Senate Report 112-157 - TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2013

[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:

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)

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:

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.

* * * * * * *

(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)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------