[Senate Report 112-83]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                       Calendar No. 177
112th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 1st Session                                                     112-83

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



 
TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                       APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2012
                                _______
                                

               September 21, 2011.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

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

                                 REPORT

                         [To accompany S. 1596]

    The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 1596) 
making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation and 
Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes, 
reports favorably thereon and recommends that the bill do pass.



Amounts of new budget (obligational) authority for fiscal year 2012

Total of bill as reported to the Senate................. $57,550,000,000
Amount of 2011 appropriations...........................  55,368,096,000
Amount of 2012 budget estimate..........................  76,350,390,000
Bill as recommended to Senate compared to--
    2011 appropriations.................................  +2,181,904,000
    2012 budget estimate................................ -18,800,390,000


                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Program, Project, and Activity...................................     3
Reprogramming Guidelines.........................................     3
Congressional Budget Justifications..............................     4
Title I: Department of Transportation:
    Office of the Secretary......................................     6
    Federal Aviation Administration..............................    24
    Federal Highway Administration...............................    40
    Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration..................    50
    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration...............    58
    Federal Railroad Administration..............................    67
    Federal Transit Administration...............................    71
    Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation................    80
    Maritime Administration......................................    81
    Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.......    81
    Research and Innovative Technology Administration............    87
    Bureau of Transportation Statistics..........................    90
    Office of Inspector General..................................    92
    Surface Transportation Board.................................    94
    General Provisions--Department of Transportation.............    94
Title II: Department of Housing and Urban Development:
    Executive Direction..........................................    97
    Administration, Operations, and Management...................    97
    Program Office Salaries and Expenses.........................   101
    Public and Indian Housing....................................   109
    Community Planning and Development...........................   120
    Housing Programs.............................................   128
    Federal Housing Administration...............................   133
    Government National Mortgage Association.....................   136
    Policy Development and Research..............................   137
    Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity...........................   138
    Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control..............   140
    Working Capital Fund.........................................   140
    Office of Inspector General..................................   142
    Transformation Initiative....................................   142
    General Provisions...........................................   144
Title III: Independent Agencies:
    Access Board.................................................   147
    Federal Maritime Commission..................................   147
    National Railroad Passenger Corporation: Office of Inspector 
      Gener- 
      al.........................................................   148
    National Transportation Safety Board.........................   149
    Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation........................   150
    United States Interagency Council on Homelessness............   152
Title IV: General Provisions--This Act...........................   153
Compliance With Paragraph 7, Rule XVI, of the Standing Rules of 
  the Sen- 
  ate............................................................   156
Compliance With Paragraph 7(c), Rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules 
  of the Senate..................................................   157
Compliance With Paragraph 12, Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of 
  the Senate.....................................................   158
Budgetary Impact of Bill.........................................   169
Comparative Statement of Budget Authority........................   170

                     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 2013 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 2013 to the fiscal year 2012 
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 
2013 budget request.

                                TITLE I

                      DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

    Extension of Transportation Programs and the Solvency of 
the Highway Trust Fund.--For the third 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 2012.
    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 and House 
authorizing committees have each developed legislation to 
reauthorize the surface transportation programs under their 
jurisdiction, there is still no guarantee that their work will 
be complete before the end of fiscal year 2012. 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 2012 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, 2011....................................    $102,481,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................     118,842,000
Committee recommendation................................     102,202,000

                          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 $102,202,000 for 
salaries and expenses of the Office of the Secretary of 
Transportation, including $60,000 for reception and 
representation expenses. The recommendation is $16,640,000 less 
than the budget request and $279,000 less than the fiscal year 
2011 enacted level. The accompanying bill stipulates that none 
of the funding provided may be used for the position of 
Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs.
    The accompanying bill authorizes the Secretary to transfer 
up to 5 percent of the funds from any Office of the Secretary 
to another. The Committee recommendation continues language 
that permits up to $2,500,000 of fees to be credited to the 
Office of the Secretary for salaries and expenses.
    The following table summarizes the Committee's 
recommendation in comparison to the fiscal year 2011 enacted 
level and the budget estimate:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fiscal year--
                                                              ----------------------------------    Committee
                                                                 2011 enacted     2012 request    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immediate Office of the Secretary............................       $2,626,000       $2,623,000       $2,618,000
Office of the Deputy Secretary...............................          984,000          988,000          981,000
Office of the General Counsel................................       20,318,000       19,615,000       19,515,000
Office of the Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy...       11,078,000       12,831,000       11,004,000
Office of the Assistance Secretary for Budget and Programs...       10,538,000       10,949,000       10,538,000
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Government Affairs.....        2,499,000        2,630,000        2,544,000
Office of the Assistance Secretary for Administration........       25,469,000       27,697,000       25,469,000
Office of Public Affairs.....................................        2,051,000        2,137,000        2,046,000
Executive Secretariat........................................        1,655,000        1,682,000        1,649,000
Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization.......        1,496,000        1,520,000        1,492,000
Office of Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response.....       10,579,000       10,797,000       10,578,000
Office of the Chief Information Officer......................       13,189,000       17,750,000       13,768,000
Acquisition workforce development............................  ...............        7,623,000  ...............
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total, Salaries and Expenses...........................      102,482,000      118,842,000      102,202,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   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 $2,618,000 for fiscal year 2012 
for the Immediate Office of the Secretary. The recommendation 
is $5,000 less than the budget request and $8,000 less than the 
fiscal year 2011 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 $981,000 for the Immediate Office 
of the Deputy Secretary, which is $7,000 less than the budget 
request and $3,000 less than the fiscal year 2011 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 $19,515,000 for expenses of the 
Office of the General Counsel for fiscal year 2012. The 
recommended funding level is $100,000 less than the budget 
request and $803,000 less than the fiscal year 2011 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. The recommended level does not 
include the $59,000 requested by the administration to increase 
the size of the office by one position.

       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 $11,004,000 for the Office of the 
Under Secretary for Policy. The recommended funding level is 
$1,827,000 less than the budget request and $74,000 less than 
the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. The recommended level does 
not include funding requested by the administration for two 
additional positions in the office or for staff assigned to 
U.S. Embassies.

       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 $10,538,000 for the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs. The recommended 
level is $411,000 less than the budget request and equal to the 
fiscal year 2011 enacted level. The recommendation does not 
include additional funding requested by the administration for 
increasing the office by two positions.
    Acquisition Workforce Development.--The Committee 
recommendation does not include $7,623,000 requested by the 
Department to increase the Department's acquisition workforce 
capacity and capabilities. Under the Department's proposal, OST 
would transfer these funds to other accounts throughout the 
Department for the purpose of developing its acquisition 
workforce. The Committee agrees with the importance of 
investing in the Department's acquisition workforce, but 
believes that those investments should be made directly in the 
operating administrations when more resources are available.
    In addition, the Committee directs the Government 
Accountability Office [GAO] to analyze the Department's 
acquisition workforce and report its findings to the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations no later than December 31, 
2012. The GAO's evaluation should include an assessment of the 
acquisition workforce of each agency within the Department of 
Transportation, including the Office of the Secretary; an 
evaluation of OST's current role in supporting and overseeing 
the acquisition workforce throughout the Department; and a 
presentation of the best practices that Federal departments 
have used to maintain their acquisition workforces, including a 
discussion of how those best practices could be used at the 
Department of Transportation.

       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 $2,544,000 for the 
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs. The 
recommended level is $86,000 less than the budget request and 
$45,000 more than the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. This 
level does not include additional funds requested by the 
administration to increase the size of the office by one 
position.

          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 $25,469,000 for the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Administration. The recommended funding 
level is $2,228,000 less than the budget request and equal to 
the fiscal year 2011 enacted level.

                        OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Director of Public Affairs is the principal advisor to 
the Secretary and other senior departmental officials 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 $2,064,000 for the Office of 
Public Affairs, which is $91,000 less than the budget request 
and $5,000 less than the fiscal year 2011 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 $1,649,000 for the Executive 
Secretariat. The recommendation is $33,000 less than the budget 
request and $6,000 less than the fiscal year 2011 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 $1,492,000, an amount that is 
$28,000 less than the budget request and $4,000 less than the 
fiscal year 2011 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 $10,578,000 for the Office of 
Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response. The 
recommendation is $219,000 less than the request and $1,000 
less than the fiscal year 2011 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, cyber security, privacy, and records 
management.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $13,678,000, which is $3,982,000 
less than the budget request and $579,000 more than the fiscal 
year 2011 enacted level.
    The recommended level includes sufficient funds to retain 
seven positions added to the office this past year by 
redirecting funds that had been previously used for contract 
support. This level does not include additional resources for 
the Department's cyber security initiative because those funds 
are provided under a separate appropriation. The Committee 
appreciates the Department's efforts to improve its cyber 
security, but is concerned that a major increase in the size of 
the office will create difficulties beyond the budget year. The 
fiscal constraints the Committee faces today are significantly 
tighter than they have been in recent years, and will likely 
only grow more so in the coming years. The Committee therefore 
urges the Department to limit growth in this office to those 
positions that the Department can realistically sustain in 
future years.

                  NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS

Appropriations, 2011....................................    $526,944,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................   2,000,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     550,000,000

                          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 $550,000,000 for 
grants and credit assistance for investment in significant 
transportation projects, which is $23,056,000 more than the 
fiscal year 2011 enacted level. The administration requested no 
funds for this program, which offers an important source of 
funding for projects that are difficult to fund through the 
Department's formula grant programs. The Committee urges the 
Department to give priority consideration to applications for 
projects that would complete a large, multi-phase effort, or 
that involve collaborations among more than one State.
    Credit Assistance Challenge.--Traditionally, the Federal 
Government has invested in our Nation's infrastructure by 
providing grants to State and local governments. The Department 
distributes most of these grants by formula, and while the 
grants almost always require a local match, the Federal share 
of investment does not usually fall below 80 percent of a 
project's total cost. Recent constraints on the Federal budget, 
however, have sparked greater interest in other forms of 
Federal investment, such as bonding authority, direct loans, 
and Federal guarantees of private debt. These tools offer the 
possibility that a small expenditure of Federal dollars will 
leverage greater financial investments from State and local 
governments, or from the private sector.
    The disadvantage of this approach is that it may place 
barriers between Federal resources and transportation projects 
that offer public benefits and deserve Federal investment. In 
order to take advantage of new bonding authority or Federal 
credit assistance, a project sponsor must possess a certain 
level of financial sophistication, the authority to enter into 
new debt under the State and local laws, and access to a new 
stream of revenues that can be dedicated to debt repayment. 
Such barriers stand in the way of many transportation projects, 
including ones that can pass strict cost-benefit tests or offer 
safety improvements that will save lives.
    The funding provided as National Infrastructure 
Investments--commonly referred to as the TIGER program--
supports a mix of grants, direct loans, and loan guarantees. In 
this way, the Committee seeks to balance the need to leverage 
Federal dollars as much as possible with the need to ensure 
that Federal assistance remains accessible to transportation 
projects across the country.
    The Committee believes that National Infrastructure 
Investments offers a good model for investing smartly in our 
national infrastructure. The program offers credit assistance 
through the Department's Transportation Infrastructure Finance 
and Innovation Act [TIFIA] program, which allows every $1 
provided in the bill to leverage $30 in transportation 
infrastructure investment. Furthermore, because applicants 
often compete by offering strong local matches, even the grants 
provided under this program offer unusually large opportunities 
to leverage Federal resources. The Department has signed 32 
TIGER grants using the funding provided as part of the fiscal 
year 2010 appropriations act. For these grants, the TIGER 
funding covers only 46 percent of the projects' total costs on 
average. The Department expects this percentage to drop further 
still as more grant agreements are signed.
    The Committee, however, believes that the balance between 
grants and credit assistance can be pushed further, and so it 
has increased the percentage of TIGER funds that the Department 
may use to provide credit assistance. The Committee understands 
that the vast majority of applicants remain interested in 
grants, and recognizes that the Nation's slow economic recovery 
may not make it easier for applicants to take advantage of 
credit assistance. For this reason, the bill language remains 
permissive and does not, at present, establish a hard 
requirement for the amount of credit assistance provided with 
TIGER funding.
    The Committee therefore challenges the Department to work 
with applicants in order to find ways of making credit 
assistance accessible to them. The Department has placed a high 
priority on reaching out to the transportation community in 
order to educate them about the TIGER program, and these 
outreach activities offer a good opportunity for highlighting 
the value of requesting credit assistance as a way to put 
together a competitive application. In addition, the Committee 
understands that the Department has tried to shorten the amount 
of time it takes for a project sponsor to navigate its 
application process for credit assistance under the TIFIA 
program. This effort could prove especially important for 
enticing TIGER applicants to consider using the TIFIA program.
    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. In addition, 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, 2011....................................      $4,990,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................      17,000,000
Committee recommendation................................       4,990,000

                          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 $4,990,000 to support the 
Secretary's Financial Management Capital initiative, which is 
$12,010,000 less than the budget request and equal to the 
fiscal year 2011 enacted level.
    OIG Evaluation.--The Committee appreciates the importance 
of revamping the Department's financial management capital, but 
is not convinced that the Department has shown evidence of the 
program's success to date. For this reason, the Committee 
directs the OIG to submit a report to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations on the Department's investments in 
financial management capital by May 30, 2012. This report 
should provide an evaluation of the Department's investment 
plans and its progress to date in effectively carrying out its 
plans. The report should also include an assessment of the 
extent to which the investments being made today will offer the 
Department the flexibility to use its new financial management 
tools to address a variety of future needs, many of which the 
Department may not be able to anticipate at this time.
    Funding from OST and the Modal Administrations.--The 
Committee continues to be interested in balancing the needs of 
OST and each of the modal administrations. The Committee notes 
that the OST budget documents 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 directs OST to include this information in its budget 
justifications for fiscal year 2013. The Committee also reminds 
the Secretary of language that continues to be included in the 
bill that limits OST's ability to approve new assessments or 
reimbursable agreements pertaining to funds appropriated to the 
modal administrations for new activities, unless a 
reprogramming of funds is requested and approved by the 
Committee.
    Period of Availability.--The Committee has included 
language to limit the availability of funding for this program 
to a period of 2 fiscal years. The Committee appreciates that 
the Financial Capital Management initiative entails significant 
capital investments, and that the obligations for such 
investments can be difficult to plan. However, the fiscal 
constraints under which the Committee completes its work have 
become challenging over the past year. The Committee cannot 
afford to provide resources that the Department will not 
obligate in a timely manner.

                       CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE

Appropriations, 2011....................................................
Budget estimate, 2012...................................................
Committee recommendation................................     $10,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Cyber Security Initiative is a new effort to close 
performance gaps in the Department's cyber security. 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 $10,000,000 to 
support the Secretary's Cyber Security Initiative. No funds for 
this activity were included in the budget request for fiscal 
year 2012 or provided for fiscal year 2011.
    The Department requested funding to improve its cyber 
security for the first time in its budget request for fiscal 
year 2011, and the Chief Information Officer demonstrated to 
the Committee a clear need to improve cyber security at the 
Department. As a major department of the Federal Government 
with the responsibility to manage the Nation's civil airspace 
and maintain inventories of our transportation infrastructure, 
the Department of Transportation must protect the security of 
its computer systems and data collections. Unfortunately, 
because the Department was funded by a full-year continuing 
resolution, the Committee was unable to accommodate this 
request.
    The Department's budget request for fiscal year 2012 was 
submitted before the final resolution of the fiscal year 2011 
budget process, and for this reason, it assumes the Committee 
already provided adequate resources to improve the Department's 
cyber security. For fiscal year 2012, the Committee seeks to 
rectify this situation by providing $10,000,000 to improve 
cyber security at the Department of Transportation.
    Period of Availability.--The Committee included language to 
limit the availability of funding for the initiative to a 
period of 2 fiscal years. The Committee cannot afford to 
provide resources that the Department will not obligate in a 
timely manner.

                         OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS

Appropriations, 2011....................................      $9,648,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................       9,661,000
Committee recommendation................................       9,648,000

                          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 $9,648,000 for 
the Office of Civil Rights for fiscal year 2012. The 
recommendation is $13,000 less than the budget request and 
equal to the fiscal year 2011 enacted level.

           TRANSPORTATION PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2011....................................      $9,799,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................       9,824,000
Committee recommendation................................       9,000,000

                          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 $9,000,000 for transportation 
planning, research, and development, which is $824,000 less 
than the budget request and $799,000 less than the fiscal year 
2011 enacted level.
    The Committee has not included language giving the 
Department the authority to use funds provided under this 
heading for the development, coordination, and analysis of data 
collection procedures and national performance measures. This 
language was included for the first time in the fiscal year 
2010 bill, but the Committee notes that the Department has the 
underlying authority to use its funding for these purposes 
without any additional language being included in an 
appropriations act. The Committee therefore urges the 
Department to exercise its existing authority and to use its 
funding to ensure that transportation policies and investments 
are supported by sound data analysis.
    With the funding made available for transportation 
planning, research and development, $1,000,000 is to be made 
available to conduct the study required by section 9007 of 
SAFETEA-LU (Public Law 109-59).

                          WORKING CAPITAL FUND

Limitation, 2011........................................    $147,596,000
Budget estimate, 2012\1\................................................
Committee recommendation................................     147,596,000

\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 $147,596,000 on 
activities financed through the Working Capital Fund. For 
fiscal year 2012, the administration has proposed to remove the 
obligation limitation on the Working Capital Fund, and then use 
the fund to pay for a long list of new initiatives. The cost of 
these initiatives, however, would actually be borne by each of 
the agencies within the Department, and the budget requests of 
each of these agencies include significant increases to be paid 
into the Working Capital Fund. In order to fund other 
priorities, the Committee has not provided these additional 
funds to each of the agencies at the Department, and has kept a 
tight limitation on the fund. The Committee also continues to 
insist that the discipline of an annual limitation is necessary 
to keep assessments and services of the Working Capital Fund in 
line with costs.
    As in past years, the bill specifies that the limitation 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 2012 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 2013.

               MINORITY BUSINESS RESOURCE CENTER PROGRAM

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Limitation on
                                        Appropriations  guaranteed loans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2011.................         $921,000      $18,367,000
Budget estimate, 2012................          922,000       18,367,000
Committee recommendation.............          921,000       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 $351,000 to 
cover the subsidy costs for guaranteed loans and $570,000 for 
administrative expenses to carry out the guaranteed loan 
program. These recommended levels add to a total funding level 
of $921,000 for the Minority Business Resource Center. This 
total funding level is $1,000 less than the budget estimate and 
equal to the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. The Committee also 
recommends a limitation on guaranteed loans of $18,367,000, the 
same amount as the budget request and the fiscal year 2011 
enacted level.

                       MINORITY BUSINESS OUTREACH

Appropriations, 2011....................................      $3,068,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................       3,100,000
Committee recommendation................................       3,068,000

                          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 $3,068,000 for grants and 
contractual support provided under this program for fiscal year 
2012. The recommendation is $32,000 less than the budget 
request and equal to the fiscal year 2011 enacted level.

                        PAYMENTS TO AIR CARRIERS

                    (AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Appropriations   Mandatory\1\        Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, 2011.............................................    $149,700,000     $50,000,000    $199,700,000
Budget estimate, 2012...........................................     123,254,000      50,000,000     173,254,000
Committee recommendation........................................     143,000,000      50,000,000     193,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\From overflight fees provided to the Federal Aviation Administration pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 41742.

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends the appropriation of $143,000,000 
for the EAS program. This appropriation would be in addition to 
$50,000,000 of overflight fees collected by the Federal 
Aviation Administration. The Committee also expects that about 
$17,000,000 in obligated balances will remain available in the 
next fiscal year, allowing the Department to support a total 
program level for EAS of $210,000,000. The recommendation is 
$19,746,000 more than the budget request, and $6,700,000 less 
than the fiscal year 2011 enacted level.
    The administration requested an appropriation of 
$123,254,000 for the Essential Air Service program, expecting 
that those funds would be added to $50,000,000 in overflight 
fees and an estimated $22,000,000 in unobligated balances of 
funds provided in previous years. The Committee understands 
that fewer unobligated balances are now expected to be 
available by the beginning of fiscal year 2012, and that 
program costs next year may be higher than were originally 
anticipated. Therefore, the Committee recommendation provides 
more funds as a direct appropriation than were requested by the 
administration in order to account for the most recent 
estimates.
    Transfer Authority.--The nature of the EAS program makes it 
extremely difficult to predict what the true program costs will 
be during fiscal year 2012. 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 
2012. These funds may come from other funds directly 
administered by, or appropriated to, the Office of the 
Secretary.
    Maintaining Air Service for EAS Communities.--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. As a result, Congress created the 
Essential Air Service program to guarantee that small 
communities who were served 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. In addition, 
the requirement to use 15-passenger seat aircraft adds to the 
cost of the program. The fleet of such aircraft continues to 
age and grow more difficult for airlines to maintain. As a 
result of these changes, the amount of direct appropriations 
required to continue the EAS guarantee of air service has more 
than doubled in just the past 4 years.
    The Committee remains committed to maintaining EAS and 
protecting the air service of communities participating in the 
program. For that reason, the Committee has repeatedly denied 
requests from the administration to require a local cost share 
from participating communities, and the bill continues to 
include a provision to prevent the Administration from 
implementing a cost share program. The Committee believes that 
such a requirement undermines the purpose of the EAS program.
    In the current budgetary environment, however, the dramatic 
growth in the EAS program has become unsustainable. The 
Committee believes that it can best protect air service for 
communities that are participating in the EAS program by 
ensuring that it will be able to sustain the cost of the 
program.
    The bill therefore includes two provisions requested by the 
administration that are designed to restrict the growth of the 
program. The administration proposed limiting EAS funding to 
communities within the 48 contiguous States that received 
subsidies on October 1, 2011. The Committee has included this 
provision in the bill, but with an amendment to protect 
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. 
This amendment will prevent the limitation from becoming an 
arbitrary cap based on the record of a single day.
    The administration also proposed repealing the requirement 
for 15-passenger seat aircraft, and the Committee has included 
this provision in the bill. The Committee, however, expects the 
Department to use this new 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 program costs if a community 
can show regular enplanements levels that would justify larger 
aircraft.
    The following table reflects the points in the continental 
United States currently receiving service and the annual rates 
as of January 1, 2011.

