ................      (-9,500,000)
 (Liquidation of contract authorization)......................
    (Limitation on obligations)...............................  ................       (4,759,372)  ................  ................      (-4,759,372)

Transit expansion and livable communities (liquidation of       ................       (1,500,000)  ................  ................      (-1,500,000)
 contract authorization)......................................
    (limitation on obligations)...............................  ................       (2,447,671)  ................  ................      (-2,447,671)
Operations and safety:
    (Limitation on obligations)...............................  ................         (166,000)  ................  ................        (-166,000)
        Administrative programs (non-add).....................  ................         (129,700)  ................  ................        (-129,700)
        Rail transit safety programs (non-add)................  ................          (36,300)  ................  ................         (-36,300)

Research and University Research Centers......................           44,000   ................           50,000            +6,000           +50,000

Bus and rail state of good repair (liquidation of contract      ................       (1,500,000)  ................  ................      (-1,500,000)
 authorization)...............................................
    (limitation on obligations)...............................  ................       (3,207,000)  ................  ................      (-3,207,000)

Capital investment grants.....................................        1,955,000   ................        2,043,520           +88,520        +2,043,520
    Rescission................................................          -58,500           -11,429           -11,429           +47,071   ................

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority capital and              150,000           135,000           150,000   ................          +15,000
 preventive maintenance.......................................
    Rescission................................................  ................             -523              -523              -523   ................

University Transportation Research (rescission)...............  ................             -293              -293              -293   ................
Job Access and Reverse Commute Grants (rescission)............  ................          -14,662           -14,662           -14,662   ................
Research, Training and Human Resources (rescission)...........  ................             -248              -248              -248   ................
Interstate Transfer Grants (rescission).......................  ................           -2,662            -2,662            -2,662   ................
Urban discretionary accounts (rescission).....................  ................             -578              -578              -578   ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Federal Transit Administration...................        2,189,213            32,109         2,240,504           +51,291        +2,208,395
          (Limitations on obligations)........................       (8,360,565)      (10,701,000)       (8,360,565)  ................      (-2,340,435)

      Total budgetary resources...............................      (10,549,778)      (10,733,109)      (10,601,069)         (+51,291)        (-132,040)

         Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation

Operations and maintenance (Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund)....           32,259            33,000            32,500              +241              -500

                    Maritime Administration

Maritime security program.....................................          174,000           184,000           184,000           +10,000   ................
Operations and training.......................................          156,258           146,298           150,896            -5,362            +4,598
    Rescission................................................             -980   ................  ................             +980   ................
Ship disposal.................................................            5,500            10,000             4,000            -1,500            -6,000
Assistance to small shipyards.................................            9,980   ................            9,000              -980            +9,000

Maritime Guaranteed Loan (Title XI) Program Account:
    Administrative expenses...................................            3,740             3,750             3,750               +10   ................
    Rescission................................................          -35,000   ................  ................          +35,000   ................
    Guaranteed loans subsidy..................................  ................  ................           35,000           +35,000           +35,000
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................................          -31,260             3,750            38,750           +70,010           +35,000
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Maritime Administration..........................          313,498           344,048           386,646           +73,148           +42,598

    Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Administrative expenses:
    General Fund..............................................           20,721            20,408            20,408              -313   ................
    Pipeline Safety Fund......................................              639               639               639   ................  ................
    Pipeline Safety information grants to communities.........           (1,000)           (1,000)           (1,000)  ................  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................................           21,360            21,047            21,047              -313   ................

Hazardous materials safety....................................           42,338            50,673            43,025              +687            -7,648

Pipeline safety:
    Pipeline Safety Fund......................................           90,679           150,500           111,271           +20,592           -39,229
    Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund............................           18,573            21,510            18,573   ................           -2,937
    Pipeline Safety Design Review Fund (leg. proposal)........  ................            4,000             2,000            +2,000            -2,000
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................................          109,252           176,010           131,844           +22,592           -44,166
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety                 172,950           247,730           195,916           +22,966           -51,814
       Administration.........................................

Pipeline safety user fees.....................................          -91,318          -151,139          -111,910           -20,592           +39,229
Special permit and approval fees (leg. proposal)..............  ................          -12,000   ................  ................          +12,000
Pipeline Safety Design Review fee (leg. proposal).............  ................           -4,000            -2,000            -2,000            +2,000

Emergency preparedness grants:
    Limitation on emergency preparedness fund.................          (28,318)          (28,318)          (28,318)  ................  ................
        (Emergency preparedness fund).........................             (188)             (188)             (188)  ................  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety                 81,632            80,591            82,006              +374            +1,415
           Administration.....................................