                                   ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE SUBSIDY PER PASSENGER
                        [Data is based on September 1, 2011 rates and CY 2010 passengers]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Est. miles
                                            to nearest     Average    Subsidy rates at   Passenger   Subsidy per
State            EAS communities            hub (S, M,  enplanements        9/1/11        total at    passenger
                                              or L)        per day                        12/31/10   at 12/31/10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  ALMuscle Shoals                                 60          26.7        $1,782,928       16,795      $106.16
  AREl Dorado/Camden                             107           4.7         2,060,725        2,494       826.27
  ARHarrison                                      86           6.8         1,591,119        3,503       454.22
  ARHot Springs                                   51           2.8         1,288,527        1,555       828.63
  ARJonesboro                                     82           2.3           799,992          940       851.06
  AZKingman                                      121             3         1,168,390        1,860       628.17
  AZPage                                         282          18.3         1,559,206       11,704       133.22
  AZPrescott                                     102          15.8         1,832,233        8,929       205.20
  AZShow Low                                     154          10.1         1,719,058        5,947       289.06
  CACrescent City                                314          44.9         1,781,888       28,815        61.84
  CAEl Centro                                    101          16.5         1,852,091        9,732       190.31
  CAMerced                                        60           8.1         1,961,174        4,023       487.49
  CAVisalia                                       47           6.5         1,746,507        3,670       475.89
  COAlamosa                                      164            22         1,987,155       13,416       148.12
  COCortez                                       255          19.2         1,847,657       12,702       145.46
  COPueblo                                        36          18.3         1,299,821       10,277       126.48
  GAAthens                                        72           6.8         1,051,386        6,715       156.57
  IABurlington                                    74          16.2         2,171,241        5,447       398.61
  IAFort Dodge                                    91          31.3         1,910,995       15,607       122.44
  IAMason City                                   131          43.9         1,017,545       26,220        38.81
  ILDecatur                                      126          14.9         3,082,403        4,536       679.54
  ILMarion/Herrin                                123          26.1         2,053,783       14,003       146.67
  ILQuincy                                       111          26.5         1,946,270       14,909       130.54
  KSDodge City                                   150          12.1         1,842,749        7,189       256.33
  KSGarden City                                  202            32         1,884,303       18,575       101.44
  KSGreat Bend                                   114             3         1,257,617        1,453       865.53
  KSHays                                         175            28         1,954,327       16,380       119.31
  KSLiberal/Guymon                               138          14.3         1,958,570        8,534       229.50
  KSSalina                                        97           6.9         1,493,381        3,325       449.14
  KYOwensboro                                    105           1.2         1,068,773        1,164       918.19
  KYPaducah                                      146            59           569,923       38,695        14.73
  MDHagerstown                                    78          10.5         1,203,167        6,283       191.50
  MEAugusta/Waterville                            69          15.8         1,362,616        8,385       162.51
  MEBar Harbor                                   178          36.9         2,298,533       22,258       103.27
  MEPresque Isle/Houlton                         270          46.5         2,812,853       29,854        94.22
  MERockland                                      80          24.1         1,420,545       14,464        98.21
  MIAlpena                                       174          32.8         1,532,660       17,080        89.73
  MIEscanaba                                     112          35.8         2,090,534       18,439       113.38
  MIHancock/Houghton                             219          71.2         1,404,714       41,936        33.50
  MIIron Mountain/Kingsford                      105            29         2,090,534       14,042       148.88
  MIIronwood/Ashland                             213           4.4         1,387,589        1,982       700.10
  MIManistee                                     110          18.8         1,694,794        6,731       251.79
  MIMuskegon                                      42          38.7           660,720       25,127        26.30
  MISault Ste. Marie                             278          50.7           237,825       28,445         8.36
  MNChisholm/Hibbing                             199          34.3         2,938,878       20,531       143.14
  MNInternational Falls                          298            46         1,309,886       26,821        48.84
  MNThief River Falls                            305           7.7         1,230,322        4,996       246.26
  MOCape Girardeau                               127          16.4         1,469,715        9,084       161.79
  MOFort Leonard Wood                             85          18.4         2,437,766        9,633       253.06
  MOJoplin                                        70          45.5         2,778,756        7,695       361.11
  MOKirksville                                   137          11.6         1,422,110        4,041       351.92
  MSGreenville                                   124          21.6         1,606,662       12,005       133.83
  MSHattiesburg/Laurel                            85          43.1         1,398,798       26,393        53.00
  MSMeridian                                      84          54.2           678,936       33,193        20.45
  MSTupelo                                        94            39           921,878       23,658        38.97
  MTGlasgow                                      285           5.4         1,166,049        2,951       395.14
  MTGlendive                                     223           2.2         1,193,391          879     1,357.67
  MTHavre                                        230           3.3         1,162,329        1,838       632.39
  MTLewistown                                    103           1.4         1,325,733        1,367       969.81
  MTMiles City                                   145           3.2         1,621,821        2,062       786.53
  MTSidney                                       272           9.8         2,932,152        6,700       437.63
  MTWest Yellowstone                              89          39.9           427,757        8,845        48.36
  MTWolf Point                                   293           2.1         1,502,378        (\1\)        (\1\)
  NDDevils Lake                                  402          17.4         1,459,493        9,731       149.98
  NDDickinson                                    319          42.7         2,019,177       20,670        97.69
  NDJamestown                                     97          16.1         1,963,220        9,097       215.81
  NEAlliance                                     233           4.9         1,108,701        2,929       378.53
  NEChadron                                      290           6.4         1,108,701        3,753       295.42
  NEGrand Island                                 138          25.2         2,215,582       13,050       169.78
  NEKearney                                      181          31.9         1,965,740       18,809       104.51
  NEMcCook                                       256           6.2         1,796,795        3,888       462.14
  NENorth Platte                                 255          26.4         1,871,765       15,784       118.59
  NEScottsbluff                                  192          27.7         1,507,185       17,479        86.23
  NHLebanon/White River Jct.                     124          26.6         2,347,744       15,379       152.66
  NMAlamogordo/Holloman AFB                       89           1.2         1,169,337          748     1,563.28
  NMCarlsbad                                     149           7.9         1,350,253        5,111       264.19
  NMClovis                                       102           7.3         1,592,157        4,442       358.43
  NMSilver City/Hurley/Deming                    134           4.8         1,594,092        3,022       527.50
  NVEly                                          234             1         1,752,067          471     3,719.89
  NYJamestown                                     76          12.4         1,639,254        7,407       221.31
  NYMassena                                      138          11.4         1,708,911        6,652       256.90
  NYOgdensburg                                   105           8.2         1,702,697        4,450       382.63
  NYPlattsburgh                                   82          42.1         1,379,257       21,401        64.45
  NYSaranac Lake/Lake Placid                     132          18.4         1,366,538       11,336       120.55
  NYWatertown                                     54             9         1,665,889        5,137       324.29
  ORPendleton                                    185          16.5         1,463,681        9,745       150.20
  PAAltoona                                      112            14         1,674,147        8,869       188.76
  PABradford                                      77          10.4         1,087,306        5,810       187.14
  PADuBois                                       112          18.6         2,228,996       11,091       200.97
  PAFranklin/Oil City                             85           5.5           915,101        3,179       287.86
  PAJohnstown                                     84          25.7         1,674,147       15,966       104.86
  PALancaster                                     28          19.2         1,372,474       11,210       122.43
  PRMayaguez                                     105          13.6         1,198,824        8,583       139.67
  SDHuron                                        121           6.8         1,742,886        4,123       422.72
  SDWatertown                                    207          26.9         1,769,019       15,329       115.40
  TNJackson                                       86           4.3         1,225,628        4,539       270.02
  TXVictoria                                      93           5.5         1,856,692        9,963       186.36
  UTCedar City                                   179          19.1         1,477,125       10,469       141.10
  UTMoab                                         256          10.1         1,798,370        5,489       327.63
  UTVernal                                       150          15.2         1,421,478        8,767       162.14
  VAStaunton                                     113          37.1         2,180,461       20,707       105.30
  VTRutland                                       69          18.5           797,141       10,879        73.27
  WIEau Claire                                    92            58         1,732,372       33,154        52.25
  WVBeckley                                      168           7.8         2,313,457        4,449       519.99
  WVClarksburg                                    96          18.1         1,488,219       11,237       132.44
  WVMorgantown                                    75          32.7         1,488,219       20,353        73.12
  WVParkersburg/Marietta                         110          19.5         2,642,237       10,209       258.81
  WYLaramie                                      145            24         1,181,572       14,908        79.26
  WYWorland                                      161             9         1,770,336        5,485      322.76
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\NA = Not available.

  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 rescinds unobligated balances of funds made 
available for compensation for general aviation operations in a 
prior appropriations act.
    Section 105 allows the Department of Transportation to make 
use of the Working Capital Fund in providing transit benefits 
to Federal employees.
    Section 106 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.

                    Federal Aviation Administration


                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The total recommended program level for the FAA for fiscal 
year 2012 amounts to $15,938,441,000, including both new budget 
authority and a limitation on the obligation of contract 
authority. This funding level is $632,441,000 more than the 
budget request and $9,088,000 more than the fiscal year 2011 
enacted level.
    The following table summarizes the Committee's 
recommendations for fiscal year 2012:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Fiscal year--
                                                        --------------------------------------     Committee
                                                            2011 enacted      2012 estimate      recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations.............................................     $9,513,962,000     $9,823,000,000     $9,635,710,000
Facilities and equipment...............................      2,730,731,000      2,870,000,000      2,630,731,000
Research, engineering, and development.................        169,660,000        190,000,000        158,000,000
Grants-in-aid for airports.............................      3,515,000,000      2,424,000,000      3,515,000,000
War risk insurance program extension...................  .................         -1,000,000         -1,000,000
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total............................................     15,929,353,000     15,306,000,000     15,938,441,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               OPERATIONS

Appropriations, 2011....................................  $9,513,962,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................   9,823,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   9,635,710,000

                          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 $9,635,710,000 for FAA 
operations. This funding level is $187,290,000 less than the 
budget request, and $121,748,000 more than the fiscal year 2011 
enacted level. The Committee recommendation derives 
$5,000,000,000 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 2011 enacted level:

                                                 FAA OPERATIONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Fiscal year--
                                                        --------------------------------------     Committee
                                                            2011 enacted      2012 estimate      recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air traffic organization...............................     $7,458,352,000     $7,646,145,000     $7,560,815,000
Aviation safety........................................      1,250,514,000      1,283,568,000      1,253,381,000
Commercial space transportation........................         15,021,000         26,625,000         15,005,000
Financial services.....................................        112,071,000        112,369,000        112,459,000
Human resource management..............................         99,005,000        102,125,000         98,858,000
Region and center operations...........................        337,133,000        374,955,000        337,944,000
Staff offices..........................................        193,286,000        214,203,000        207,065,000
Information services...................................         48,580,000         63,010,000         50,183,000
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total............................................      9,513,962,000      9,823,000,000      9,635,710,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FAA Administrative Expenses.--The Committee expects 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 concerned about the FAA's 
failure to manage this authority responsibly, and continues to 
include 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 2012.
    Controller Placement.--The Committee continues to be 
concerned about how the FAA places its recently hired air 
traffic controllers at facilities across the country. The FAA 
currently does not have a data-based method for determining the 
relative strengths and weaknesses of air traffic controllers 
leaving the FAA academy and assigning them to specific 
facilities based on those attributes.
    At the present time, the FAA administers a test when a 
candidate first applies to the FAA. Based on the results of 
this test, the FAA assigns each candidate to one of three 
categories: not qualified, qualified, and well qualified. This 
test has been shown to predict the likelihood that a candidate 
will succeed at the FAA Academy, but it has not been proven to 
predict the candidate's performance as an air traffic 
controller. Furthermore, due to the large number of people 
applying to the FAA in comparison to the number of available 
positions, the FAA currently accepts only a fraction of the 
``well-qualified'' candidates. The test therefore reveals no 
differences among the candidates entering the academy. Another 
examination is conducted at the end of the academy program, but 
results of this test are given only as pass or fail, and the 
overwhelming majority of candidates pass the exam. As a result 
of these limitations, neither test offers the FAA a way to 
differentiate among its new air traffic controllers.
    The Committee understands that, whenever possible, the 
FAA's placement committee will consider the background of 
academy graduates when placing them at various air traffic 
control facilities. In addition, recently, the FAA has done a 
better job of ensuring that inexperienced, newly hired air 
traffic controllers do not get placed in positions where they 
would be responsible for controlling complex or crowded 
airspace. While testifying before the Committee this past May, 
the Administrator of the FAA credited the Agency's new contract 
with its controllers with providing the incentives necessary to 
see experienced controllers moving into positions that control 
complex airspace. Without these incentives to fill those 
positions, he said, ``. . . we were forced to assign people out 
of the academy. There was no other way to fill the vacancies. 
That is not a good practice.''
    The Committee, however, believes that these practices do 
not take the place of a systematic method for placing air 
traffic controllers based on an objective measure of their 
performance. The Office of the Inspector General [OIG] issued 
two reports--one in 2004 another in 2010--that recommended the 
FAA develop an objective, reliable method for placing new air 
traffic controllers at FAA facilities based on a measurement of 
their skill. The Inspector General also testified before the 
Committee this past May, saying, ``In the course of conducting 
our 2010 audit of FAA's practices for assigning new air traffic 
controllers, we found that, in fact, new air traffic 
controllers were promised duty assignments before they had even 
started training. It appears to us to have been part of the 
recruitment and hiring process. There was little attention, if 
any, paid at the time to an objective, reasonable method based 
on the new air traffic controllers' capabilities . . .''
    The FAA has said that it is working to develop a test and 
restructure the training at its academy in order to better 
place its newly hired controllers. The Committee, however, 
notes that this work has been ongoing for no less than 9 years. 
While the Committee values thorough and well-researched work, 
it is not yet convinced that the FAA places a high priority on 
these efforts.
    The Committee is losing its patience with hearing about 
years of research and testing, while seeing no tangible result 
coming out of the FAA. The Committee has therefore included 
language in the bill that requires the FAA to submit a report 
that details the results of the FAA's work in this area. The 
bill language requires this report to be comprehensive; 
describe all of the findings and conclusions reached during the 
FAA's efforts to develop an objective, data-driven method for 
placing newly hired air traffic controllers; list all available 
options for establishing such a method; and discuss the 
benefits and challenges of each option. Because the Committee 
has experience with not receiving reports from the FAA in a 
timely manner, the bill language includes a deadline for the 
submission of this report not later than May 31, 2012.
    Block Aircraft Registration Request [BARR] Program.--This 
summer, the Secretary of Transportation decided that he would 
dismantle the Block Aircraft Registration Request [BARR] 
program. This program has allowed owners and operators of 
general aviation aircraft to prevent the movements of their 
aircraft from being publicly disseminated and easily available 
on the Internet. After providing only a brief period of time 
for public comment, the Secretary made his decision, having 
received 680 comments opposed to the new policy and only 5 
comments in favor of it.
    In the Department's press release on the repeal of the BARR 
program, the Secretary is quoted as saying, ``This action is in 
keeping with the Obama administration's commitment to 
transparency in government.'' He also added, ``Both general 
aviation and commercial aircraft use the public airspace and 
air traffic control facilities, and the public has a right to 
information about their activities.''
    The Committee, however, does not believe that publicizing 
the movements of specific general aviation aircraft does 
anything to improve the transparency of the operations or 
policies of the Federal Government. The Secretary's decision 
does indeed make more data accessible to the public than was 
previously available, but the Committee does not believe that 
this data has any bearing on a citizen's right to bear witness 
to the work of the Federal Government.
    Furthermore, the Committee does not concur that the public 
has a right to access information merely because it relates to 
the use of public facilities. People drive their cars on roads 
and bridges built on Federal lands and paid with taxpayer 
dollars; however, the Committee does not believe that means 
their movements and activities should be broadcast to the 
public at large. Likewise, the manifests of commercial airlines 
are not made publicly available, even though commercial flights 
use the same public airspace and air traffic control facilities 
as the general aviation aircraft that were covered under the 
BARR program. On the contrary, efforts are generally made to 
protect the privacy of people lawfully going about their daily 
business.
    For these reasons, the Committee has included language in 
the bill that effectively reverses the Secretary's decision. 
This bill language prohibits the Department from funding the 
Aircraft Situational Display to Industry program unless it 
honors the request of owners and operators of a general 
aviation aircraft to block the display of their aircraft 
registration number.
    Inspector Workforce.--In the current budgetary environment, 
the Committee cannot afford to make significant increases to 
the Department's workforce. Staff growth increases costs not 
only for the budget year, but also in every subsequent year, 
and the Committee expects that fiscal constraints will only get 
tighter in the future. The Committee, however, continues to 
place a high priority on the workforce of aviation inspectors 
at the FAA. Protecting the safety of our air transportation 
system is the fundamental mission of the agency, and these 
inspectors form the backbone of that effort. The Committee 
recommendation therefore includes an increase of $7,000,000 for 
an additional 60 positions in Office of Aviation Flight 
Standards [AFS] and another $960,000 for an increase of 11 
positions in the Office of Aircraft Certification [AIR]. The 
Committee notes that this increase is lower than the 
administration's budget request, which had included an increase 
of $10,500,000 for an additional 90 positions in AFS and 
another $1,440,000 for another 16 positions in AIR.
    In previous years, the Committee has included language in 
the bill that protected any funding increases for aviation 
safety inspectors by prohibiting the Department from using 
those funds for any other purpose. These staff increases remain 
a high priority, and the Committee recommendations dedicate 
scarce resources to the inspector workforce. Nevertheless, the 
Committee recognizes that this bill language diminishes the 
flexibility of the FAA. With resources so scarce, the Committee 
does not believe that it is in the best interest of the FAA to 
put such strong limitations on the use of its funding. The 
Committee also believes that it can best protect the public 
interest by ensuring that taxpayer dollars can always be put to 
the highest priority, even if those priorities shift during the 
course of a fiscal year. For these reasons, the Committee has 
not included the same language in this year's bill. The 
Committee, however, identifies the staff increases for AFS and 
AIR as a congressional item of interest and expects the FAA to 
use the funding increases for their intended purpose. 
Furthermore, the Committee 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 
staff increases in AFS or AIR to any other activity.
    FAA Public Hearing.--The Committee directs the Federal 
Aviation Administration to hold a public hearing with 
representatives from the relevant Federal agencies in western 
Maine upon completion of the Air National Guard's environmental 
impact statement proposing modifications to the Condor 1 and 
Condor 2 military operating areas. The Committee understands 
that the Air National Guard, as the lead agency under the 
National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA] process, has sought to 
meet the minimum legal requirements for public participation 
and comment under the NEPA process. However, the Committee 
notes 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. In particular, the proposed low 
altitude training airspace covers four ski resorts, 47,700 
acres of a federally recognized Indian tribe reservation, and 
144 miles of the Appalachian Trail. 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.

                        FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

                    (AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2011....................................  $2,730,731,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................   2,870,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   2,630,731,000

                          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 $2,630,731,000 
for the Facilities and Equipment account of the Federal 
Aviation Administration. The recommended level is $239,269,000 
less than the budget estimate. The administration, however, had 
requested an additional $250,000,000 as mandatory funding that 
is not provided through the appropriations process. When taking 
into account the administration's total requested level, the 
Committee recommendation is $489,269,000 less than the budget 
estimate. The recommended level is also $100,000,000 less than 
the fiscal year 2011 enacted level.
    Budget Activities Format.--The Committee directs that the 
fiscal year 2012 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Additional
                                                    Fiscal year     fiscal year    Total fiscal
                                                       2012            2012          year 2012       Committee
                                                   discretionary     mandatory        request     recommendation
                                                     estimate         request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Activity 1: Engineering, Development, Test and
 Evaluation:
    Advanced Technology Development and              $31,900,000      $1,500,000     $33,400,000     $24,000,000
     Prototyping................................
    NAS Improvement of System Support Labora-          1,000,000  ..............       1,000,000       1,000,000
     tory.......................................
    William J. Hughes Technical Center                15,000,000  ..............      15,000,000      14,000,000
     Facilities.................................
    William J. Hughes Technical Center                 7,500,000       4,900,000      12,400,000       7,500,000
     Infrastructure Sustainment.................
    Next Generation Network Enabled Weather.....      27,350,000  ..............      27,350,000      18,000,000
    Data Communications for Trajectory Based         143,000,000       7,200,000     150,200,000     109,000,000
     Operations [NGATS].........................
    Next Generation Transportation System--           16,900,000       8,100,000      25,000,000      15,000,000
     Technology Demonstration...................
    Next Generation Transportation System--           90,000,000      19,000,000     109,000,000      70,000,000
     Systems Development........................
    Next Generation Transportation System--            9,300,000      13,700,000      23,000,000       7,000,000
     Trajectory Based Operations................
    Next Generation Transportation System--           14,600,000      18,400,000      33,000,000      10,000,000
     Reduce Weather Impact......................
    Next Generation Transportation System--High       14,300,000      13,700,000      28,000,000      10,000,000
     Density/Arrivals/Departures................
    Next Generation Transportation System--           28,000,000      25,000,000      53,000,000      22,000,000
     Collaborative ATM..........................
    Next Generation Transportation System--           36,300,000      21,800,000      58,100,000      32,000,000
     Flexible Terminals and Airports............
    Next Generation Transportation System--            5,000,000       3,000,000       8,000,000  ..............
     Safety, Security and Environment...........
    Next Generation Transportation System--            9,000,000       1,000,000      10,000,000       5,000,000
     System Network Facilities..................
    Next Generation Transportation System--           19,500,000  ..............      19,500,000      10,000,000
     Future Facilities..........................
    Joint Planning and Development Office [JPDO]       3,000,000  ..............       3,000,000       3,000,000
    Next Generation--Performance Based                26,200,000  ..............      26,200,000      26,200,000
     Navigation [PBN]--Metroplex area RNAV/RNP..
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
        Total, Activity 1.......................     497,850,000     137,300,000     635,150,000     383,700,000
                                                 ===============================================================
Activity 2--Air Traffic Control Facilities and
 Equipment:
    En Route Programs:
        En Route Automation Modernization [ERAM]     120,000,000  ..............     120,000,000     148,500,000
        En Route Automation Modernization         ..............      64,500,000      64,500,000       3,356,000
         [ERAM]--D-SIDE Replace and Future
         Enhancements...........................
        En Route Communications Gateway  [ECG]..       2,000,000       4,000,000       6,000,000       2,000,000
        Next Generation Weather Radar [NEXRAD]--       2,800,000  ..............       2,800,000       2,800,000
         Provide................................
        Air Traffic Control System Command             3,600,000  ..............       3,600,000       3,600,000
         Center [ATCSCC]--Relocation............
        ARTCC Building Improvements/Plant             46,000,000       6,000,000      52,000,000      36,000,000
         Improvements...........................
        Air Traffic Management [ATM]............       7,500,000  ..............       7,500,000       7,500,000
        Air/Ground Communications Infrastruc-          4,800,000  ..............       4,800,000       4,800,000
         ture...................................
        Air Traffic Control En Route Radar             5,800,000  ..............       5,800,000       5,800,000
         Facilities Improvements................
        Voice Switching and Control System             1,000,000  ..............       1,000,000       1,000,000
         [VSCS].................................
        Oceanic Automation System...............       6,000,000       2,000,000       8,000,000       4,000,000
        Next Generation Very High Frequency Air/      45,150,000  ..............      45,150,000      45,150,000
         Ground Communications System [NEXCOM]..
        System-Wide Information Management......      66,350,000  ..............      66,350,000      66,350,000
        ADS-B NAS Wide Implementation...........     285,100,000  ..............     285,100,000     285,100,000
        Windshear Detection Service.............       1,000,000  ..............       1,000,000       1,000,000
        Weather and Radar Processor [WARP]......       2,500,000  ..............       2,500,000       2,500,000
        Collaborative Air Traffic Management          41,500,000  ..............      41,500,000      41,500,000
         Technologies--WP2 & 3..................
        Colorado ADS-B/WAM Cost Share...........       3,800,000       2,000,000       5,800,000       3,800,000
        Automated Terminal Information System          1,000,000  ..............       1,000,000       1,000,000
         [ATIS].................................
        Tactical Flow Time Based Flow Management      38,700,000  ..............      38,700,000      38,700,000
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
            Subtotal, En Route Programs.........     684,600,000      78,500,000     763,100,000     704,456,000
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
Terminal Programs:
    Airport Surface Detection Equipment--Model X       2,200,000  ..............       2,200,000       2,200,000
     [ASDE-X]...................................
    Terminal Doppler Weather Radar [TDWR]--            7,700,000  ..............       7,700,000       6,000,000
     Provide....................................
    Standard Terminal Automation Replacement          25,000,000  ..............      25,000,000      25,000,000
     System [STARS] [TAMR Phase 1]..............
    Terminal Automation Modernization/                98,750,000  ..............      98,750,000      98,750,000
     Replacement Program [TAMR Phase 3].........
    Terminal Automation Program.................       2,500,000  ..............       2,500,000       2,500,000
    Terminal Air Traffic Control Facilities--Re-      51,600,000  ..............      51,600,000      51,600,000
      place.....................................
    ATCT/Terminal Radar Approach Control              56,900,000       5,000,000      61,900,000      45,000,000
     [TRACON] Facilities--Improve...............
    Terminal Voice Switch Replacement [TVSR]....      10,000,000  ..............      10,000,000       8,000,000
    NAS Facilities OSHA and Environmental             26,000,000  ..............      26,000,000      20,000,000
     Standards Compliance.......................
    Airport Surveillance Radar [ASR-9]..........       6,000,000       2,000,000       8,000,000       6,000,000
    Terminal Digital Radar [ASR-11].............       3,900,000  ..............       3,900,000       3,900,000
    Runway Status Lights........................      29,800,000  ..............      29,800,000      20,000,000
    National Airspace System Voice Switch [NVS].      19,800,000  ..............      19,800,000       9,000,000
    Integrated Display System [IDS].............       8,800,000  ..............       8,800,000       8,800,000
    Remote Monitoring and Logging System  [RMLS]       4,200,000  ..............       4,200,000       4,200,000
    Mode S Service Life Extension Program [SLEP]       4,000,000       4,000,000       8,000,000       4,000,000
    ASR-8 Service Life Extension Program........       2,700,000  ..............       2,700,000  ..............
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Terminal Programs...............     359,850,000      11,000,000     370,850,000     314,950,000
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
Flight Service Programs:
    Automated Surface Observing System [ASOS]...       2,500,000  ..............       2,500,000       2,500,000
    Flight Service Station [FSS] Modernization..       4,500,000  ..............       4,500,000       4,500,000
    Weather Camera Program......................       4,800,000  ..............       4,800,000       4,800,000
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Flight Service Programs.........      11,800,000  ..............      11,800,000      11,800,000
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
Landing and Navigational Aids Program:
    VHF Omnidirectional Radio Range [VOR] with         5,000,000  ..............       5,000,000       5,000,000
     DME........................................
    Instrument Landing System [ILS]--Establish..       5,000,000  ..............       5,000,000       5,000,000
    Wide Area Augmentation System [WAAS] for GPS     125,500,000  ..............     125,500,000     110,000,000
    Runway Visual Range [RVR]...................       5,000,000  ..............       5,000,000       5,000,000
    Approach Lighting System Improvement Program       5,000,000  ..............       5,000,000       5,000,000
     [ALSIP]....................................
    Distance Measuring Equipment [DME]..........       5,000,000  ..............       5,000,000       5,000,000
    Visual NAVAIDS--Establish/Expand............       3,400,000  ..............       3,400,000       3,400,000
    Instrument Flight Procedures Automation            2,200,000  ..............       2,200,000       2,200,000
     [IFPA].....................................
    Navigation and Landing Aids--Service Life          6,000,000  ..............       6,000,000       7,000,000
     Extension Program [SLEP]...................
    VASI Replacement--Replace with Precision           7,000,000  ..............       7,000,000       8,000,000
     Approach Path Indicator....................
    GPS Civil Requirements......................      50,300,000  ..............      50,300,000      36,000,000
    Runway Safety Areas--Navigational Mitiga-         25,000,000  ..............      25,000,000      23,000,000
     tion.......................................
    NAVAID Control, Interlock, and Monitoring     ..............       1,000,000       1,000,000  ..............
     Equipment [NCIME]..........................
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Landing and Navigational Aids        244,400,000       1,000,000     245,400,000     214,600,000
       Programs.................................
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
Other ATC Facilities Programs:
    Fuel Storage Tank Replacement and Monitor-         6,400,000  ..............       6,400,000       4,400,000
     ing........................................
    Unstaffed Infrastructure Sustainment........      18,000,000       4,600,000      22,600,000      15,000,000
    Aircraft-related Equipment Program..........      11,700,000  ..............      11,700,000      11,700,000
    Airport Cable Loop Systems--Sustained Sup-         5,000,000  ..............       5,000,000       5,000,000
     port.......................................
    Alaskan Satellite Telecommunications              16,000,000       3,000,000      19,000,000      15,500,000
     Infrastructure [ASTI]......................
    Facilities Decommissioning..................       5,000,000  ..............       5,000,000       5,000,000
    Electrical Power Systems--Sustain/Support...      85,600,000      10,000,000      95,600,000      68,000,000
    Aircraft Fleet Modernation..................       9,000,000  ..............       9,000,000       6,000,000
    FAA Employee Housing and Life Safety Shelter       2,500,000  ..............       2,500,000       2,500,000
     System Service.............................
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
        Subtotal, Other ATC Facilities Programs.     159,200,000      17,600,000     176,800,000     133,100,000
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
        Total, Activity 2.......................   1,459,850,000     108,100,000   1,567,950,000   1,378,906,000
                                                 ===============================================================
Activity 3--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  ..............      30,100,000      30,100,000
        Logistics Support Systems and Facilities      10,000,000  ..............      10,000,000      10,000,000
         [LSSF].................................
        National Air Space [NAS] Recovery             12,000,000  ..............      12,000,000      12,000,000
         Communications [RCOM]..................
        Facility Security Risk Management.......      18,000,000  ..............      18,000,000      16,000,000
        Information Security....................      17,000,000       2,000,000      19,000,000      15,000,000
        System Approach for Safety Oversight          23,600,000  ..............      23,600,000      23,600,000
         [SASO].................................
        Aviation Safety Knowledge Management          17,200,000  ..............      17,200,000      17,200,000
         Environment [ASKME]....................
        Data Center Optimization................       1,000,000  ..............       1,000,000  ..............
        Aerospace Medical Equipment Needs [AMEN]      12,000,000  ..............      12,000,000      10,000,000
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
            Subtotal, Support Equipment.........     160,900,000       2,000,000     162,900,000     153,900,000
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
Training, Equipment and Facilities:
    Aeronautical Center Infrastructure Moderniza-     18,000,000  ..............      18,000,000      15,000,000
       tion.....................................
    Distance Learning...........................       1,500,000  ..............       1,500,000       1,500,000
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Training, Equipment and Facili-       19,500,000  ..............      19,500,000      16,500,000
       ties.....................................
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Activity 3.........................     180,400,000       2,000,000     182,400,000     170,400,000
                                                 ===============================================================
Activity 4--Facilities and Equipment Mission Sup-
   port:
    System Support and Services:
        System Engineering and Development            32,900,000  ..............      32,900,000      28,500,000
         Support................................
        Program Support Leases..................      41,700,000  ..............      41,700,000      40,000,000
        Logistics Support Services [LSS]........      11,700,000  ..............      11,700,000      10,100,000
        Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center             17,000,000  ..............      17,000,000      17,000,000
         Leases.................................
        Transition Engineering Support..........      13,000,000  ..............      13,000,000      11,300,000
        Technical Support Services Contract           22,000,000  ..............      22,000,000      19,100,000
         [TSSC].................................
        Resource Tracking Program [RTP].........       4,000,000  ..............       4,000,000       4,000,000
        Center for Advanced Aviation System           80,800,000  ..............      80,800,000      71,000,000
         Development [CAASD]....................
        Aeronautical Information Management           26,300,000       2,600,000      28,900,000      20,224,000
         Program................................
        Permanent Change of Station [PCS]  Moves       2,500,000  ..............       2,500,000       2,500,000
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
            Total, Activity 4...................     251,900,000       2,600,000     254,500,000     223,724,000
                                                 ===============================================================
Activity 5--Personnel and Related Expenses:
    Personnel and Related Expenses..............     480,000,000  ..............     480,000,000     474,000,000
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, All Activities.....................   2,870,000,000     250,000,000   3,120,000,000   2,630,730,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Protecting the Foundations of NextGen.--This Committee has 
long understood the value and importance of NextGen, the FAA's 
effort to modernize the air traffic control system. Until this 
past year, the Committee has not only met the administration's 
budget requests for NextGen, but also provided targeted 
increases to accelerate work in key areas. The Committee 
provided additional resources to the FAA for advances in the 
Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast [ADS-B] program that 
would use this new technology for cockpit-to-cockpit 
interactions, and for reducing the separation between aircraft 
in certain situations. The Committee also provided additional 
resources for demonstrations of Network-Enabled Operations that 
would apply this new technology to real-world applications, 
such as the integration of unmanned aerial systems in the 
national airspace.
    Even when there has been a steady stream of funding, 
however, the Committee has seen delays and management problems 
with some of the most important capital programs. For example, 
the En Route Automation Modernization [ERAM] program is now 
years behind the agency's original targets, and only recently 
has the FAA started to work hand in hand with the air traffic 
controllers who will be working with the ERAM software on a 
daily basis. The Committee is also waiting for the FAA to make 
investment decisions on other capabilities that were part of 
the original selling points for NextGen, such as Next 
Generation Network Enabled Weather and Data Communications for 
Trajectory Based Operations.
    This past year, the budgetary environment in which the 
Committee conducted its work changed dramatically. For fiscal 
year 2011, the Committee enacted the largest 1-year cut to 
discretionary spending in our Nation's history. These tight 
fiscal constraints continue as the Committee develops a budget 
for fiscal year 2012, and the FAA should expect to see the 
constraints grow tighter in future years.
    The Committee therefore had to maintain a clear vision of 
its priorities while developing its funding recommendations. 
Protecting the foundations of the FAA's NextGen effort remains 
at the top of these priorities, so the Committee 
recommendations include $285,100,000 for the ADS-B program and 
$66,350,000 for the System-Wide Information Management program. 
These funding levels are equal to the administration's budget 
request. The Committee recommendations also include $98,750,000 
for the Terminal Automation Modernization and Replacement, 
Phase 3 [TAMR] program, which is also equal to the 
administration's budget request. Although not formally part of 
the NextGen effort, updating the FAA's technology under the 
TAMR program is necessary in order to maintain the agency's 
progress on the ADS-B program. Finally, the Committee 
recommendations include $148,500,000 for the ERAM program, a 
funding level that is $28,500,000 above the budget request. 
Based on information from the FAA, the Committee provides this 
additional funding to maintain the ERAM schedule in light of 
recent challenges.
    Fully investing in these programs means that the FAA will 
need to make sacrifices in other areas of capital investment. 
Reductions to the budget request will be felt throughout the 
account, including areas where the agency invests in basic 
physical infrastructure needs, such as improving its electrical 
power systems, air traffic control towers, and terminal radar 
approach control facilities. The Committee recommendations also 
include significant reductions to line items called ``solution 
sets'' that the agency uses to develop, test, and evaluate the 
next set of capabilities for NextGen before they become formal 
capital programs. The FAA's work in developing these new 
capabilities has been slower than the agency originally 
anticipated, and the Committee believes that protecting the 
budgets of existing capital programs must take precedence over 
the testing and evaluation of future investments.
    Setting these clear priorities in the budget, however, is 
not enough to protect the NextGen program; the Committee needs 
to see more from the FAA itself. When funding for NextGen 
programs comes only by making sacrifices from so many other 
areas of capital investment at the FAA and other agencies, the 
FAA has a clear obligation to make good on every dollar 
invested in those programs. The FAA has made strategic changes 
to the management of its key NextGen programs like ERAM and 
SWIM, but the Committee notes that many of these improvements 
have been made only after programs suffered schedule delays or 
cost increases. The current budget environment does not afford 
the FAA this luxury anymore.
    Data Communications for Trajectory Based Operations 
(DataComm).--Advancing NextGen relies heavily on the ability of 
the FAA to move from an air traffic control system based on 
voice communication to a system that takes full advantage of 
data communication. When implemented, the DataComm program will 
improve safety by reducing the number of operational errors 
cased by voice communications, increase the efficiency of our 
national airspace system by reducing the daily workload of the 
FAA's air traffic controllers, and enable other NextGen-related 
operational improvements that require the exchange of 
information that cannot be efficiently delivered through voice 
communications.
    Progress on the DataComm program has been disappointing. 
The Committee notes, however, that accelerating the program's 
schedule relies on the FAA being able to achieve capabilities 
inherent in the ERAM program, which has experienced significant 
delays. The Committee recommendation includes $109,000,000 for 
the DataComm program, a level that is $34,000,000 less than the 
budget request.
    The Committee also directs the FAA to complete a report on 
the status of the DataComm program not later than 1 year after 
the enactment of this act. This report shall include the 
current budget, schedule, project organization, and leadership 
requirements for the program; a full description of how this 
program relates to other NextGen capabilities, including other 
FAA programs on which the implementation of DataComm relies, as 
well as other programs and capabilities that rely on the full 
implementation of DataComm; and a list of milestones and 
targets against which the development of DataComm can be 
measured.
    Navigation and Landing Aids--Service Life Extension Program 
[SLEP].--The Committee notes that Runway End Identifier Lights 
[REILs] improve airport safety by clearly indicating to pilots 
the approach end of the runway. The Committee recommendation 
includes $7,000,000 for navigation and landing aids. This 
funding level is an increase of $1,000,000 more than the budget 
request. The Committee directs the FAA to use these additional 
funds for the procurement and installation of additional REIL 
systems.
    VASI Replacement--Replace With Precision Approach Path 
Indicator.--The FAA began to deploy Visual Approach Slope 
Indicator [VASI] systems in the 1960s to provide visual descent 
guidance to pilots as they approached an airport runway. Since 
that time, the international standard for these lighting 
systems has grown more sophisticated, and the FAA must now 
replace its VASI systems with Precision Approach Path Indicator 
[PAPI] systems to comply with the new standards.
    The Committee supports bringing FAA equipment into 
compliance with international standards, and recommends 
$8,000,000 for the replacement of VASI lighting systems with 
PAPI lighting systems. This funding level is $1,000,000 more 
than the budget request. The Committee directs the FAA to use 
the additional funding to procure additional PAPI systems.

                 RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, AND DEVELOPMENT

                    (AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2011....................................    $169,660,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................     190,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     157,000,000

                          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 $157,000,000 for the FAA's 
research, engineering, and development activities. The 
recommended level of funding is $33,000,000 less than the 
budget request and $12,660,000 less than the fiscal year 2011 
enacted level.
    A table showing the fiscal year 2011 enacted level, the 
fiscal year 2012 budget estimate, and the Committee 
recommendation follows:

                                     RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, AND DEVELOPMENT
                                             [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Fiscal year--
                                                                 --------------------------------    Committee
                                                                   2011 enacted    2012 estimate  recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improve Aviation Safety:
    Fire Research and Safety....................................       7,158,000       8,157,000       7,158,000
    Propulsion and Fuel Systems.................................       2,301,000       3,611,000       2,300,000
    Advanced Materials/Structural Safety........................       2,534,000       2,605,000       2,534,000
    Atmospheric Hazards--Aircraft Icing/Digital System Safety...       6,534,000       5,404,000       5,404,000
    Continued Airworthiness.....................................      10,632,000      12,589,000      10,632,000
    Aircraft Catastrophic Failure Prevention Research...........       1,147,000       1,502,000       1,147,000
    Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors.....       7,083,000       6,162,000       6,162,000
    System Safety Management....................................      11,693,000      10,027,000      10,027,000
    Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human Factors......      10,364,000      10,634,000      10,364,000
    Aeromedical Research........................................      11,098,000      11,617,000      11,000,000
    Weather Program.............................................      16,142,000      16,366,000      16,043,000
    Unmanned Aircraft Systems...................................       3,635,000       3,504,000       3,504,000
    NextGen Alternative Fuels for General Aviation..............         998,000       2,071,000       1,500,000
Improve Efficiency:
    Joint Program and Development Office........................      13,764,000      14,067,000       6,500,000
    NextGen: Wake Turbulence....................................      10,664,000      10,674,000       9,064,000
    NextGen: Air Ground Integration.............................       5,603,000      10,545,000       5,303,000
    NextGen: Self Separation....................................       5,260,000       9,934,000       5,060,000
    NextGen: Weather Technology in the Cockpit..................       2,507,000       9,186,000       2,207,000
Reduce Environmental Impacts:
    Environment and Energy......................................      15,074,000      15,327,000      15,074,000
    NextGen: Environmental Research.............................      20,060,000      20,523,000      20,523,000
Mission Support:
    System Planning and Resource Management.....................       1,730,000       1,718,000       1,717,000
    Technical Center Laboratory Facility........................       3,679,000       3,777,000       3,777,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................     169,660,000         190,000     157,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS RESEARCH

    FAA Centers of Excellence.--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. 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 supports FAA efforts to achieve the 
goal of integrating unmanned aerial systems into the national 
airspace, including the FAA's preliminary steps toward the 
establishment of UAS test ranges. The Committee directs the FAA 
to establish an FAA Unmanned Aerial System [UAS] Center of 
Excellence [COE] to address a host of issues surrounding 
integration of UAS systems into the National Airspace System 
during times of emergency and utilize these lessons learned to 
provide essential data to the Center as it works toward 
nonemergency integration. The Committee further directs that 
the new COE 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. The FAA should 
ensure that lessons learned regarding UAS certification and 
evaluation in one regional office are consistently applied at 
other regional offices so that there is a consistent, 
nationwide approach to airspace integration.