       Research and Innovative Technology Administration

Research and development......................................           15,981   ................  ................          -15,981   ................

                  Office of Inspector General

Salaries and expenses.........................................           79,624            84,499            84,499            +4,875   ................

                 Surface Transportation Board

Salaries and expenses.........................................           29,310            31,250            29,300               -10            -1,950
    Offsetting collections....................................           -1,250            -1,250            -1,250   ................  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Surface Transportation Board.....................           28,060            30,000            28,050               -10            -1,950
                                                               =========================================================================================
      Total, title I, Department of Transportation............       19,505,282        14,293,583        18,104,237        -1,401,045        +3,810,654
          Appropriations......................................      (17,942,016)      (14,429,050)      (18,239,704)        (+297,688)      (+3,810,654)
          Rescissions.........................................         (-97,734)        (-135,467)        (-135,467)         (-37,733)  ................
          Disaster relief category............................       (1,662,000)  ................  ................      (-1,662,000)  ................
          Rescissions of contract authority...................          (-1,000)  ................  ................          (+1,000)  ................
      (Limitations on obligations)............................      (52,068,700)      (59,062,000)      (52,099,054)         (+30,354)      (-6,962,946)

      Total budgetary resources...............................      (71,573,982)      (73,355,583)      (70,203,291)      (-1,370,691)      (-3,152,292)
                                                               =========================================================================================
     TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

                 Management and Administration

Administration, operations and management.....................          537,789           532,546           527,690           -10,099            -4,856

Program Office Salaries and Expenses:
    Public and Indian Housing.................................          200,000           211,634           206,500            +6,500            -5,134
    Community Planning and Development........................          100,000           103,882           103,500            +3,500              -382
    Housing...................................................          391,500           398,832           398,500            +7,000              -332
    Policy Development and Research...........................           22,211            21,394            22,326              +115              +932
    Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity........................           72,600            74,296            72,904              +304            -1,392
    Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control...........            7,400             6,816             7,433               +33              +617
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................................          793,711           816,854           811,163           +17,452            -5,691
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Management and Administration....................        1,331,500         1,349,400         1,338,853            +7,353           -10,547

                   Public and Indian Housing

Tenant-based rental assistance:
    Renewals..................................................       17,242,351        17,237,948        17,495,000          +252,649          +257,052
    Tenant protection vouchers................................           75,000            75,000            80,000            +5,000            +5,000
    Administrative fees.......................................        1,350,000         1,575,000         1,575,000          +225,000   ................
    Family self-sufficiency coordinators......................           60,000   ................           60,000   ................          +60,000
    Veterans affairs supportive housing.......................           75,000            75,000            75,000   ................  ................
    Sec. 811 Mainstream voucher renewals......................          112,018           111,335           111,335              -683   ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal (available this fiscal year)...................       18,914,369        19,074,283        19,396,335          +481,966          +322,052

    Advance appropriations....................................        4,000,000         4,000,000         4,000,000   ................  ................
    Less appropriations from prior year advances..............       -4,000,000        -4,000,000        -4,000,000   ................  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Tenant-based rental assistance appropriated in          18,914,369        19,074,283        19,396,335          +481,966          +322,052
       this bill..............................................

Public Housing Capital Fund...................................        1,875,000         2,070,000         1,985,000          +110,000           -85,000
Public Housing Operating Fund.................................        3,961,850         4,524,000         4,591,000          +629,150           +67,000
Choice neighborhoods..........................................          120,000           150,000           120,000   ................          -30,000
Family Self-Sufficiency.......................................  ................           60,000   ................  ................          -60,000
Native American housing block grants..........................          650,000           650,000           650,000   ................  ................
Native Hawaiian housing block grant...........................           13,000            13,000            13,000   ................  ................
Indian housing loan guarantee fund program account............            6,000             7,000             6,000   ................           -1,000
    (Limitation on guaranteed loans)..........................         (360,000)         (900,000)         (633,000)        (+273,000)        (-267,000)
Native Hawaiian loan guarantee fund program account...........              386             1,000               386   ................             -614
    (Limitation on guaranteed loans)..........................          (41,504)         (107,000)          (41,504)  ................         (-65,496)
Housing Certificate Fund (rescission).........................         -200,000   ................  ................         +200,000   ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Public and Indian Housing........................       25,340,605        26,549,283        26,761,721        +1,421,116          +212,438