                       GRANTS-IN-AID FOR AIRPORTS

                (LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

                      (LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

                    (AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fiscal year--
                                                              ----------------------------------    Committee
                                                                 2011 enacted    2012 estimate    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resources from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund:
    Limitation on obligations................................   $3,515,000,000   $2,424,000,000   $3,515,000,000
    Liquidation of contract authorization....................    3,550,000,000    3,600,000,000    4,691,000,000
Resources from the general fund of the Treasury:
    Mandatory budget authority...............................  ...............    3,100,000,000  ...............
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total..................................................    3,515,000,000    5,524,000,000    3,515,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of 
$3,515,000,000 for grants-in-aid to airports for fiscal year 
2012. The recommended limitation on obligations is 
$1,091,000,000 more than the budget estimate. The 
administration, however, had requested an additional 
$3,100,000,000 from the general fund of the Treasury, which the 
Committee does not include in its recommendations. When taking 
into account the administration's general fund request, the 
Committee recommendation is $2,009,000,000 less than the budget 
estimate. The recommended limitation is equal to the fiscal 
year 2011 enacted level.
    In addition, the Committee recommends a liquidating cash 
appropriation of $4,691,000,000 for grants-in-aid to airports. 
The recommended level is equal to the budget estimate and 
$1,141,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2011 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.
    Administrative Expenses.--The Committee recommends 
$101,000,000 to cover administrative expenses. This funding 
level is equal to the budget request, and $7,578,000 more than 
the fiscal year 2011 enacted level.
    The Committee recommendation includes funding for various 
investments in the workforce of the FAA airports offices, 
including field operations positions to help the FAA improve 
its grant oversight and implement safety-related reforms; an 
additional engineer to work with airports, manufacturers, and 
the FAA's Air Traffic Organization on the introduction of new 
surveillance systems; an additional seven positions in 
financial management to oversee the use of Federal airport 
grants and ensure the integrity of the program; contractor 
support and two additional positions to implement airport 
geographic information systems; and contractor support for the 
collection of airport data.
    The Committee recommendations do not include any increase 
in funding for airport grants over the fiscal year 2011 enacted 
level, and so it is vital that the funding provided in the bill 
is used effectively. The Committee believes that these 
strategic investments in the staff of the FAA's airports 
offices will improve its management of the grant program and 
make each grant a more effective investment.
    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 2011 enacted level.
    Airport Technology.--The Committee recommends $29,250,000 
for airport technology research. This funding level is equal to 
the budget request, and $6,778,000 more than the fiscal year 
2011 level. The recommended funding level includes an 
additional $2,000,000 to invest in critical airport research 
areas. For example, better data on aircraft braking and 
friction performance can prevent incidents in which airplanes 
run off the runway during landings. The Committee, however, 
directs the FAA to invest these additional resources in 
contract support for its research activities rather than 
staffing increases. As fiscal constraints grow tighter in the 
future, any additions to FAA staff that are made in fiscal year 
2012 could potentially crowd out other needs in coming years.
    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 2011 enacted level. The administration requested no 
funds for this program for fiscal year 2012.

       ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

    Section 110 limits the number of technical staff years at 
the Center for Advanced Aviation Systems Development to no more 
than 600 in fiscal year 2009.
    Section 111 prohibits funds in this act to be used to adopt 
guidelines or regulations requiring airport sponsors to provide 
the FAA ``without cost'' buildings, maintenance, or space for 
FAA services. The prohibition does not apply to negotiations 
between the FAA and airport sponsors concerning ``below 
market'' rates for such services or to grant assurances that 
require airport sponsors to provide land without cost to the 
FAA for air traffic control facilities.
    Section 112 permits the Administrator to reimburse FAA 
appropriations for amounts made available for 49 U.S.C. 
41742(a)(1) as fees are collected and credited under 49 U.S.C. 
45303.
    Section 113 allows funds received to reimburse the FAA for 
providing technical assistance to foreign aviation authorities 
to be credited to the Operations account.
    Section 114 prohibits funds limited in this act for the 
Airport Improvement Program to be provided to an airport that 
refuses a request from the Secretary of Transportation to use 
public space at the airport for the purpose of conducting 
outreach on air passenger rights.
    Section 115 prohibits the FAA from paying Sunday premium 
pay except in those cases where the individual actually worked 
on a Sunday.
    Section 116 prohibits the FAA from using funds provided in 
the bill to purchase store gift cards or gift certificates 
through a Government-issued credit card.
    Section 117 allows all airports experiencing the required 
level of boardings through charter and scheduled air service to 
be eligible for funds under 49 U.S.C. 47114(c).
    Section 118 requires approval from the Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Administration of the Department of 
Transportation for retention bonuses for any FAA employee.
    Section 119 limits to 20 percent the cost-share required 
under the contract tower cost-share program.
    Section 119A 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 119B allows the FAA to provide back pay to 
employees who were furloughed when the agency's authority to 
spend from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund expired 
temporarily.

                     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 $41,846,000,000 would be provided for the activities of the 
Federal Highway Administration in fiscal year 2012. The 
recommendation is $29,407,000,000 less than the budget request. 
The total program level under the Committee recommendations is 
equal to the fiscal year 2011 enacted level; however, the 1-
year continuing resolution for fiscal year 2011 also included a 
rescission of $3,130,000,000 of unused contract authority. The 
following table summarizes the Committee's recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Fiscal year--
                                                        --------------------------------------     Committee
                                                            2011 enacted      2012 estimate      recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-aid Highway program obligation limitation......    $41,107,000,000    $70,414,000,000    $41,107,000,000
Wireless initiative (transfer to RITA).................  .................        100,000,000  .................
Emergency relief and equity bonus exempt contract              739,000,000        739,000,000        739,000,000
 author-  ity..........................................
Rescission of unused contract authority................     -3,130,000,000  .................  .................
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total............................................     38,716,000,000     71,253,000,000     41,846,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Limitation, 2011........................................    $413,533,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................     437,172,000
Committee recommendation................................     415,533,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of 
$415,533,000 for administrative expenses of the agency. This 
limitation is $21,639,000 less than the budget request and 
$2,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2011 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 $2,000,000 for the Delphi system and accounting 
services, IPv6 transition, and FHWA's share in the 
implementation of the financial management business 
transformation.
    The Committee appreciates the administration's request for 
$3,200,000 to invest in better data and reporting systems. The 
Committee agrees with the administration that FHWA must improve 
its ability to track highway spending and meet any new 
oversight responsibilities that may be given to the agency in 
the next authorization bill. FHWA, however, has not yet 
completed an assessment of these capabilities. The Committee 
cannot provide additional resources without the confidence that 
FHWA has a clear investment plan and an accurate estimate of 
its cost. The Committee expects FHWA to take inventory of its 
current capabilities, evaluate what future capabilities the 
agency needs, and estimate how much it would cost to achieve 
each of those capabilities.
    National Performance Review Teams.--The American Recovery 
and Reinvestment Act of 2009 [ARRA] included $27,500,000,000 
for investment in State and local highway projects. This 
investment came in addition to the funding provided under the 
regular Federal-aid Highway program each year. FHWA quickly 
identified the need for strong oversight of ARRA funds in order 
to ensure that the Federal investment was used effectively and 
managed appropriately. In addition to relying on its division 
offices to oversee ARRA funds, FHWA instituted national review 
teams that would travel to each State, independently assess the 
use of Federal dollars, uncover problems and help identify 
corrective actions, and collect data the agency can use in 
analyzing national trends.
    The Committee commends FHWA for establishing an effective 
tool to improve its oversight of Federal highway grants. The 
Office of Inspector General [OIG] evaluated the national review 
teams this past year, and found that FHWA needed to make 
certain improvements to ensure that review teams report 
complete and accurate data, and that the agency is able to use 
this data to discover national trends. By the time OIG 
published its final report in January, FHWA had taken the 
actions necessary to improve the program and close out all 
recommendations.
    The effectiveness of national review teams will require 
FHWA to continue its efforts over an extended period so that 
the agency can determine whether corrective actions that were 
promised early in the process have been fulfilled.
    The Committee supports FHWA's decision to expand its use of 
national review teams to the regular Federal-aid Highway 
program, and understands that the agency will use funding 
available under its existing resources to support the staff and 
travel needs of its national review teams.

                       LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Limitation, 2011........................................ $41,107,000,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................  69,675,000,000
Committee recommendation................................  41,107,000,000

                          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 2012 Federal-
aid highways obligations to $41,107,000,000 which is 
$28,568,000,000 less than the budget request and equal to the 
fiscal year 2011 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 2012. The Committee cannot presuppose what legislation 
will be enacted through the authorization process.
    Within the overall limitation on fiscal year 2011 Federal-
aid highway obligations, the Committee recommends limiting 
fiscal year 2012 obligations on transportation research to 
$429,800,000. The recommendation for transportation research is 
equal to the fiscal year 2011 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.
    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 2011, President's request and Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2012]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Fiscal year
                                                           Fiscal year       budget request        Committee
                                                             2011\1\            2012\2\        recommendation\3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Formula Programs

ALABAMA...............................................       $719,499,894     $1,226,778,051        $722,346,356
ALASKA................................................        448,795,497        560,045,343         450,404,959
ARIZONA...............................................        689,245,750      1,203,689,492         691,868,726
ARKANSAS..............................................        479,626,299        775,324,982         481,488,065
CALIFORNIA............................................      3,421,473,255      5,606,414,083       3,434,981,232
COLORADO..............................................        507,641,720        801,389,451         509,648,785
CONNECTICUT...........................................        468,654,887        832,517,927         470,471,904
DELAWARE..............................................        157,171,591        243,338,638         157,793,905
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA..................................        152,612,544        242,292,113         153,237,661
FLORIDA...............................................      1,779,520,834      3,099,531,819       1,786,190,737
GEORGIA...............................................      1,214,718,614      2,197,921,162       1,219,311,512
HAWAII................................................        161,399,324        261,126,659         162,053,555
IDAHO.................................................        269,568,494        454,761,532         270,596,821
ILLINOIS..............................................      1,344,744,025      2,031,551,855       1,349,966,039
INDIANA...............................................        895,910,212      1,553,880,180         899,286,909
IOWA..................................................        457,727,766        673,439,752         459,555,095
KANSAS................................................        360,820,113        629,231,899         362,286,583
KENTUCKY..............................................        628,450,910      1,052,214,391         630,896,823
LOUISIANA.............................................        644,013,112        977,068,592         646,547,933
MAINE.................................................        177,079,140        270,581,469         177,808,009
MARYLAND..............................................        569,962,080        967,643,444         572,237,731
MASSACHUSETTS.........................................        579,573,923      1,022,584,726         581,923,354
MICHIGAN..............................................        997,921,662      1,820,267,505       1,001,837,530
MINNESOTA.............................................        603,633,915        957,604,286         605,986,276
MISSISSIPPI...........................................        449,447,444        730,280,415         451,224,902
MISSOURI..............................................        858,658,537      1,441,041,316         861,974,425
MONTANA...............................................        377,525,663        587,731,006         378,953,534
NEBRASKA..............................................        275,166,553        448,516,965         276,269,157
NEVADA................................................        343,156,600        427,970,445         344,483,527
NEW HAMPSHIRE.........................................        156,903,986        282,570,949         157,525,489
NEW JERSEY............................................        944,367,136      1,614,206,835         948,034,084
NEW MEXICO............................................        339,203,209        587,861,145         340,522,797
NEW YORK..............................................      1,596,443,684      2,798,466,583       1,602,814,803
NORTH CAROLINA........................................        983,190,394      1,741,227,449         986,984,930
NORTH DAKOTA..........................................        236,322,354        380,421,957         237,268,802
OHIO..................................................      1,243,591,571      2,196,483,756       1,248,414,711
OKLAHOMA..............................................        601,558,415        939,765,732         603,926,875
OREGON................................................        466,361,039        695,834,220         468,226,246
PENNSYLVANIA..........................................      1,559,308,478      2,789,833,928       1,565,522,761
RHODE ISLAND..........................................        206,290,321        305,057,085         207,139,426
SOUTH CAROLINA........................................        592,210,888      1,010,364,821         594,480,657
SOUTH DAKOTA..........................................        260,941,109        409,659,995         261,960,941
TENNESSEE.............................................        781,257,424      1,351,171,507         784,270,692
TEXAS.................................................      2,970,543,549      5,171,740,868       2,981,805,048
UTAH..................................................        305,185,298        448,480,722         306,379,206
VERMONT...............................................        190,674,842        256,557,574         191,457,655
VIRGINIA..............................................        943,236,368      1,637,037,077         946,888,113
WASHINGTON............................................        635,435,628      1,022,845,223         638,006,371
WEST VIRGINIA.........................................        405,181,815        660,574,011         406,730,768
WISCONSIN.............................................        691,609,718      1,197,977,361         694,218,188
WYOMING...............................................        231,317,734        417,696,304         232,231,571
                                                       ---------------------------------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL........................................     36,374,855,318     61,012,574,600      36,516,442,179
                                                       =========================================================
Non-formula programs..................................      4,732,144,682      8,662,425,400       4,590,557,821
                                                       =========================================================
      TOTAL...........................................     41,107,000,000     69,675,000,000      41,107,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Actual fiscal year 2011 Distribution of Obligation Limitation (FHWA Notice 4520.209).
\2\Estimated for the fiscal year 2012 President's budget; distribution of obligation limitation based on State
  apportionment shares under SAFETEA-LU; funding for Puerto Rico is apportioned under the FY 2012 President's
  Budget but included in ``Non-formula programs'' for purposes of comparison.
\3\Estimated assuming extension of the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2010, as amended, through
  September 30, 2012.

                      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, 2011.................................... $41,846,000,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................  70,414,000,000
Committee recommendation................................  41,846,000,000

                          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 $41,846,000,000. The recommended level is $28,568,000,000 
less than the budget request and equal to the fiscal year 2011 
enacted level. This level of liquidating authority is necessary 
to pay outstanding obligations from various highway accounts 
pursuant to this and prior appropriations acts.

                            EMERGENCY RELIEF

Appropriations, 2011....................................................
Budget estimate, 2012...................................................
Committee recommendation................................  $1,900,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Emergency Relief program is a part of the overall 
Federal-aid Highway program. It funds the repair or 
reconstruction of Federal-aid highways and roads on Federal 
lands which have suffered serious damage as a result of (1) 
natural disasters or (2) catastrophic failures from an external 
cause. The program supplements the commitment of resources by 
States, their political subdivisions, or other Federal agencies 
to help pay for unusually heavy expenses resulting from 
extraordinary conditions.
    The applicability of the Emergency Relief program to a 
natural disaster is based on the extent and intensity of the 
disaster. Damage to highways must be severe, occur over a wide 
area, and result in unusually high expenses to the highway 
agency. Applicability of the program to a catastrophic failure 
due to an external cause is based on the criteria that the 
failure was not the result of an inherent flaw in the facility 
but was sudden, caused a disastrous impact on transportation 
services, and resulted in unusually high expenses to the 
highway agency.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $1,900,000,000 for the Emergency 
Relief program. The recommended funding level is in addition to 
the $100,000,000 provided to this program each year under the 
current law. The Emergency Relief program carries a backlog of 
$1,132,588,905 in eligible expenses, and damage from Hurricane 
Irene and flooding in the Midwest have added significantly to 
the amount of disaster-related expenses eligible for funding 
under the program. Aside from the program's annual funding 
level of $100,000,000, no funds were provided for this program 
in fiscal year 2011 or requested by the administration. The 
Committee recommends that funding provided under this heading 
be designated as being for disaster relief under the Balanced 
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.
    The bill includes several provisions that would apply to 
events occurring in fiscal years 2011 and 2012. For those 
events, the bill would allow the Department to reimburse a 
State for damages related to a single disaster in an amount 
that exceeds the program's limitation of $100,000,000. The bill 
would also allow the Secretary to provide up to 100 percent of 
a project's eligible expenses for a State that has incurred 
disaster-related costs equal to at least twice the State's 
apportionment of highway formula grants for that year. These 
two provisions will help States that have suffered from 
unusually large events, and sustained damages whose costs are 
disproportionate to the level of transportation spending which 
the State could afford.
    In addition, for events occurring in fiscal years 2011 and 
2012, the bill includes language that would extend the period 
of time during which the Department can provide immediate 
relief and restore essential transportation services without 
requiring a local match of funds. Under current law, such 
assistance is limited to 180 days following the onset of a 
disaster. This provision, however, will help States that have 
experienced long-term flooding or other disasters that continue 
over a long period of time. Because the 180-day period begins 
at the beginning of a disaster, States will not be able to 
benefit from this part of the program if the disaster itself 
prevents them from beginning their work to assess damages and 
estimate the cost of immediate repair work.

                               RESCISSION

Appropriations, 2011....................................................
Budget estimate, 2012...................................................
Committee recommendation................................     $73,000,000

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a rescission of $73,000,000 of 
funds provided for specific highway projects in prior year 
appropriation acts. The administration did not include this 
provision in its budget request. A similar rescission of 
funding dedicated for specific highway projects was included in 
the year-long continuing resolution for fiscal year 2011; 
however, that rescission applied to contract authority provided 
through authorization 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 provides additional funding from FHWA's 
research program for data activities at the Bureau of 
Transportation, including the safety data program, improvements 
to the commodity flow survey, and the international freight 
data system.
    Section 125 addresses requirements for highway guardrails.
    Section 126 modifies requirements under section 127 of 
title 23, United States Code.
    Section 127 restores contract authority for FHWA's 
administrative expenses.
    Section 128 exempts roads and bridges affected by a natural 
disaster from certain environmental and planning requirements.

              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 March 31, 2012, the Committee 
recommendation is contingent on a full-year authorization.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a total level of $558,023,000 for 
obligations and liquidations from the Highway Trust Fund. This 
level is $47,977,000 less than the request and $2,953,000 more 
than the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. This level allows the 
FMCSA to utilize the authorized level of contract authority 
provided under SAFETEA-LU plus $5,878,000 in unobligated carry 
over 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 3 years, the Committee has voiced frustration 
with FMCSA's repeated failure to timely 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]. For 
example, NTSB has 55 open recommendations affecting the 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 reincarnated 
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 from 22 to 18 over the last 
year, 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.
    The 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, 
combined with the constraints in domestic discretionary 
spending, 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, 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, 2011........................................    $245,000,000
Budget estimate, 2012 (limitation)......................     276,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     250,023,000

                          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 $250,023,000 for FMCSA's Operations and 
Programs. The recommendation is $5,023,000 more than the fiscal 
year 2011 enacted level and $25,977,000 less than the budget 
request.

                           OPERATING EXPENSES

    The Committee recommends $194,217,000 for operating 
expenses. This level is $5,995,000 more than the fiscal year 
2011 enacted level and $40,367,000 less than the budget 
request.
    Comprehensive Safety Analysis [CSA].--Over the past 7 
years, FMCSA has been undertaking a comprehensive evaluation 
and overhaul of its systems and operations. The CSA initiative 
is designed to improve the effectiveness of the agency's 
compliance and enforcement programs. The accompanying chart 
identifies the major milestones attributed to the development 
and implementation of CSA. The Committee strongly supports the 
agency's efforts to improve its programs, and remains focused 
on ensuring CSA delivers the promised results. The Committee 
appreciates that the agency has taken steps to communicate the 
changes and benefits of CSA to its partners and stakeholders. 
Given that FMCSA relies on its partners in the field to assist 
them in fulfilling its mission, continued communication with 
and training of its partners will be critical to the 
initiative's success.
    The Committee is concerned with FMCSA's failure to meet 
critical milestones for implementing this new system. For 
example, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking related to the 
safety fitness determination rating system has been delayed yet 
again from October 2009 to December 2011. Until the rulemaking 
is complete, FMCSA is relying on the current rating system that 
fails to place a sufficient emphasis on both driver and vehicle 
qualifications, thereby compromising safety on our Nation's 
highways. This rulemaking will be subject to great scrutiny, 
which is likely to require a significant amount of time. 
Continued delays in the rulemaking will delay the potential 
safety benefits that CSA has to offer. The Committee expects 
FMCSA to meet its new target date of December 2011.
    The Committee requests that GAO continue to monitor the 
implementation of CSA and evaluate FMCSA's ability to meet its 
designated milestones.

                                                                                    CSA MILESTONES, 2009-2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 2009                                         2010                                                2011                                                2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August:
  --Final report on measurement
   methodology (Complete).
  --SFD final report (Complete).

September:
  --Establish protocols for program
   evaluation data collection
   (Complete).
  --Define interventions for BASICs
   of: (1) Driver Fitness, (2)
   Controlled Substances/Alcohol; (3)
   Improper loading/cargo securement;
   and (4) Crash History (Complete).
  --Develop policy, guidance and aids
   for interventions, Phase II
   (Complete).
  --Document intervention selection
   guidance for Phase II BASICs
   (Complete).
  --Deliver refined concept of
   operations for Phase II
   (Complete).
  --Deliver training for Phase II
   (Complete).
  --Initiate Phase II of operational
   model test (Complete).
  --paper (Completed November 2007).

November:
  --Deliver final rulemaking support.
                                       February:
December:                                --Deliver refined concept of operations for
  --Annual public listening session       broader implementation (Complete).
   webcasts/report-out (Completed).




                                                                                           February:


                                                                                                                                               July:


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

    Hours of Service.--For more than 30 years, NTSB has 
advocated regulations that address driver fatigue. FMCSA's 
prior regulatory action on this long-standing safety 
recommendation is concerning. According to NTSB, driver fatigue 
remains the primary factor in 30 to 40 percent of large truck 
crashes involving fatalities. NTSB recommended using science-
based principals to revise the hours-of-service rule to require 
at least 8 hours of continuous sleep and the elimination of 
sleeper berth provisions that allow for the splitting of sleep 
periods. After regulatory actions on the motor carrier hours-
of-service rule were challenged and struck down by the courts, 
FMCSA agreed to present a new regulatory action to OMB by July 
26, 2010, and to complete a final rulemaking by July 26, 2011. 
The court-ordered deadline for final agency action was extended 
to October 26, 2011, to allow time for the publication of and 
comment on four additional research documents. The Committee 
supports FMCSA's efforts to conduct a full, open, and 
transparent regulatory process that discloses its operator 
fatigue model methodology, considers the health impact on 
drivers, develops policies based upon sound sleep and fatigue 
scientific research, and properly considers safety and crash-
related data. However, the Committee expects FMCSA to fulfill 
its highway safety mission, revise the hours-of-service 
regulations, and protect the Nation's traveling public in 
accordance with the timelines established in the settlement 
agreement.
    Electronic On-board Recorders.--No hours-of-service rule 
will serve its purpose unless it is adequately enforced. 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. Despite FMCSA's recent final 
rulemaking requiring a limited use of EOBRs to carriers with 
the most serious safety violations, 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 quarterly 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 last 
year. However, the backlog of open reviews has increased from 
1,084 carriers in fiscal year 2008 to 1,336 carriers at the end 
of the 2010 calendar year. The Committee is concerned with the 
increase of open reviews and expects the agency to continue to 
make strides to fulfill its mandate. The Committee directs the 
agency to continue to provide the House and Senate Committees 
on Appropriations with a report on its ability to meet its 
requirements to evaluate high-risk carriers on March 30, 2012 
and September 30, 2012.
    Reincarnated Carriers.--The Committee continues to have 
concerns with FMCSA's ability to detect and prevent 
unscrupulous motor carrier or motorcoach operators from evading 
enforcement actions or out-of-service orders by going out of 
business and reincorporating as a ``new'' transportation 
service provider. A recent GAO report found that 9 percent of 
motor carriers placed out of service by FMCSA between 2007 and 
2008 applied as new entrants. GAO found that after 
reincorporating, many of these companies continued to 
demonstrate a pattern of violations, including breeches of drug 
and alcohol testing and driver qualifications rules, operating 
without proper authority, and illegally transporting passengers 
across the United States-Mexico border. GAO and the OIG are 
currently conducting investigations mandated by the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations into the effectiveness of 
FMCSA's new-entry safety audit, the New Applicant Screening 
Program and the Passenger Carrier Vetting Process. Further, GAO 
is evaluating the degree to which the complexities of State 
laws on corporate successorship affect FMCSA's ability to deny 
operating authority or pursue enforcement actions against 
unsafe reincarnated carriers. The Committee expects FMCSA to 
fully cooperate with current investigations. Further, the 
Committee encourages FMCSA to apply the strictest of 
enforcement actions against these corrupt operators.
    Motorcoach Safety.--Many high profile and traumatic 
motorcoach accidents have occurred in the past year. In March 
alone, a bus traveling on I-95 toward New York City swerved, 
rolled over, and struck a guardrail cutting the bus in half, 
killing 15 people and injuring another 18; in East Brunswick, 
New Jersey, a bus crashed into a guard rail, killing two and 
injuring 40; and in Littleton, New Hampshire, a bus swerved off 
the road and overturned, injuring all 25 occupants on board. On 
May 31, a bus ran off the road and overturned on I-95 near 
Doswell, Virginia, causing four fatalities and numerous 
injuries. These incidents are a tragic reminder of the 
disproportionate effect bus accidents have on passengers and 
the occupants of other vehicles traveling on our roadways.
    The Committee commends the Secretary for taking a 
comprehensive approach to addressing motorcoach safety issues 
by developing a Motorcoach Safety Action Plan that tasks modal 
administrators with specific action items to rectify the 
troubling increase in motorcoach fatalities over the past 
decade. This pattern is inconsistent with other highway 
fatality trends in vehicle and motor carrier sectors, pointing 
to a long-standing weakness in passenger safety oversight and 
enforcement authority. The Committee directs FMCSA to develop 
an annual report on the agency's progress in implementing the 
action items within the Secretary's Motorcoach Safety Action 
Plan, the recommendations of the NTSB, the OIG and GAO with 
respect to this issue, as well as any additional information 
the Administrator deems appropriate, in its annual budget 
submission to Congress.
    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 once again 
directs FMCSA to include information in its budget for fiscal 
year 2013 on enforcement actions the agency has taken, 
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 $56,778,000 for FMCSA's program 
expenses. This amount is equal to the enacted level for fiscal 
year 2011 and $15,362,000 more than the budget request.

                      MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY GRANTS

                (LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

                      (LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

                         (INCLUDING RESCISSION)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Liquidation of
                                         contract        Limitation on
                                      authorization       obligations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2011..............       $310,070,000       $310,070,000
Budget estimate, 2012.............        330,000,000        330,000,000
Committee recommendation..........        307,000,000        307,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          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 
$308,000,000 for motor carrier safety grants. The recommended 
limitation is $2,070,000 less than the fiscal year 2011 enacted 
level and 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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program [MCSAP]......       $212,000,000
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks [CVISN] 
Grants Program.--The Committee finds that FMCSA has failed to 
maintain appropriate oversight of the CVISN grant program, 
resulting in financial irregularities and the award of grants 
to States beyond the agency's statutory authority. Last year, 
after these financial irregularities were discovered by the 
current Administrator, the Committee directed GAO to conduct an 
audit of the program. GAO found that FMCSA committed 47 
statutory violations between fiscal years 2006 through 2010, 
totaling $23,000,000. This represents 18 percent of the 
$125,000,000 in total contract authority available for the 
CVISN program during such period. GAO concluded the violations 
were due to the agency's failure to keep track of the grants 
awarded under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 
Century [TEA-21] and the dissemination of an erroneous policy 
to States in November 2006. These findings indicate a failure 
to adhere to internal grant management policies and processes, 
raising questions about the integrity of this and other State 
assistance programs. Thus far, FMCSA is taking the appropriate 
and necessary steps to address the historical mismanagement of 
the CVISN program. Several States have chosen to deobligate the 
inappropriately awarded funds. Other States either do not have 
sufficient funds to deobligate or are otherwise inclined not to 
do so. Therefore, the Committee has included bill language to 
hold States harmless for the Federal mismanagement of the 
program. The Committee also recommends an equal amount of funds 
for rescission from the CVISN program to offset the budgetary 
costs of the legislative relief provided under section 136.
    GAO is conducting an audit of other FMCSA grant programs to 
determine if the management issues related to the CVISN program 
were isolated. GAO will be examining how FMCSA oversees and 
monitors the award of grant funds, to what extent risk factors 
exist that could lead to financial irregularities in the 
awarding of grants, and what action FMCSA can take or has taken 
to prevent such irregularities from occurring in the future. 
This work will better inform the Committee on the potential 
benefits of FMCSA's proposal to create a centralized Grants 
Management Office to act as a single point of contact for all 
business-related activities associated with the award, 
negotiation, and administration of grants.

 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.
    The North American Free Trade Agreement requires that the 
United States and Mexico provide operating authority and 
reciprocal treatment for bus companies to provide domestic, 
intercity bus service and cross-border services. Mexico has 
refused to grant United States-owned bus companies comparable 
rights in Mexico, thus making it impossible for United States 
bus companies to compete with Mexican bus companies for cross-
border traffic. Congress gave the President or his delegate the 
statutory authority (49 U.S.C. Sec. 13902(c)) to suspend or 
restrict the U.S. operations of passenger motor carriers owned 
by companies of a contiguous country which unreasonably 
restricts the operations of U.S.-owned companies. Since those 
circumstances currently exist, the Committee believes that the 
President or his delegate should consider utilizing that 
authority unless Mexico immediately starts to provide 
reciprocal access and fair treatment to United States-owned bus 
companies. Discrimination against U.S. bus companies cannot 
continue. The Committee directs the Secretary of 
Transportation, in coordination with the United States Trade 
Representative, to report to the House and Senate Committee on 
Appropriations no later than April 1, 2012 on what actions the 
Department or other executive agencies are taking to rectify 
this issue.
    Section 131 holds States harmless for FMCSA anti-deficiency 
act violations that occurred between fiscal years 2006 through 
2010. The Committee rescinds $1,000,000 in prior year 
unobligated balances to offset the budgetary impact of this 
provision.
    Section 132 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 March 31, 
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 2012 
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 $799,974,000 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 $60,026,000 
less than the President's request and $72,515,000 less than the 
fiscal year 2011 enacted level.
    The following table summarizes Committee recommendations, 
excluding rescissions:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Fiscal year--
                             Program                             --------------------------------    Committee
                                                                   2011 enacted    2012 estimate  recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations and Research.........................................    $245,646,000    $303,900,000    $249,646,000
National Driver Register........................................       7,343,000  ..............  ..............
Highway Traffic Safety Grants...................................     619,500,000     556,100,000     550,328,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................     872,489,000     860,000,000     799,974,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        OPERATIONS AND RESEARCH

Appropriations, 2011....................................    $245,646,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................     303,900,000
Committee recommendation................................     249,646,000

                          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 $249,646,000 for Operations and 
Research and has aligned funding for the National Driver 
Register into this account. This level of funding is 
$54,254,000 less than the President's budget request and 
$3,343,000 less than the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. Of the 
total amount recommended for Operations and Research, 
$140,146,000 is derived from the General Fund and $109,500,000 
is derived from the Highway Trust Fund, of which $4,000,000 is 
for the National Driver Register.
    Alcohol-related Fatalities.--Alcohol-impaired driving 
deaths continue to be a leading cause of highway fatalities. 
Although the number of alcohol-impaired driving fatalities has 
dropped recently, they continue to represent 32 percent of all 
highway deaths. Alcohol ignition interlock systems hold great 
promise for reducing alcohol-related fatalities. However, 
ignition interlock systems are an intrusive technology, which 
limits their use.
    In 2008, NHTSA partnered with leading automobile 
manufacturers in the Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety 
[ACTS] to develop alcohol detection technologies that could be 
installed in vehicles to prevent drunk driving. These 
technologies need to be nonintrusive in order to achieve 
greater acceptance by the general public. The development of 
advanced alcohol detection technologies is one of the key 
components of the Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving, which 
unites Mothers Against Drunk Driving, major auto manufacturers, 
law enforcement, and other stakeholders who share the goal of 
eliminating drunk driving.
    To date, NHTSA and ACTS have completed preliminary device 
performance specifications, a rigorous technical review of 
candidate technologies, and proof-of-concept research to 
investigate those technologies that hold the most promise. 
Funding for fiscal year 2012 will be used to test the full set 
of performance specifications and to begin integrating 
competing technologies into a research vehicle for further 
testing and evaluation. The Committee recommends a total of 
$6,000,000 to support this collaboration in fiscal year 2012, 
$5,000,000 of which is repurposed from the seat belt 
performance grant program. This level of funding is $5,000,000 
more than the budget request and $4,500,000 more than the 
fiscal year 2011 enacted level.
    Safety Defects Investigation.--The Safety Defects 
Investigation program investigates possible defect trends and, 
where appropriate, seeks recalls of vehicles and vehicle 
equipment that pose an unreasonable safety risk. To perform 
this mission, NHTSA maintains the collection of early warning 
reporting data submitted by manufacturers to the Advanced 
Retrieval Tire, Equipment, Motor Vehicle Information System 
[ARTEMIS], as well as complaints from vehicle owners, recalls 
and investigations. The agency then analyzes the early warning 
data to determine whether anomalies or trends exist that 
potentially indicate the presence of a safety-related problem. 
Since 2000, NHTSA has influenced, on average, the recall of 
nearly 10 million vehicles annually as well as the recall of 
millions of items of equipment for safety-related defects. As a 
result of the Toyota recalls for sudden unintended 
acceleration, Congress made it clear that NHTSA should enhance 
the accessibility of its vehicle safety data systems. The 
Committee provides $10,661,000, as requested, to allow NHTSA to 
make the necessary modifications to its complaint and 
investigation database, Web site, and outreach efforts.
    Alternative Fuels Vehicle Research.--Consistent with the 
budget request, funding for alternative fuels research is 
reduced from $4,498,000 in fiscal year 2011 to $1,500,000. This 
level of funding will be used to continue research on the 
safety of emerging hybrid and electric fuel cell technologies, 
particularly on lithium ion battery and plug-in electric 
vehicles. This continued research is an important step in 
ensuring that vehicles powered by alternative sources of energy 
do not compromise safety.
    National Automotive Sampling System [NASS].--The Committee 
provides $25,000,000 to fully fund modernization of the NASS 
data collection system, which provides crash data on a 
nationally representative sample of police-reported motor 
vehicle crashes and related injuries. This funding is available 
until expended which is repurposed from the seat belt 
performance grant program. The Institute for Highway Safety 
states that NASS provides a ``vital means of understanding 
injury mechanisms and identifying ways to improve 
crashworthiness and restraint system performance''. Safety 
researchers and automobile manufacturers also recognize the 
current NASS sample design created in 1977 is outdated, as data 
needs and demographics have changed significantly. Furthermore, 
the current sample size is not large enough to identify trends 
or problems at the vehicle make/model level in a timely manner. 
The Committee believes it is important for NHTSA to expand the 
scope of its data collection relative to the NASS/
Crashworthiness Data System [CDS]. Expanding the NASS data 
collection from its current 24 data collection sites will 
assure a larger and more representative sample of crashes, 
increase the precision with which the agency can determine and 
validate areas of specific rulemaking interest for the Office 
of Defects Investigation, and assist researchers around the 
world in making informed decisions on vehicle design and safety 
policy.
    NHTSA must also undertake a comprehensive review of the 
data elements to be collected from each crash; solicit input 
from interested parties--including suppliers, automakers, 
safety advocates, the medical community and research 
organizations; and assess the need for more data from the pre-
crash, crash, and post-crash phases. The agency should consider 
including the following factors as part of an enhanced data 
collection initiative: vehicle velocities; vehicle 
acceleration/deceleration; departure from the roadway; presence 
of crash avoidance or driver assistance systems in the 
vehicle(s); and road surfaces and conditions. The funding 
provided will allow NHTSA to modernize the NASS system to 
improve data quality, timeliness, and accessibility in 
responding to the rapidly changing vehicle and highway safety 
environment. The Committee directs NHTSA to report on its NASS 
modernization efforts and related expenditures in the 
President's annual budget submission to Congress. Additionally, 
NHTSA shall provide a report on the results of the data element 
review and recommendations for revision.
    Motorcoach Safety.--The Committee commends the Secretary 
for taking a comprehensive approach to assessing and addressing 
motorcoach safety issues. Specifically, the Committee 
appreciates the development of specific action items for modal 
administrators to rectify the troubling increase in the number 
of motorcoach fatalities over the past 10 years. This trend is 
inconsistent with other highway fatality trends in vehicle and 
motor carrier sectors, which points to a long-standing weakness 
in passenger safety oversight and enforcement authority. The 
Secretary's Motorcoach Safety Action Plan requires NHTSA to 
develop performance requirements for stability control systems 
and to expand research on crash-avoidance technologies, such as 
forward crash warning, lane departure warning systems, and 
crash imminent braking. NHTSA is also taking actions to address 
NTSB recommendations on occupant protection systems, emergency 
egress, and flammability standards. The Committee directs NHTSA 
to report on its progress in meeting the action items 
identified above in its annual budget submission to Congress.
    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 $7,900,000 for fiscal year 2012 for this initiative, 
as requested. Funding will be used to support the regulatory 
requirements for model years 2017 and beyond, allow the agency 
to implement fuel economy standards for medium and heavy duty 
trucks, and conduct a retrospective analysis of the accuracy of 
fuel economy projections per GAO's recommendation.
    The Committee commends the Department for finalizing the 
first ever fuel economy standards for large pickup trucks and 
commercial vans ahead of the Ten in Ten Fuel Economy Act 
(Public Law 110-140) deadline. The Committee agrees with the 
Final Rule's statement that ``a consumer label can play an 
important role in reducing fuel consumption and GHG 
emissions.'' The Committee commends the Department for 
expressing its intent to create fuel economy labels for large 
pickup trucks and commercial vans, and it directs the 
Department to prioritize this rulemaking in order to label 
vehicles within 3 model years. The Committee also encourages 
the Department to provide information on the fuel economy of 
large pickup trucks and commercial vans on fueleconomy.gov 
while the labeling regulation is being drafted.
    Unsecured Loads.--The Committee is concerned about the 
highway safety risks associated with passenger vehicles that do 
not properly secure personal property or equipment in transit 
on our Nation's highways. Preliminary data suggests that, on 
average, falling debris causes more than 300 fatalities each 
year. Further, State laws regarding willful and knowing 
violations of improper loading are varied and weakly enforced, 
regardless of the potential harm to innocent travelers. The 
Committee directs GAO to report to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations on the various State laws, 
associated penalties, exemptions, and enforcement actions 
regarding unsecured loads by July 1, 2012. Further, the 
Committee directs NHTSA to collect and classify data resulting 
from automobile accidents involving road debris in a manner 
that would distinguish road obstructions resulting from human 
error, such as an unsecured load, and those caused by natural 
elements, such as a fallen tree.
    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 2012, 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.

                     HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANTS

                (LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

                      (LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Liquidation of
                                            contract      Limitation on
                                         authorization     obligations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2011\1\...............     $619,500,000     $619,500,000
Budget estimate, 2012.................      556,100,000      556,100,000
Committee recommendation..............      550,328,000      550,328,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Excluding rescission.

                          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 recommendation limitation is 
$5,772,000 less than the budget estimate and $69,172,000 less 
than the fiscal year 2011 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 terminates the quarterly reporting 
requirement on implementation of primary seat belt laws 
pursuant to Senate Report 110-131.
    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)............      38,500,000
Distracted Driver Incentive Grants......................      10,000,000
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Distracted Driver.--In 2009, 5,474 people were killed and 
an estimated 448,000 were injured nationwide in crashes that 
were reported to have involved a distracted driver. Distracted 
driving encompasses a wide range of behaviors that take the 
driver's attention from his or her primary driving 
responsibilities. While there is no definitive data as to how 
many distracted driving deaths and injuries are caused by cell 
phone use and texting, 20 percent of the drivers involved in 
fatal accidents in 2009 were either using or in the presence of 
a cell phone at the time of the crash, and there is reason to 
be concerned about whether the recent rise in distracted 
driving fatalities is linked to the increasing use of 
electronic devices. 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 $10,000,000 
in fiscal year 2012 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 $10,000,000 
for the development, production, and use of broadcast and print 
media advertising to support enforcement of State laws to 
prevent distracted driving. The Committee directs NHTSA and the 
Centers for Disease Control [CDC] to conduct an analysis of 
available research, and to report on the extent to which 
electronic devices can be causally linked to the reported rise 
in fatal accidents or injuries involving distracted driving, as 
well as the impact distracted driving prevention laws and 
enforcement actions can have on motorist behavior.
    Motorcycle Safety.--Motorcycle safety grants may be used to 
encourage States to adopt and implement effective programs to 
reduce the number of crashes involving motorcycles. A State may 
also use these funds for motorcycle safety training and 
motorcyclist awareness programs, including the improvement of 
training curricula, delivery of training, recruitment or 
retention of motorcyclist safety instructors, and public 
awareness and outreach programs.
    From 1997 to 2009, motorcycle fatalities increased more 
than 110 percent, with 2008 the deadliest year on record with 
5,312 fatalities. According a recent CDC report on motorcycle 
safety, ``the economic burden of injuries and deaths from 
motorcycle-related crashes in 1 year totaled $12 billion'' and 
``a substantial proportion of costs are paid by the U.S. public 
due to higher insurance premiums and taxes, as well as lost 
revenue. A study of 105 motorcyclists hospitalized at a major 
trauma center determined that 63 percent of their care was paid 
for by public funds, with Medicaid accounting for over half of 
all charges.'' Research shows that universal helmet laws are 
the most effective way to reduce the number of deaths and 
traumatic brain injuries that result from crashes. Helmets 
reduce the risk of head injury by 69 percent, and unhelmeted 
riders are 40 percent more likely to die from a head injury 
than someone wearing a helmet. Regardless of this data, many 
States have repealed motor cycle helmet laws over the past 
decade. The Committee directs GAO to evaluate: (1) factors that 
have led to the increase in motorcycle fatalities; (2) actions 
NHTSA and States have taken to address the increase in 
motorcyclist fatalities; (3) the extent to which States' use of 
SAFETEA-LU's motorcycle safety grants affected motorcyclist 
safety; and (4) challenges faced by NHTSA and States in 
attempting to improve motorcyclist safety.
    State Traffic Safety Information System Improvement 
Grants.--The State Traffic Safety Information System 
Improvement program (section 408 program) provides grants to 
States to improve the timeliness, accuracy, completeness, 
uniformity, integration, and accessibility of State data 
systems. The program brings together different stakeholders 
such as law enforcement, emergency medical personnel, and the 
courts to communicate and link files in their data systems. 
This information is then used to analyze crash occurrences, 
rates, and outcomes to direct highway safety initiatives. An 
April 2010 GAO report on the program found that States face 
resource challenges to improving traffic safety data systems, 
impeding their ability to meet NHTSA quality performance 
measures. While State funding makes up the majority of support 
for traffic safety data projects, without Federal resources to 
leverage State investments, many projects would have been 
delayed or cancelled. The Committee supports the increased use 
of data-driven approaches to allocate limited resources in 
order to improve traffic safety, and reallocates $8,500,000 
from the safety belt performance grant program to the section 
408 grant program, providing a total of $43,000,000 for fiscal 
year 2012.