              Community Planning and Development

Housing opportunities for persons with AIDS...................          332,000           330,000           330,000            -2,000   ................
CDBG formula..................................................        2,948,090         2,948,090         3,100,000          +151,910          +151,910
    Indian CDBG...............................................           60,000            60,000            60,000   ................  ................
    Sustainable Housing and Communities.......................  ................          100,000            50,000           +50,000           -50,000
    Capacity building.........................................  ................           35,000   ................  ................          -35,000
    Disaster relief...........................................          300,000   ................  ................         -300,000   ................
        (Disaster relief category)............................          100,000   ................  ................         -100,000   ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, CDF.......................................        3,408,090         3,143,090         3,210,000          -198,090           +66,910

Community development loan guarantees (Section 108):
    (Limitation on guaranteed loans)..........................         (240,000)         (500,000)         (500,000)        (+260,000)  ................
    Credit subsidy............................................            5,952   ................  ................           -5,952   ................

HOME investment partnerships program..........................        1,000,000         1,000,000         1,000,000   ................  ................
Self-help and assisted homeownership opportunity program......           53,500   ................           53,500   ................          +53,500
Homeless assistance grants....................................        1,901,190         2,231,000         2,146,000          +244,810           -85,000
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Community Planning and Development...............        6,700,732         6,704,090         6,739,500           +38,768           +35,410

                       Housing Programs

Project-based rental assistance:
    Renewals..................................................        9,050,672         8,440,400         9,615,795          +565,123        +1,175,395
    Contract administrators...................................          289,000           260,000           260,000           -29,000   ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal (available this fiscal year)...................        9,339,672         8,700,400         9,875,795          +536,123        +1,175,395

    Advance appropriations....................................          400,000           400,000           400,000   ................  ................
    Less appropriations from prior year advances..............         -400,000          -400,000          -400,000   ................  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Project-based rental assistance appropriated in          9,339,672         8,700,400         9,875,795          +536,123        +1,175,395
       this bill..............................................

Housing for the elderly.......................................          374,627           475,000           375,000              +373          -100,000
Housing for persons with disabilities.........................          165,000           150,000           150,000           -15,000   ................
Housing counseling assistance.................................           45,000            55,000            55,000           +10,000   ................
Rental housing assistance.....................................            1,300   ................  ................           -1,300   ................
Rent supplement (rescission)..................................         -231,600   ................  ................         +231,600   ................

Manufactured housing fees trust fund..........................            6,500             8,000             5,500            -1,000            -2,500
    Offsetting collections....................................           -4,000            -4,000            -4,000   ................  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................................            2,500             4,000             1,500            -1,000            -2,500
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Housing Programs.................................        9,696,499         9,384,400        10,457,295          +760,796        +1,072,895
          Appropriations......................................       (9,932,099)       (9,388,400)      (10,461,295)        (+529,196)      (+1,072,895)
          Rescissions.........................................        (-231,600)  ................  ................        (+231,600)  ................
          Offsetting collections..............................          (-4,000)          (-4,000)          (-4,000)  ................  ................

                Federal Housing Administration

FHA--Mutual mortgage insurance program account:
        (Limitation on guaranteed loans)......................     (400,000,000)     (400,000,000)     (400,000,000)  ................  ................
        (Limitation on direct loans)..........................          (50,000)          (50,000)          (50,000)  ................  ................
    Offsetting receipts.......................................       -4,427,000        -9,676,000        -9,676,000        -5,249,000   ................
    Proposed offsetting receipts (HECM) (Sec. 210)............         -286,000          -170,000          -170,000          +116,000   ................
    Additional offsetting receipts (Sec. 238).................          -59,000   ................  ................          +59,000   ................
    Administrative contract expenses..........................          207,000           215,000           215,000            +8,000   ................

FHA--General and special risk program account:
        (Limitation on guaranteed loans)......................      (25,000,000)      (25,000,000)      (25,000,000)  ................  ................
        (Limitation on direct loans)..........................          (20,000)          (20,000)          (20,000)  ................  ................
    Offsetting receipts.......................................         -400,000          -588,000          -588,000          -188,000   ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Federal Housing Administration...................       -4,965,000       -10,219,000       -10,219,000        -5,254,000   ................

        Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA)

Guarantees of mortgage-backed securities loan guarantee
 program account:
        (Limitation on guaranteed loans)......................     (500,000,000)     (500,000,000)     (500,000,000)  ................  ................
    Administrative expenses (legislative proposal)............           19,500            21,000            20,500            +1,000              -500
    Offsetting receipts (legislative proposal)................         -100,000          -100,000          -100,000   ................  ................
    Offsetting receipts.......................................         -521,000          -647,000          -647,000          -126,000   ................
    Offsetting receipts (Sec. 238)............................           -5,000   ................  ................           +5,000   ................
    Proposed offsetting receipts (HECM) (Sec. 210)............          -24,000           -23,000           -23,000            +1,000   ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Gov't National Mortgage Association..............         -630,500          -749,000          -749,500          -119,000              -500

                Policy Development and Research

Research and technology.......................................           46,000            52,000            46,000   ................           -6,000

              Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity

Fair housing activities.......................................           70,847            68,000            68,000            -2,847   ................

        Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes

Lead hazard reduction.........................................          120,000           120,000           120,000   ................  ................

                 Management and Administration

Working capital fund..........................................          199,035           170,000           230,000           +30,965           +60,000
    (By transfer).............................................          (71,500)          (71,500)          (71,500)  ................  ................
Office of Inspector General...................................          124,000           125,600           125,194            +1,194              -406
Transformation initiative.....................................           50,000   ................           43,000            -7,000           +43,000
    (By transfer).............................................  ................         (120,000)  ................  ................        (-120,000)
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Management and Administration....................          373,035           295,600           398,194           +25,159          +102,594

      (Grand total, Management and Administration)............       (1,704,535)       (1,645,000)       (1,737,047)         (+32,512)         (+92,047)

                      General Provisions

Rescission of prior-year advance (Sec. 236)...................         -650,000   ................  ................         +650,000   ................
                                                               =========================================================================================
      Total, title II, Department of Housing and Urban               37,433,718        33,554,773        34,961,063        -2,472,655        +1,406,290
       Development............................................
          Appropriations......................................      (39,841,318)      (40,362,773)      (41,769,063)      (+1,927,745)      (+1,406,290)
          Rescissions.........................................        (-431,600)  ................  ................        (+431,600)  ................
          Disaster relief category............................         (100,000)  ................  ................        (-100,000)  ................
          Advance appropriations..............................       (4,400,000)       (4,400,000)       (4,400,000)  ................  ................
          Rescissions of prior year advances..................        (-650,000)  ................  ................        (+650,000)  ................
          Offsetting receipts.................................      (-5,822,000)     (-11,204,000)     (-11,204,000)      (-5,382,000)  ................
          Offsetting collections..............................          (-4,000)          (-4,000)          (-4,000)  ................  ................
      (By transfer)...........................................           71,500           191,500            71,500   ................         -120,000
      (Limitation on direct loans)............................          (70,000)          (70,000)          (70,000)  ................  ................
      (Limitation on guaranteed loans)........................     (925,641,504)     (926,507,000)     (926,174,504)        (+533,000)        (-332,496)
                                                               =========================================================================================
             TITLE III--OTHER INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Access Board..................................................            7,400             7,400             7,400   ................  ................
Federal Maritime Commission...................................           24,100            26,000            25,000              +900            -1,000
Amtrak Office of Inspector General............................           20,500            22,000            19,000            -1,500            -3,000
National Transportation Safety Board, Salaries and expenses...          102,400           102,400           102,400   ................  ................
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation.........................          215,300           213,000           215,300   ................           +2,300
United States Interagency Council on Homelessness.............            3,300             3,600             3,600              +300   ................
                                                               =========================================================================================
      Total, title III, Other Independent Agencies............          373,000           374,400           372,700              -300            -1,700

      Grand total (net).......................................       57,312,000        48,222,756        53,438,000        -3,874,000        +5,215,244
          Appropriations......................................      (58,156,334)      (55,166,223)      (60,381,467)      (+2,225,133)      (+5,215,244)
          Rescissions.........................................        (-529,334)        (-135,467)        (-135,467)        (+393,867)  ................
          Disaster relief category............................       (1,762,000)  ................  ................      (-1,762,000)  ................
          Rescissions of contract authority...................          (-1,000)  ................  ................          (+1,000)  ................
          Advance appropriations..............................       (4,400,000)       (4,400,000)       (4,400,000)  ................  ................
          Rescissions of prior year advances..................        (-650,000)  ................  ................        (+650,000)  ................
          Negative subsidy receipts...........................      (-5,822,000)     (-11,204,000)     (-11,204,000)      (-5,382,000)  ................
          Offsetting collections..............................          (-4,000)          (-4,000)          (-4,000)  ................  ................
    (Limitation on obligations)...............................      (52,068,700)      (59,062,000)      (52,099,054)         (+30,354)      (-6,962,946)
    (By transfer).............................................           71,500           191,500            71,500   ................         -120,000

      Total budgetary resources...............................     (109,380,700)     (107,284,756)     (105,537,054)      (-3,843,646)      (-1,747,702)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