      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 for multiple years, 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, 2011....................................    $176,596,000
Budget estimate, 2012\1\................................     223,034,000
Committee recommendation................................     176,596,000

\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          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 $176,596,000 for Safety and 
Operations for fiscal year 2012, which is $46,438,000 less than 
the funding included for these activities in the budget request 
and equal to the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. The bill 
specifies that $12,300,000 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, 2011....................................     $35,030,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................      40,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      30,000,000

                          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 $30,000,000 
for railroad research and development, which is $10,000,000 
less than the budget request and $5,030,000 less than the 
fiscal year 2011 enacted level.

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

Appropriations, 2011....................................................
Budget estimate, 2012\1\................................................
Committee recommendation................................    $100,000,000

\1\The administration requested $4,000,000,000 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 for investing in passenger rail 
infrastructure: grants for intercity passenger rail, grants for 
high-speed passenger rail, and grants to reduce congestion or 
facilitate ridership growth along passenger rail corridors.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENATION

    The Committee recommends the appropriation of $100,000,000 
for grants to support intercity rail service and high speed 
rail corridors. The recommendation is $100,000,000 more than 
fiscal year 2011 and $100,000,000 more than the budget request.

       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 directs FRA to report on 
RRIF loan activity for the preceding fiscal year in the annual 
budget submission to Congress, including the number of loans 
pending and issued and the processing time for these loans.
    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 2012.

          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, 2011....................................    $561,874,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................     616,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     544,000,000

    The Committee provides $544,000,000 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 
$72,000,000 less than the request and $17,874,000 less than the 
fiscal year 2011 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 2013, 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, 2011....................................    $921,778,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................   1,546,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     936,778,000

    The Committee recommends $936,778,000 for capital and debt 
service grants for Amtrak, of which a minimum of $15,000,000 
shall be used to begin the Northeast Corridor [NEC] Gateway 
Project as requested in Amtrak's budget and not more than 
$271,000,000 shall be available for debt service payments. The 
amount provided is $609,222,000 less than the budget request 
and $15,000,000 more than fiscal year 2011.
    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. 
For fiscal year 2012, Amtrak requests $175,000,000 for ADA 
compliance even though it has only committed 60 percent of the 
$144,000,000 provided by the Committee in fiscal year 2010. The 
Committee expects work to progress more rapidly now that some 
of the work agreements have been negotiated and are in place. 
The Committee urges Amtrak to continue its important work on 
ADA compliance while also maintaining its commitment to 
preserving the safety of the system.
    Fleet Acquisition.--The Committee notes that Amtrak's fleet 
plan identified several options for financing the replacement 
of its rolling stock, including direct appropriations, Federal 
credit assistance, and credit assistance through a private 
lender. The Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing 
[RRIF] program provides an opportunity to soften the impact of 
reduced Federal contributions to the fleet plan, and to spread 
the cost of this assistance over the life of the equipment. 
Using the RRIF program also provides the Department with an 
opportunity to oversee Amtrak's implementation of its fleet 
plan. In comparison to the RRIF program, the private market 
will demand a significantly higher interest rate. Furthermore, 
a portion of those interest earnings would represent profits to 
a private corporation.
    Given that Amtrak relies on Federal subsidies, and is 
therefore beholden to the Federal taxpayer for the responsible 
use of its funds, the Committee believes that Amtrak should not 
consider borrowing from the private market until every 
opportunity to apply for credit assistance from the Department 
of Transportation has been exhausted. The Committee was pleased 
with the Department of Transportation's recent decision to 
provide a $563,000,000 RRIF loan to Amtrak to finance the 
purchase of 70 high-performance electric locomotives. The 
Committee expects FRA to expeditiously review the loan 
application for Amtrak to procure 40 additional Acela cars to 
meet growing ridership demand along the northeast corridor. 
This additional capacity is expected to provide an internal 
rate of return of over 40 percent over a 10-year period. 
Finally, the House and Senate Committee on Appropriations 
should be notified of any Amtrak decision to pursue credit 
assistance from either the Federal Government or the private 
sector.
    Amtrak Service in Rural Areas.--The Committee recognizes 
the importance of passenger train service to communities, and 
especially to rural areas, across the United States. The 
Committee also notes that natural disasters and environmental 
factors can present engineering challenges to servicing these 
communities. Consequently, the Committee encourages Amtrak to 
give priority consideration to projects that will ensure the 
continued operation of normal passenger rail service along any 
route that serves rural areas.
    On-time Performance Incentive Payments.--Amtrak makes 
access payments to freight railroads for use of the host 
railroads' infrastructure. Additionally, it makes incentive 
payments to hosts based upon on-time performance metrics 
detailed in individual contracts between Amtrak and each host 
rail operator. The Amtrak OIG has conducted multiple audits on 
this issue and found that Amtrak's financial and management 
controls for the processing and payment of invoices from host 
railroads are inadequate and ineffective, resulting in 
consistent overbilling from host railroads and overpayments by 
Amtrak. According to a September 2010 OIG report, over 
$50,000,000 in overpayments were identified based on audits of 
host railroads over the last 10 years. Given that Amtrak pays 
for the billing preparation services of the host railroads, it 
is unfortunate that invoices are not more accurate, complete, 
and reliable.
    In April 2010, Amtrak developed an action plan to establish 
a process to more thoroughly review billing invoices before 
making payments by December 2010. However, while Amtrak 
segregated and strengthened the invoice review process, Amtrak 
has failed to achieve its goals due to the excessive time it 
has taken to update host railroad agreements through amendment 
changes, develop policies and procedures for reviewing all 
invoices, and create training plans. The Committee directs 
Amtrak to report to the House and Senate Committee on 
Appropriations on the processes and procedures that are being 
implemented to improve financial controls for on-time 
performance incentive payments, and to establish accountability 
for the accuracy of host railroad billing by December 1, 2011.

                       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.

                     Federal Transit Administration

    The Federal Transit Administration was established as a 
component of the Department of Transportation by Reorganization 
Plan No. 2 of 1968, effective July 1, 1968, which transferred 
most of the functions and programs under the Federal Transit 
Act of 1964, as amended (78 Stat. 302; 49 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), 
from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The 
missions of the Federal Transit Administration are: to assist 
in the development of improved mass transportation facilities, 
equipment, techniques, and methods; to encourage the planning 
and establishment of urban and rural transportation services 
needed for economical and desirable development; to provide 
mobility for transit dependents in both metropolitan and rural 
areas; to maximize the productivity and efficiency of 
transportation systems; and to provide assistance to State and 
local governments and their instrumentalities in financing such 
services and systems.
    The most recent authorization for transit programs was 
contained in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users [SAFETEA-LU], 
which expired on September 30, 2009. The authority for these 
programs has been extended through March 31, 2012. The 
Committee's recommendations assume they will be further 
extended under their current structure until the enactment of a 
full reauthorization package.
    Under the Committee recommendations, a total program level 
of $10,629,278,000 would be provided for the activities of the 
Federal Transit Administration in fiscal year 2012. The 
recommendation is $11,720,736,000 less than the budget request 
and $332,112,000 greater than the fiscal year 2011 enacted 
level. The latter included a one-time rescission of 
$280,000,000. The following table summarizes the Committee's 
recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fiscal year--
                           Program                            ----------------------------------    Committee
                                                                 2011 enacted    2012 estimate    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative Expenses......................................      $98,713,000  ...............      $98,713,000
Formula and Bus Grants (trust fund)..........................    8,343,171,000  ...............    8,360,565,000
Research and University Research Centers.....................       58,882,000  ...............       40,000,000
Capital Investment Grants....................................    1,596,800,000  ...............    1,955,000,000
Grants for Energy Efficiency and Greenhouse Gas Reductions...       49,900,000  ...............       25,000,000
Grants to WMATA..............................................      149,700,000     $150,000,000      150,000,000
Operations and Safety........................................  ...............      166,294,000  ...............
Research and Technology Deployment...........................  ...............      166,472,000  ...............
Transit Formula Grants Program...............................  ...............    7,691,000,000  ...............
Bus and Rail State of Good Repair............................  ...............   10,707,178,000  ...............
Transit Expansion and Livable Communities Program............  ...............    3,469,070,000  ...............
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total..................................................   10,297,166,000   22,350,014,000   10,629,278,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2011....................................     $98,713,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................................
Committee recommendation................................      98,713,000

                          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 $98,713,000 for the 
agency's salaries and administrative expenses. The recommended 
level of funding is the same as the fiscal year 2011 enacted 
level. The Committee acknowledges this amount is below the 
level FTA requires to effectively manage its responsibilities.
    FTA has convincingly documented the need for additional 
staff to improve its ability to oversee projects, manage 
contracts, and provide technical assistance to local transit 
agencies. The latter includes efforts to identify and 
disseminate best practices in asset management, capital project 
development, and serving populations with special needs, as 
well as to broker broad agreement on a standard transit bus and 
light rail vehicle that could cut transit agencies' future 
capital costs. Rail transit accidents in recent years indicate 
a need for FTA to exercise greater oversight of the 27 State 
Safety Oversight agencies. The constrained fiscal environment 
prevents the Committee from addressing these needs in fiscal 
year 2012.
    Rail Station Accessibility.--The American with Disabilities 
Act provided an extended time period for a number of large 
transit systems to reach compliance with the act in regard to 
certain rail stations. The Committee directs the Secretary to 
provide the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a 
report by June 30, 2012, detailing these systems' progress in 
achieving compliance with the act. The report should contain a 
list of stations that have reached full compliance with the act 
and a list not yet in compliance. For each station not in 
compliance, details should be provided regarding the status of 
work already accomplished towards reaching compliance and a 
timeline for future actions to complete the remaining work.
    Project Management Oversight [PMO] Activities.--The 
Committee directs FTA to continue to submit to the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations the quarterly FMO and PMO 
reports for each project with a full funding grant agreement.
    Full Funding Grant Agreements [FFGAs].--SAFETEA-LU, as 
amended 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 2016; (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, 2011..................................    $8,343,171,000
Budget estimate, 2012.................................  ................
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 2011 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
Sustainable Communities:
    Job Access and Reverse Commute...................        164,500,000
    Planning Programs................................        113,500,000
    Alternatives Analysis............................         25,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Bus Rapid Transit.--The Committee proposes to fund the bus 
rapid transit projects included in the Department's fiscal year 
2012 budget request in the Bus and Bus Facilities program. 
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 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, 2011......................................   $58,882,000
Budget estimate, 2012.....................................  ............
Committee recommendation..................................    40,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          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.
    Under the auspices of the National Fuel Cell Bus Program 
[NFCBP], 16 new generation fuel cell buses are undergoing 
testing. Using the NFCBP as a foundation, one U.S. 
manufacturer, Proterra, has developed a battery-dominant 
hydrogen fuel cell 35-foot bus. Demonstrations have been 
completed in South Carolina and Austin, Texas. Initial 
responses in the transit industry have been positive, 
encouraging the company to establish a manufacturing plant in 
Greenville, South Carolina.
    With FTA funding, several transit agencies are now 
demonstrating the feasibility of Proterra buses in day to day 
operations in communities around the country. These advances 
would not be possible without FTA support since there are 
significant costs and risks associated with early adoption of 
unproven and not yet mass-produced technologies. Federal 
support plays the crucial role of supporting promising research 
and testing, with the potential for significant benefits for 
the consumer and U.S. manufacturing.
    FTA research has also been involved in resurrecting the 
domestic streetcar industry at a time when more than 50 
American cities are at some state of planning, building or 
expanding streetcar systems. Since 2006, FTA has awarded TriMet 
cooperative agreements and discretionary funding totaling 
$6,400,000 to build a Prototype Streetcar. Oregon Iron Works 
completed that prototype in 2010--the first ``Buy American 
Act'' compliant streetcar produced in the United States since 
1952, using components from manufacturers in over 20 States.
    FTA may make grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, or 
other agreements for research, development, demonstration, and 
deployment projects, and evaluation of technology of national 
significance to public transportation. FTA provides transit 
agencies with research results to help make them better 
equipped to improve public transportation and to help public 
transportation services meet national transportation needs at 
the lowest reasonable cost. FTA assists transit agencies to 
employ new service methods and technologies that improve their 
operations and capital efficiencies or improve transit safety 
and emergency preparedness.
    The purpose of the university transportation centers [UTC] 
program is to foster a national resource and focal point for 
the support and conduct of research and training concerning the 
transportation of passengers and property. Funds provided under 
the FTA's UTC program are transferred to and managed by the 
Research and Innovation Technology Administration and combined 
with a transfer of funds from the Federal Highway 
Administration. The Committee understands the Department will 
be funding two UTCs exclusively focused on transit in fiscal 
year 2012.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $40,000,000 for research and 
university research centers. The Committee recommendation is 
$18,882,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted level.
    The Committee supports the Department's efforts to revive a 
domestic streetcar industry to take advantage of the renewed 
interest in light rail in communities across the country. To 
support this effort, the Committee directs the Department to 
submit a report 180 days after enactment of this act to the 
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, the House 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and the Senate 
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs identifying 
legislative and regulatory barriers to domestic private and 
public manufacturers ability to compete for federally-supported 
streetcar and light rail contracts.
    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, as well as to 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 
selected pilot projects are required to submit preliminary 
reports to FTA in February 2012. FTA is directed to submit a 
report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 
summarizing these findings and lessons learned to date by June 
1, 2012.

                       CAPITAL INVESTMENT GRANTS

Appropriations, 2011....................................  $1,596,800,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................................
Committee recommendation................................   1,955,000,000

                          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 $1,955,000,000 for 
capital investment grants. The recommended level is 
$358,200,000 above the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. The bill 
does not include a provision requiring FTA to transfer funds to 
the DOT Office of Inspector General. The bill also rescinds 
$27,000,000 provided in Public Law 111-8.
    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 proposes to shift bus rapid transit projects 
included in the President's fiscal year 2012 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.--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 FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTIONS

Appropriations, 2011....................................     $49,900,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................................
Committee recommendation................................      25,000,000

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommendation includes $25,000,000 for 
grants to public transit agencies for unique and innovative 
approaches to reducing energy consumption or greenhouse gas 
emissions. The Committee supports the administration's efforts 
to reduce the Nation's dependence on foreign oil, and to 
encourage investment in clean energy sources to improve air 
quality. These funds will enable the FTA to support innovative 
technologies and other approaches, such as electric drive 
technologies, lightweight materials, and regenerative braking. 
The bill requires the FTA to place priority on projects that 
could be brought to scale, including the potential to be 
replicated by other transit agencies regionally or nationally.
    FTA's Research account supported the development and 
testing of what may prove to be the first practical fuel cell 
buses in the world. With Federal support, one U.S. 
manufacturer, Proterra, has developed a battery-dominant 
hydrogen fuel cell 35-foot bus.
    While promising, the Proterra bus might not have advanced 
further were it not for Federal support for transit agencies 
willing to test the feasibility of these buses in day-to-day 
operations. Being the first to adopt a new technology is a 
risky, expensive proposition, one that few cash-strapped 
transit agencies were prepared to take in the midst of a 
recession. The Grants for Energy Efficiency and Greenhouse Gas 
Reductions [TIGGER] program provided timely support that made a 
broader demonstration of Proterra's technology possible. With 
TIGGER grants, several transit agencies are now using Proterra 
buses in daily operations in communities around the country. 
While local testing remains in the early stages, the Proterra 
example highlights the important role of Federal funding in 
supporting promising research and demonstration: a relatively 
modest investment could yield significant benefits for the 
consumer and for U.S. economic competitiveness.
    The Committee encourages the FTA to continue to work with 
its academic and industry partners to identify and encourage 
other promising areas of technological innovation that might 
reduce transit operating costs and fuel use.

      GRANTS TO THE WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY

Appropriations, 2011....................................    $149,700,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................     150,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     150,000,000

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommendation includes $150,000,000 for 
grants to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority 
[WMATA] for capital and preventive maintenance expenses. These 
grants are authorized under section 601 of the Passenger Rail 
Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-432), 
and 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, 
2014, 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, 
2011 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 requires unobligated funds or recoveries under 
section 5309 of title 49, United States Code, that are 
available for reallocation shall be directed to projects 
eligible to use the funds for which they were originally 
intended.
    Section 166 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 167 provides an exemption from the charter bus 
regulations for the State of Washington.
    Section 168 permits the Secretary to consider significant 
private contributions when calculating the non-Federal share of 
capital costs for New Starts projects.
    Section 169 requires that all Bus Rapid Transit [BRT] or 
busway projects recommended in the President's fiscal year 2012 
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.

             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, 2011....................................     $32,259,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................      33,996,000
Committee recommendation................................      34,000,000

                          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 $34,000,000 for the operations, 
maintenance, and asset renewal of the Saint Lawrence Seaway. 
This amount is $4,000 more than the President's budget request 
and $1,741,000 more than the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. 
The recommended level includes $17,100,000 to continue the 
agency's Asset Renewal Program [ARP].
    The Seaway is entering its 53rd 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. With the funds provided, 23 of the 56 projects identified 
should be complete by the end of fiscal year 2012. While the 
recalibration of the ARP is necessary to take into 
consideration more accurate cost estimates and evolving 
priorities, the continued deferral of more costly and critical 
lock construction projects is troubling. The annual budget 
request has repeatedly not aligned with the ARP and has been 
insufficient to satisfy the scope of work identified in the 5-
year capital investment plan submitted to Congress. The 
Committee is concerned that this has the potential to undermine 
the performance goals established for SLSDC's 10-year ARP plan 
and jeopardize the safety and reliability of the waterway and 
lock system. A shut-down of either of the two U.S. locks would 
result in a loss of between $1,300,000 and $2,300,000 per day 
to those dependent on this mode of transportation. This would 
seriously impact the Great Lakes Seaway System's global 
competitiveness for the movement of agricultural and steel-
related products.
    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, 2011....................................    $173,652,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................     174,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     154,886,000

                          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 $174,000,000 
for the MSP. This amount is equal to the budget request and 
$348,000 more than the fiscal year 2011 enacted level.
    Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. chapter 537, participants in the MSP 
are authorized to receive an increase in payments per vessel 
from $2,900,000 to $3,100,000 in fiscal years 2012 through 
2015. This is the second authorized payment increase for the 60 
vessel sealift program. The recommended appropriation, together 
with unobligated carry-over balances, provides sufficient funds 
to satisfy the fully authorized payment level for fiscal year 
2012.
    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 2013 budget request.

                        OPERATIONS AND TRAINING

Appropriations, 2011....................................    $151,446,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................     161,539,000
Committee recommendation................................     154,886,000

                          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 $154,886,000 
for Operations and Training at MARAD for fiscal year 2012. This 
amount is $3,440,000 more than the fiscal year 2011 enacted 
level and $6,653,000 less than the budget request. The bill 
includes a rescission of $1,000,000 of prior year unobligated 
balances.

                         MARITIME ADMINISTRATION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Fiscal year
                                                            2012 Senate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Merchant Marine Academy............................     $85,395,000
    Academy Operations..................................      62,538,000
        Salaries and Benefits...........................      33,888,000
        Operating Expenses..............................      22,899,000
        Information Technology..........................       5,751,000
    Capital Improvements................................      22,485,000
        Capital Improvements............................      16,600,000
        Facilties Maintenance, Repairs, and Equipment...       5,885,000
State Maritime Academies................................      16,045,000
    SMA Direct Payments.................................       2,545,000
    Student Incentive Payments..........................       2,400,000
    Schoolship Maintenance and Repair...................      11,100,000
MARAD Operations........................................      52,818,000
    Headquarters Operations.............................      48,818,000
        Salaries and Benefits...........................      29,269,000
        Non-Discreationary Operations...................      10,900,000
        Information Technology..........................       6,255,000
        Discretionary Operations and Travel.............       2,394,000
    Maritime Program Expenses...........................       4,000,000
        Environment and Compliance......................       4,000,000
        Marview.........................................       1,000,000
                                                         ---------------
          Total, Operations and Training................     154,886,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 throughout 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 the Academy and restoring it to a top-notch academic 
institution. However, significant challenges remain to 
achieving this goal.
    The Academy lacks a strategic plan necessary to bring 
direction to its instructional program and to identify and 
institute clear performance goals. Now that a new 
Superintendent is in place, the delays for this basic 
organizational assessment are inexcusable. The Committee 
directs the Secretary to submit to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations a comprehensive strategic plan for 
the Academy by April 30, 2012.
    The Blue Ribbon Panel report emphasized the dire need for 
additional qualified staff to manage the maintenance of the 
Academy's buildings and infrastructure and to oversee new 
construction and renovation projects. The report states: ``It 
is the opinion of the Panel that the USMMA is critically 
understaffed, so much so that it is unable to properly develop, 
control, and oversee the current Capital Improvement Plan, or 
the construction the campus so urgently needs.'' While the 
Committee is generally leery about increasing Federal staffing 
in the current budget environment, it lacks confidence in the 
ability of MARAD and the Academy to effectively manage and 
execute basic necessary maintenance and projects identified in 
the CIP at present staffing levels. Therefore, the Committee 
provides $500,000 above the budget request for the Academy to 
support up to five additional staff to manage facility 
maintenance and the CIP consistent with the recommendations of 
the Blue Ribbon Panel. Furthermore, the Academy shall provide 
to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations an 
organizational chart for the Academy, a detailed accounting of 
all authorized staff positions, the number of vacancies, and 
the job description of each position, no later than January 30, 
2012.
    In November 2010, MARAD issued a revised USMMA Capital 
Improvements Implementation Plan in response to Blue Ribbon 
panel recommendations. Many of the top 20 proposed projects 
identified in the CIP are only in the conceptual phase. As with 
any major capital reinvestment plan, cost estimates will change 
as projects mature and the scope of work is refined. The 
Committee directs MARAD to consult with the Government 
Accountability Office [GAO] to assist the Academy in the 
development and institutionalization of best practices for 
project planning and cost estimation. GAO is directed to report 
its recommendations to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations. Additionally, MARAD shall provide to the House 
and Senate Committees on Appropriations an annual report on the 
status of the CIP on April 1 of each year. The report should 
include current information on the status of the CIP, 
including, but not limited to, the following: a list of all 
projects in order of priority; an update on the status of each 
project that has received funding; cost overruns and cost 
savings for each active project and specific goals for project 
completion; delays and the cause of delays; schedule changes; 
up-to-date cost projections for each project, highlighted 
changes in estimates; and any other deviations from the CIP. 
MARAD is directed to include in its reports relevant 
information relating to the management, funding, and 
implementation of the CIP as deemed appropriate by the 
Administrator or Superintendent.
    The request for additional funds for a recruitment 
diversity initiative and the elimination of midshipmen fees is 
denied. While worthwhile proposals, the subcommittee regrets 
that due to severe budget constraints, it is not able to fund 
these requests.
    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.
    Staffing.--The Committee is concerned about the large 
number of vacancies in MARAD and the agency's inability to fill 
job announcements with qualified applicants. The absence of 
staff is impacting major programs that are critical to the 
agency's core mission, such as cargo preference and the title 
XI loan guarantee program. The Committee directs MARAD to 
provide a quarterly report to the House and Senate Committees 
on Appropriations on the number of vacancies and the duties 
associated with each vacant position for MARAD headquarters and 
regional staff. This reporting requirement does not include 
positions at the USMMA, which has a separate staff reporting 
requirement.
    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 2012 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 of air emissions reduction technology in 
conjunction with the Environmental Protection Agency.

                             SHIP DISPOSAL

Appropriations, 2011....................................     $14,970,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................      18,500,000
Committee Recommendation................................      10,000,000

                          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 66 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 $10,000,000 
for MARAD's Ship Disposal program. This level of funding is 
$4,970,000 less than the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and 
$8,500,000 less than the budget request. This level of funding, 
in addition to the anticipated carry over from previous 
appropriations, is sufficient to meet the terms and conditions 
of the Suisun Bay Reserve Fleet settlement, MARAD's proposed 
fleet environmental initiative, 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, 2011....................................      $9,980,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................................
Committee recommendation................................      10,000,000

                          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 $10,000,000 for 
assistance to small shipyards. This level of funding is $20,000 
more than the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. The President did 
not request funding for this program in fiscal year 2012.
    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 118 qualified applicants submitted requests totaling 
$105,000,000 in fiscal year 2011, 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, 2011....................................      $8,982,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................       3,750,000
Committee recommendation................................       4,000,000
    Rescission..........................................     -35,000,000

                          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 $4,000,000 for 
the administrative expenses necessary to carry out the title XI 
loan guarantee program. This level of funding is $250,000 more 
than the President's budget request and $4,982,000 less than 
the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. The Committee does not 
support the administration's proposal to rescind $54,100,000 
from the title XI program. The Committee instead recommends a 
rescission of $35,000,000 as a one-time action to align program 
resources with anticipated demand in fiscal year 2012. This 
would leave $27,000,000 in offsetting subsidies for fiscal year 
2012 capable of supporting a loan volume of up to $500,000,000. 
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. Furthermore, to improve the 
processing and coordination of title XI applications, the MARAD 
Administrator shall establish the capacity to manage the 
contracting of external, independent reviews of title XI 
applications during fiscal year 2012.

           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.
    Section 171. The Committee finds that the Administration 
has not properly handled Jones Act waivers for the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve drawdown by failing to consider U.S.-flag 
vessels with collective capacity to meet drawdown requirements. 
As of August 16, 2011, MARAD had identified approximately 30 
U.S.-flag vessels with more than 4 million barrels of capacity 
available to carry SPR cargoes, yet only one U.S.-flag vessel 
has been utilized in the drawdown. To ensure that all 
reasonable efforts are made to utilize U.S.-flag vessels, the 
Committee directs MARAD to (i) consider as suitable a vessel or 
vessels with single or collective capacity and (ii) identify in 
writing to CBP all U.S.-flag vessels capable of providing 
transportation of oil from the SPR that have responded to its 
requests for availability.

         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)

Appropriations, 2011....................................     $21,454,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................      22,158,000
Committee recommendation................................      22,158,000

                          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 $22,158,000 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 $704,000 
more than the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. The committee 
approves an additional three positions to accommodate the need 
for more accountability and control in the Office of 
Administration's Human Resources program. The cost associated 
with these positions is offset by saving $287,000 in 
contractual services.

                       HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY

Appropriations, 2011....................................     $39,020,000
Budget estimate, 2012\1\................................      50,089,000
Committee recommendation................................      41,520,000

\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 $41,520,000 
for hazardous materials safety, of which $1,716,000 shall 
remain available until September 30, 2014. Of the total amount 
provided, up to $2,500,000 collected from special permit and 
approval fees shall remain available until expended. The amount 
provided is $8,569,000 less than the budget request and 
$2,500,000 more than the fiscal year 2011 enacted level.
    Special Permits and Approvals.--In 2010, the OIG conducted 
an investigation into PHMSA's special permit and approvals 
program. The OIG found such egregious mismanagement affecting 
the safe transportation of hazardous materials that it was 
compelled to issue two special management advisories so that 
immediate action could be taken prior to issuance of a final 
report. As a result of these investigations, PHMSA developed 
action, data management, and information technology [IT] 
modernization plans to address the OIG findings. The OIG agrees 
that the agency is making significant progress in addressing 
many of its recommendations; however, insufficient resources 
will limit the agency's ability to resolve pending 
recommendations and manage its responsibilities in accordance 
with statutory and regulatory obligations.
    In the fiscal year 2012 budget proposal, 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 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)

Appropriations, 2011....................................    $106,705,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................     119,864,000
Committee recommendation................................     118,364,000

                          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 $118,364,000 
for the Office of Pipeline Safety. The amount is $11,659,000 
more than the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and equal to the 
budget request. Of the funding provided, $21,510,000 shall be 
derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, $93,854,000 
shall be derived from the Pipeline Safety Funds, and $3,000,000 
shall be derived from Design Review Fees.
    The Pipeline Safety Office has the important responsibility 
of ensuring the safety and integrity of the pipelines that run 
through every community in our Nation. Following the passage of 
the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002, the Office of 
Pipeline Safety has taken important steps to improve the 
integrity of pipelines in order to protect our communities from 
pipeline incidents. Efforts by Congress and the OPS to push for 
further advancements in safety technologies, increase civil 
penalties, and educate communities about the dangers of 
pipelines have resulted in a reduction in serious pipeline 
incidents. However, it is critical that the agency continue to 
make strides in protecting communities from pipeline failures 
and incidents.
    Technical Assistance Grants.--In fiscal year 2009, the 
Committee provided funding for the first time for pipeline 
safety information grants to communities, or technical 
assistance grants [TAG]. Communities are able to obtain 
technical assistance through these grants in the form of 
engineering or other scientific analysis of pipeline safety 
issues. The funding will also help promote public participation 
in official proceedings. The Committee strongly believes that 
providing communities with resources to obtain expertise and 
assistance will help them protect their communities from future 
pipeline incidents.

                     EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS GRANTS

                     (EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUND)

Appropriations, 2011....................................     $28,318,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................      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 establishes a cost recovery for design reviews 
as requested in the President's budget. However, the Committee 
directs PHMSA to implement the fee within the parameters of 
section 18 of S. 275, The Pipeline Transportation Safety 
Improvement Act of 2011 as reported by the Senate Committee on 
Commerce, Science and Transportation on July 7, 2011.

           Research and Innovative Technology Administration


                        RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2011....................................     $12,981,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................      17,600,000
Committee recommendation................................      15,981,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $15,981,000 
for Research and Innovative Technology Administration for 
fiscal year 2012. The amount provided is $1,619,000 less than 
the budget estimate and $3,000,000 more than the fiscal year 
2011 level.
    The following table summarizes the Committee's 
recommendation in comparison to the fiscal year 2011 enacted 
level and the budget estimate:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fiscal year--
                                                              ----------------------------------    Committee
                                                                 2011 enacted    2012 estimate    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salaries and administrative expenses.........................       $6,957,000       $7,600,000       $6,974,000
Alternative fuels research and development...................          499,000          500,000          499,000
RD&T coordination............................................          535,000          900,000          509,000
Nationwide differential global positioning system............        4,591,000        7,600,000        7,600,000
Positioning, navigation and timing...........................          399,000        1,000,000          399,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total..................................................       12,981,000       17,600,000       15,981,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    National Differential Global Positioning System.--The 
Committee recommendation includes an increase of $3,000,000 
requested by the administration for the recapitalization of the 
Nationwide Differential Global Positioning System [NDGPS].
    The Committee recognizes that both RITA and the Coast Guard 
consider timely NDGPS recapitalization to be essential for 
preserving the system and maintaining service availability in 
the most cost-effective manner. The existing in-land NDGPS 
suffers from aging components, many of which now exceed their 
serviceable lifespan. Because of the system's age, hardware is 
obsolete, and replacement parts are increasingly expensive and 
difficult to obtain. Many in-land receivers are being serviced 
with parts salvaged during the Coast Guard's 2009 
recapitalization of the Maritime DGPS system, or through costly 
special orders. Moreover, according to estimates provided by 
RITA, future O&M costs are expected to increase between 15 and 
20 percent annually should recapitalization of the existing 
system be delayed.

                  Bureau of Transportation Statistics


                      (LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

Limitation on obligations, 2011.........................     $27,000,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................      35,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      32,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    Under the appropriation of the Federal Highway 
Administration, the bill provides $27,000,000 for BTS. This 
funding is consistent with the authorization for BTS under 
SAFETEA-LU as discussed earlier in this report. In addition, 
the bill provides $5,000,000 to BTS from the Federal Highway 
Administration's research program for a total program level of 
$32,000,000. This total funding level is $3,000,000 less than 
budget estimate, which is based on the administration's 
legislative proposal for a long-term authorization of the 
surface transportation programs. The total funding level is 
also $5,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2011 enacted level.
    The Committee includes the additional $5,000,000 for 
several efforts to improve transportation data. Of this total, 
the Committee provides $2,500,000 to establish the Safety Data 
and Analysis Program, which will provide access to safety data 
across a wide array of transportation modes, fill gaps in the 
Department's collection of safety-related data, and identify 
areas of risk in the transportation system; $1,700,000 to make 
improvements to the Commodity Flow Survey so that the 
Department can continue to provide comprehensive data on 
commodity movements; and $800,000 to develop an automated 
system for obtaining data on international cargo movement.

                      Office of Inspector General


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2011....................................     $74,964,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................      89,185,000
Committee recommendation................................      82,409,000

                          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 $82,409,000 for 
activities of the Office of the Inspector General, which is 
$6,776,000 less than the President's budget request and 
$7,445,000 more than the fiscal year 2011 enacted level.
    Transfers and Reimbursements from Other Agencies.--For the 
past several years, the FAA, FHWA, FTA, and NTSB have provided 
funds to the OIG to cover the cost of audits and investigations 
of their programs and financial statements. These agencies have 
either transferred funds directly to the OIG or provided the 
funding on a reimbursable basis. This year, however, the 
Committee recommendation provides this funding directly to the 
OIG, as requested by the administration. The recommended 
funding level for the OIG therefore includes an additional 
$6,434,000 that in previous years would have been included in 
the budgets of other agencies.
    Providing direct appropriations to the OIG will give 
greater transparency to the OIG budget, provide the funding in 
a more efficient manner, and simplify the relationship between 
the OIG and the agencies it oversees.
    Protecting the Current Workforce.--The Committee values the 
high-quality work produced by the OIG. This work is made 
possible because the OIG maintains a highly skilled workforce 
that is able to address a wide variety of technical issues. For 
several years leading up to fiscal year 2011, the Committee 
invested significant resources in the OIG workforce, and the 
Committee is disappointed to see that the full-year continuing 
resolution has forced the OIG to attrit a large portion of its 
staff.
    The Committee appreciates the administration's request for 
$5,389,000 to support a dramatic increase to the OIG workforce 
and additional contractor support. Unfortunately, the Committee 
cannot provide this additional funding because it may be 
impossible to sustain such a large increase in staff as fiscal 
constraints increase in future years. The Committee, however, 
has included adjustments to the OIG funding level to cover the 
cost of inflation and increased rental payments in order to 
prevent these costs from further eroding the OIG workforce 
during the coming year.
    IT Modernization.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$500,000 for the OIG to complete the modernization of its 
information technology. This modernization effort includes 
improvements that will allow the OIG to more effectively track 
and report on its audit recommendations. The Committee notes 
that monitoring these recommendations over an extended period 
of time will greatly improve the ability of the OIG and this 
Committee to oversee the Department and its 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, 2011..................      $29,010,000       $1,250,000
Budget estimate, 2012.................       31,250,000        1,250,000
Committee recommendation..............       29,310,000        1,250,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Surface Transportation Board [STB] was created on 
January 1, 1996, by the Interstate Commerce Commission 
Termination Act of 1995 [ICCTA] (Public Law 104-88). The Board 
is a three-member, bipartisan, decisionally independent 
adjudicatory body organizationally housed within DOT, and is 
responsible for the regulation of the rail and pipeline 
industries and certain non-licensing regulation of motor 
carriers and water carriers.
    STB's rail oversight activities 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 
$29,310,000. This funding level is $1,940,000 less than the 
President's request $300,000 more than fiscal year 2011 enacted 
level. Included in the recommendation is $1,250,000 in fees, 
which will offset the appropriated funding, and $300,000 for 
the moderate Uniform Rail Costing System modernization 
initiative.

            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 are 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 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

Appropriations, 2011.................................... $40,873,976,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................  43,451,592,000
Committee recommendation................................  39,532,368,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends for fiscal year 2012 an 
appropriation of $39,532,368,000 for the Department of Housing 
and Urban Development. This is $1,341,236,000 less than the 
fiscal year 2011 enacted level and $3,918,852,000 less than the 
budget request.
    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.

                          Executive Direction

Appropriations, 2011....................................     $26,801,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................      30,408,000
Committee recommendation................................................

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee is altering the ``Management and 
Administration'' accounts of the Department. As such, positions 
previously funded under this heading are funded under the 
``Administration, Operations and Management'' heading or under 
one of the accounts under the ``Program Office Salaries and 
Expenses'' heading.

               Administration, Operations, and Management

Appropriations, 2011.................................... \1\$523,990,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................  \2\530,117,000
Committee recommendation................................     549,499,000

\1\Does not include $57,435,146 previously provided under the headings 
``Executive Direction'' and ``Working Capital Fund'' and includes 
$28,436,150 in non-personnel expenses now funded in one of the accounts 
under the heading ``Program Offices Salaries and Expenses''.
\2\Does not include $64,926,000 requested under the headings ``Executive 
Direction'' and ``Working Capital Fund'' and includes $28,070,000 
requested under this heading for non-personnel, which the Committee has 
recommended be funded in one of the accounts under the heading ``Program 
Offices Salaries and Expenses''.

    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 and Deputy Secretary, 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 Departmental Operations 
and Coordination, the Office of Sustainable Housing and 
Communities, the Office of Strategic Planning and Management, 
the Office of the Chief Disaster and Emergency Management 
Officer, the Chief Operating Officer, the Office of the Chief 
Human Capital Officer and the Office of the Chief Information 
Officer, and the Center for Faith-Based and Community 
Initiatives.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $549,499,000 
for this account, which is $19,382,000 more than the budget 
request and $25,509,080 more than the fiscal year 2011 enacted 
level. The Committee recommendation includes funding for 
activities previously supported with amounts provided under the 
headings ``Executive Direction'' and ``Working Capital Fund'', 
and excludes non-personnel funding for program offices that has 
been moved to various accounts under the heading ``Program 
Offices Salaries and Expenses''. Therefore, when making a 
comparison that adjusts for these changes, the Committee 
recommendation for ``Administration, Operations and 
Management'' is $3,489,917 below the amount provided for the 
same activities in fiscal year 2011, and $20,268,000 below the 
President's 2012 request.
    Funds are made available as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immediate Office of the Secretary and Deputy                  $4,610,000
 Secretary\1\...........................................
Office of Hearings and Appeals\1\.......................       1,700,000
Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business                       741,000
 Utilization\1\.........................................
Office of the Chief Financial Officer\2\................      47,984,000
Office of the General Counsel\2\........................      94,380,000
Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental                  2,695,000
 Relations\1\...........................................
Office of Public Affairs\1\.............................       3,988,000
Office of the Chief Operating Officer\3\................         546,000
Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer...............     256,744,000
Office of Departmental Operations and Coordination......      10,476,000
Office of Field Policy and Management...................      47,543,000
Office of the Chief Procurement Officer.................      14,654,000
Office of Departmental Equal Employment Opportunity.....       3,708,000
Center for Faith-based and Community Initiatives........       1,448,000
Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities...........       2,627,000
Office of Strategic Planning and Management.............       5,605,000
Office of the Chief Disaster and Emergency Management          7,415,000
 Officer................................................
Office of the Chief Information Officer\4\..............      42,635,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Previously funded under the heading ``Executive Direction''.
\2\Includes funding previously provided under the heading ``Executive
  Direction'' for the immediate office of senior management.
\3\Previously called the Office of the Assistant Secretary for
  Administration.
\4\Previously funded under the heading ``Working Capital Fund''.

    For many years, the Committee appropriated funding for the 
salaries and expenses of the entire Department in one account. 
This provided little transparency, and made it difficult for 
Congress to determine if funding was being used to meet the 
most pressing needs facing the Department and the country. In 
fiscal year 2008, the Committee created a new salaries and 
expenses structure to increase transparency of the Department's 
spending and improve Congressional oversight.
    It was a challenge for HUD to adapt to the new structure. 
As intended, it required HUD to increase its focus on the 
management and performance of each office. It also enabled 
Congress to hold the Department, as well as individual offices, 
accountable for its performance. The Committee continues to 
believe that the increased transparency and oversight afforded 
through a salaries and expenses structure serves the 
Department's and the taxpayers' interest.
    While HUD still faces challenges, the Committee recognizes 
that it has improved its resource management. In recent years, 
HUD management has increased the fiscal discipline in program 
offices throughout the Department. As part of the on-going 
effort to improve operations, the Chief Operating Officer 
instituted quarterly reporting and meetings with each office to 
evaluate their performance. This has improved HUD's ability to 
understand challenges and prioritize funding.
    As a result of its increased oversight, HUD has identified 
aspects of the existing structure that impede effective 
management. For example, if an office needs to improve the 
capacity of its workforce, it cannot currently spend personnel 
funding on training since non-personnel expenses are budgeted 
separately. The Committee agrees that some elements of the 
structure limit HUD's ability to effectively manage resources. 
In the current fiscal environment, it is critical that the 
Department have the tools necessary to increase efficiency and 
performance. To make that possible, while maintaining 
transparency and accountability, the Committee is recommending 
modifications to the salaries and expenses structure. The 
Committee hopes that these changes will allow HUD to achieve 
better outcomes for its programs and taxpayers.
    Explanation of Changes in Structure.--As the Committee 
considered the structural changes, it looked to the management 
structure of the Department of Transportation and other 
Departments. The Committee has eliminated the ``Executive 
Direction'' account, and instead includes the Immediate Office 
of the Secretary and Deputy Secretary, Office of Hearings and 
Appeals, Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business 
Utilization, Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental 
Relations, and Office of Public Affairs within the 
``Administration, Operations and Management'' account. In 
addition, there is no longer a separation between senior 
management of an office and the rest of its staff. For example, 
the funding for the Immediate Office of Chief Financial Officer 
[CFO] is now included within the budget for the Office of the 
CFO. The Committee has found budgeting for these offices 
separately provided minimal value, and they were often 
difficult to manage given their size.
    The account now also includes the Office of the Chief 
Operating Officer, which replaces the Office of the Assistant 
Secretary for Administration. The revised structure includes 
the Office of the Chief Disaster and Emergency Management 
Office. This addition does not include new FTEs, rather it 
moves current staff to better align staff responsibilities and 
management. The recommendation also includes a transfer of 
staff from Field Policy and Management to the U.S. Interagency 
Council on Homelessness [ICH]. Currently, HUD staff are 
detailed to ICH.
    The Committee has also placed the Office of the Chief 
Information Officer [OCIO] within the ``Administration, 
Operations and Management'' account. In prior years, OCIO was 
funded within the Department's ``Working Capital Fund'' 
account. This provided a limited view of both the personnel for 
the office and the amount of funding directly related to 
technology. In light of the major information technology 
changes occurring at HUD, the Committee has become increasingly 
focused on the capacity of the OCIO. The Committee believes 
that by separately funding the OCIO, it will be able to better 
monitor the OCIO's workforce needs and performance.
    Finally, the budget no longer includes a line item for the 
non-personnel expenses of the Department. Instead, funding for 
these expenses is provided directly to each office. This 
provides greater transparency into the true cost of each 
office, and also provides additional flexibility for managers 
to allocate funding between personnel and expenses. The 
Committee notes that as a result of this merging of budget 
categories, it appears that the Office of the Chief Human 
Capital Officer has increased significantly; this is not the 
case, but instead reflects that significant departmental 
expenses such as rent are funded out of this office.
    Budget Documents.--The Committee has been careful to ensure 
that these modifications still provide Congress with the 
transparency necessary to hold HUD accountable for its 
performance. Therefore, the Committee directs the Department to 
include more detailed information on its salaries and expenses 
costs in the fiscal year 2013 congressional justification. This 
information is critical to ensuring that Congress has the 
necessary information to make decisions about how funding is 
allocated. Therefore the justification for the salaries and 
expenses requests across the Department should include an 
explanation of proposed changes in full-time equivalent [FTE] 
personnel, as well as the program areas for which any increase 
or decrease in FTEs being sought. All information should be 
presented by office in a format consistent with the structure 
in the bill. The Committee expects the documents to include 
detailed information on non-personnel related expenses, 
including travel by program office, and that any significant 
deviations from prior budgets will be fully explained and 
justified.
    Travel.--The Committee has revised the structure to provide 
greater flexibility between personnel and non-personnel 
expenses. However, the Committee wants to ensure that this 
additional flexibility does not lead to increased travel and 
conference participation. The Committee directs that travel for 
all offices funded under the heading management and 
administration shall not exceed $18,000,000, a decrease of 
$1,500,000 below the fiscal year 2011 amount.
    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 
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, 2011.................................... \1\$188,695,852
Budget estimate, 2012...................................  \2\189,610,000
Committee recommendation................................     201,233,000

\1\Does not include $2,210,750 provided for the Immediate Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing under the heading 
``Executive Direction'' and $12,797,000 for nonpersonnel expenses funded 
under the heading ``Administration, Operations and Management''.
\2\Does not include $1,936,000 requested for the Immediate Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing under the heading 
``Executive Direction'' and $9,687,000 for nonpersonnel expenses 
requested under the heading ``Administration, Operations and 
Management''.

    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 $201,233,000 
for this account, which is $11,623,000 more than the budget 
request and $12,537,148 more than the fiscal year 2011 enacted 
level. The Committee recommendation includes funding for the 
Immediate Office of the Assistant Secretary for PIH, which was 
funded in fiscal year 2011 and requested for fiscal year 2012 
under the heading ``Executive Direction''. It also includes 
funding for nonpersonnel expenses previously provided and 
requested for fiscal year 2012 under the heading 
``Administration, Operations and Management''. When making a 
comparison that adjusts for these changes, the Committee 
recommendation is $2,380,602 below the amount provided for the 
same activities in fiscal year 2011, and equal to the 
President's 2012 request.
    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.
    Given the task that HUD, and PIH in particular, has in 
overseeing this significant Federal investment in affordable 
housing, it is critical that PIH staff have the ability to 
identify and mitigate risks in its programs. The Committee is 
concerned by recent reports of misuse of funds by PHAs. While 
these PHAs represent a small fraction of the thousands of PHAs 
across the country, they raise questions about the adequacy of 
HUD's oversight.
    The Committee notes that HUD has taken steps to improve its 
oversight capacity. This includes putting greater focus on 
financial management practices of PHAs, updating the skills of 
its workforce to better align them with the current practices 
of PHAs, and deploying a new strategy for addressing troubled 
housing agencies. This additional focus is warranted, and the 
Committee encourages HUD to work with the HUD Office of 
Inspector General to identify additional ways to mitigate risk 
in its programs.
    The Committee is focused on the steps HUD is taking to 
increase its capacity to hold PHAs accountable. As such, the 
Committee requests detailed information on these efforts to 
understand the strategies being used to guide implementation. 
The Committee expects that the strategies HUD is using are 
based on an assessment of systemic weaknesses in its oversight, 
as well as an evaluation of areas of the country that seem to 
have greater challenges. The Committee directs HUD to provide 
the Committees on Appropriations with a report within 180 days 
of enactment of this act describing this risk assessment and 
the specific steps being taken to mitigate those identified. 
The report should include a timeline for implementing any 
reforms, efforts to incorporate HUD field staff, and measures 
to assess performance. The report should also include 
information on the strategies to address troubled PHAs, as well 
as steps that HUD will take to hold PHAs accountable for 
mismanagement.

                   COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2011....................................  \1\$96,795,022
Budget estimate, 2012...................................   \2\99,815,000
Committee recommendation................................     101,076,000

\1\Does not include $1,777,438 provided for the Immediate Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development under the 
heading ``Executive Direction'' and $3,105,000 for nonpersonnel expenses 
funded under the heading ``Administration, Operations and Management''.
\2\Does not include $2,026,000 requested for the Immediate Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development under the 
heading ``Executive Direction'' and $2,891,000 for nonpersonnel expenses 
requested under the heading ``Administration, Operations and 
Management''.

    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 $101,076,000 
for the staffing within this office, which is $1,261,000 more 
than the budget request and $4,280,978 more than the fiscal 
year 2011 enacted level. The Committee recommendation includes 
funding for the Immediate Office of the Assistant Secretary for 
Community Planning and Development, which was funded in fiscal 
year 2011 and requested for fiscal year 2012 under the heading 
``Executive Direction''. It also includes funding for 
nonpersonnel expenses previously provided and requested for 
fiscal year 2012 under the heading ``Administration, Operations 
and Management''. Therefore, when making a comparison that 
adjusts for these changes, the Committee recommendation is 
$602,460 below the amount provided for the same activities in 
fiscal year 2011, and $3,657,000 below the President's 2012 
request. This office is being reduced by five FTE to reflect a 
transfer of staff to the U.S. Interagency Council on 
Homelessness [ICH]. These staff had previously been detailed to 
ICH.
    The Committee notes the concerns that have been raised in 
recent months about the oversight of the HOME Investment 
Partnership Program. In providing new funding for this program, 
the Committee has included additional requirements to mitigate 
identified program risks. In order to ensure that these funds 
are used appropriately and grantees are held accountable, HUD 
must provide adequate training to its staff on both new and 
existing requirements. The Committee also wants to ensure that 
staff are utilizing the information that grantees are providing 
through its systems to identify risks. Finally, HUD must work 
to ensure that the staff responsible for monitoring grantees 
are focused not simply on the obligation and expenditure of 
funds, but on assessing the outcomes of HOME investments.

                                HOUSING

Appropriations, 2011.................................... \1\$381,123,226
Budget estimate, 2012...................................  \2\397,660,000
Committee recommendation................................     392,796,000

\1\Does not include $3,490,006 provided for the Immediate Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Housing, Federal Housing Commissioner under the 
heading ``Executive Direction'' and $8,183,000 in nonpersonnel expenses 
provided under the heading ``Administration, Operations and 
Management''.
\2\Does not include $3,500,000 requested for the Immediate Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Housing, Federal Housing Commissioner under the 
heading ``Executive Direction'' and $9,092,000 requested for 
nonpersonnel expenses under the heading ``Administration, Operations and 
Management''.

    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 $392,796,000 
for staffing in the Office of Housing, which is $4,864,000 less 
than the budget request and $11,672,774 more than the fiscal 
year 2011 enacted level. The Committee recommendation includes 
funding for the Immediate Office of the Assistant Secretary for 
Housing, Federal Housing Commission, which was funded in fiscal 
year 2011 and requested for fiscal year 2012 under the heading 
``Executive Direction''. It also includes funding for 
nonpersonnel expenses previously provided and requested for 
fiscal year 2012 under the heading ``Administration, Operations 
and Management''. Therefore, when making a comparison that 
adjusts for these changes, the Committee recommendation is $232 
below the amount provided for the same activities in fiscal 
year 2011, and $17,456,000 below the President's 2012 request.
    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. To highlight the importance of this 
work, the Committee has set-aside at least $8,200,000 for the 
Office of Risk Management and Regulatory Affairs.
    The Committee has supported HUD's efforts to bolster FHA 
staff, and has worked to provide sufficient resources for HUD 
to fulfill the staffing plan required by the Committee. The 
Committee is concerned that the pressure to reduce Federal 
spending will affect FHA's ability to monitor its portfolio. 
Given the budget constraints, it is critical that the Office of 
Housing evaluate the allocation of current staff across all of 
its programs. In particular, the Committee notes that the 
reductions in the size of programs within the Office of 
Housing, such as the Housing Counseling, may provide an 
opportunity to reallocate staff to areas of greater risk and 
need. The Committee directs HUD to provide quarterly updates to 
the Committees on Appropriations on its staffing, including any 
FTE reallocations.

         OFFICE OF THE GOVERNMENT NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION

Appropriations, 2011....................................     $11,073,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................................
Committee recommendation................................................

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee is not recommending an appropriation for the 
staff of the Office of the Government National Mortgage 
Association. Instead, the Committee recommends funding the 
salaries and expenses of Ginnie Mae employees out of fees it 
collects, consistent with the President's budget request for 
fiscal year 2012. While the funding structure for Ginnie Mae is 
changing, the Committee will continue to maintain oversight of 
Ginnie Mae salaries and expenses through the annual 
appropriations process.

                    POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH

Appropriations, 2011....................................  \1\$19,099,724
Budget estimate, 2012...................................   \2\21,390,000
Committee recommendation................................      23,016,000

\1\Does not include $1,094,806 provided for the Immediate Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research under the 
heading ``Executive Direction'' and $2,821,000 provided for nonpersonnel 
expenses provided under the heading ``Administration, Operations and 
Management''.
\2\Does not include $1,154,000 requested for the Immediate Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research under the 
heading ``Executive Direction'' and $2,685,000 requested for 
nonpersonnel expenses requested under the heading ``Administration, 
Operations and Management''.

    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 $23,016,000 
for this account, which is $1,626,000 more than the budget 
request and $3,916,276 more than the fiscal year 2011 enacted 
level. The Committee recommendation includes funding for the 
Immediate Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy 
Development and Research, which was funded in fiscal year 2011 
and requested for fiscal year 2012 under the heading 
``Executive Direction''. It also includes funding for 
nonpersonnel expenses previously provided and requested for 
fiscal year 2012 under the heading ``Administration, Operations 
and Management''. Therefore, when making a comparison that 
adjusts for these changes, the Committee recommendation is $470 
below the amount provided for the same activities in fiscal 
year 2011, and $2,213,000 below the President's 2012 request.
    The Committee expects that as fewer 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, 2011....................................  \1\$71,656,400
Budget estimate, 2012...................................   \2\70,733,000
Committee recommendation................................      74,766,000

\1\Does not include $926,144 provided for the Immediate Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity under the 
heading ``Executive Direction'' and $3,281,000 provided for nonpersonnel 
expenses provided under the heading ``Administration, Operations and 
Management''.
\2\Does not include $852,000 requested for the Immediate Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity under the 
heading ``Executive Direction'' and $3,350,000 requested for 
nonpersonnel expenses requested under the heading ``Administration, 
Operations and Management''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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 $74,766,000, 
which is $4,033,000 more than the budget request and $3,109,600 
more than the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. The Committee 
recommendation includes funding for the Immediate Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, 
which was funded in fiscal year 2011 and requested for fiscal 
year 2012 under the heading ``Executive Direction''. It also 
includes funding for nonpersonnel expenses previously provided 
and requested for fiscal year 2012 under the heading 
``Administration, Operations and Management''. Therefore, when 
making a comparison that adjusts for these changes, the 
Committee recommendation is $928,544 below the amount provided 
for the same activities in fiscal year 2011 and equal to the 
President's 2012 request.

            OFFICE OF HEALTHY HOMES AND LEAD HAZARD CONTROL

Appropriations, 2011....................................   \1\$7,136,698
Budget estimate, 2012...................................    \2\7,167,000
Committee recommendation................................       7,502,000

\1\This amount does not include $365,000 provided for nonpersonnel 
expenses funded under the heading ``Administration, Operations and 
Management''.
\2\This amount does not include $365,000 requested for nonpersonnel 
expenses requested under the heading ``Administration, Operations and 
Management''.

    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 $7,502,000 for 
this account, which is $335,000 more than the budget request 
and $365,302 more than the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. The 
Committee recommendation includes funding for nonpersonnel 
expenses previously provided and requested for fiscal year 2012 
under the heading ``Administration, Operations and 
Management''. Therefore, when making a comparison that adjusts 
for these changes, the Committee recommendation is $312 below 
the amount provided for the same activities in fiscal year 
2011, and $30,000 below the President's 2012 request.

                    RENTAL ASSISTANCE DEMONSTRATION

Appropriations, 2011....................................................
Budget estimate, 2012...................................    $200,000,000
Committee recommendation................................................

                          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 has not included $200,000,000 as requested by 
the administration for Transforming Rental Assistance. In the 
current budget environment, maintaining adequate funding for 
existing programs is a greater priority, and the Committee 
cannot divert the significant resources requested from core 
programs to fund this new initiative. However, the Committee 
sees value in the administration's efforts to look for new ways 
to recapitalize public housing. Therefore, the Committee has 
included authority for HUD to conduct a Rental Assistance 
Demonstration [RAD], which will allow the Secretary to use 
existing resources to test conversion as an approach to 
recapitalizing public housing.
    Public housing provides over 1.1 million low-income 
Americans with a safe and affordable place to live. Thousands 
of public housing agencies [PHAs] across the country work to 
manage and preserve this valuable asset. This task has become 
increasingly difficult as the portfolio continues to age, and 
Federal resources are unable to keep up with need. According to 
the Capital Needs in Public Housing Program report released by 
HUD in November 2010, the capital needs backlog in public 
housing is $25,600,000,000. The Committee is concerned that 
without an infusion of new resources to bring public housing 
stock into a state of good repair, irreplaceable affordable 
housing will be permanently lost. Given the constraints on the 
Federal budget, leveraging non-Federal sources of funding is 
increasingly important to meeting this need.
    Under the proposed demonstration, PHAs can voluntarily 
convert public housing units to section 8 project-based 
vouchers or contracts. Currently, PHAs have a limited ability 
to leverage other resources, such as low-income tax credits or 
private financing, under the public housing model. PHAs that 
volunteer to participate in this demonstration will not receive 
additional subsidies, but will instead convert their existing 
subsidy into a more flexible one. Specifically, the language 
gives the Secretary the authority to move the funding provided 
to participating PHAs under the ``Public Housing Capital Fund'' 
and ``Public Housing Operating Fund'' into either the ``Section 
8 Tenant-based Rental Assistance'' or ``Project-based Rental 
Assistance'' accounts. The result of these transfers will be 
cost neutral, since any increase to the rental assistance 
programs will be offset by reductions to the public housing 
programs. Importantly, increases and decreases will be directly 
related to the units of housing that are part of the 
demonstration. As a result, the changes should not adversely 
impact PHAs that continue to rely on the public housing 
programs.
    When the administration first proposed this type of 
initiative in fiscal year 2011, it was met with questions and 
concerns. PHAs were concerned that this initiative would 
further undermine their efforts to preserve public housing, and 
the Committee was concerned about the long-term costs 
associated with the proposal. Since that time, the 
administration has developed better data and refined its 
proposal to address many of these concerns. Despite these 
improvements, questions remain that the Committee believes can 
only be answered by testing this concept.
    The Committee sees RAD as an opportunity to understand how 
this model would work in practice, and has crafted a 
demonstration that is limited in scope, but can answer some of 
the critical questions related to the proposal. In particular, 
the Committee asks HUD to test if section 8 vouchers or 
contracts create new opportunities for PHAs to leverage 
resources to recapitalize their portfolios. It will also 
require HUD to establish criteria designed to test the 
effectiveness of this model in different geographic areas and 
housing markets, but only to the extent that PHAs representing 
different areas and markets apply to participate in the 
demonstration. The language also requests that HUD aim to 
include PHAs of varying sizes.
    The Committee has also worked to ensure that the 
demonstration does not adversely impact tenants, and stipulates 
that all residents living in converted properties will maintain 
their existing rights. In addition, the Committee supports the 
objective of offering public housing choice mobility as an 
important component of this demonstration in a manner that 
serves residents and provides flexibility for PHAs to work with 
HUD, to determine how to meet this objective. The Committee has 
included language to establish procedures that will ensure that 
public housing remains a public asset in the that event that 
the project experiences problems, such as default or 
foreclosure.
    Finally, the Committee requires that HUD conduct an 
evaluation of this demonstration. Until HUD and Congress have a 
better sense of the benefits and costs of this model, it cannot 
develop or implement an effective strategy for public housing 
preservation.

                       Public and Indian Housing


                     TENANT-BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2011..................................\1\$18,362,873,000
Budget estimate, 2012..................................\2\19,222,569,000
Committee recommendation...............................\2\18,872,357,000

\1\Includes an advance appropriation of $3,992,000,000.
\2\Includes an advance appropriation of $4,000,000,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This account provides funding for the section 8 tenant-
based (voucher) program. Section 8 tenant-based housing 
assistance is one of the principle appropriations for Federal 
housing assistance and provides rental housing assistance to 
approximately 2 million families. The program also funds 
incremental vouchers to assist nonelderly disabled families and 
vouchers for tenants who live in projects where the owner of 
the project has decided to leave the section 8 program. The 
program also provides for the replacement of units lost from 
the assisted housing inventory 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 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 
$18,872,357,000 for fiscal year 2012; including $4,000,000,000 
as an advance appropriation to be made available on October 1, 
2012. This amount is $350,212,000 less than the budget request 
and $509,484,000 more than the fiscal year 2011 enacted level.
    The Committee recommends $17,143,905,000 for the renewal 
costs of section 8 vouchers, which is equal to the budget 
request and $474,622,000 more than the fiscal year 2011 enacted 
level. The Committee is continuing to review estimates of 
renewal need in order to protect current voucher holders.
    The section 8 rental assistance program is a critical tool 
that enables over 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 so that no current 
voucher holders are put at risk of losing their housing. As 
part of its recommendation, the Committee is reducing the 
amount of new budget authority available, and instead requiring 
public housing agencies [PHAs] to use available reserves to 
meet program costs. HUD is directed to evaluate the level of 
reserves or net restricted assets [NRA] that PHAs have 
available when determining allocations of new resources. The 
Committee expects that as HUD makes these determinations, it 
will ensure that PHAs have sufficient NRA to address any 
unexpected costs that may arise during 2012.
    The costs in the section 8 program are dictated in large 
part by market conditions and demands of the private market, as 
well as the behavior of the individuals in the program. 
Unfortunately, HUD has little control over these factors. 
However, given the budget reductions expected in future years, 
HUD must work to find ways to better control program costs, 
while protecting vulnerable tenants. 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.
    The Committee is pleased that HUD has begun to assess 
opportunities to pare costs, and has requested language to make 
program changes that should reduce expenses. The Committee has 
included this language, as requested, within the HUD 
administrative provisions. These provisions include increasing 
the medical expense allowance that is used to calculate rental 
contributions. Taken together these provisions should provide 
program savings in both this and future years.
    Formula Adjustment.--In 2007, the Committee modified the 
formula for allocating resources among PHAs. This modified 
formula based allocations primarily on resource utilization 
during the course of the most recent Federal fiscal year while 
accounting for inflation. Since that time, the formula has 
remained fairly constant in order to provide consistency and 
stability to PHAs managing voucher programs. This year, the 
Committee is recommending a modification that would change the 
period of re-benchmarking for the formula allocation from the 
Federal fiscal year to the calendar year. This would align the 
period on which funding is based with how PHAs manage their 
programs.
    The Committee used the Federal fiscal year so that the time 
it takes for HUD to verify PHA data would not delay program 
allocations as PHAs begin their programs. However, this 
misalignment created other challenges to managing the program. 
Now that HUD is receiving more timely data, this delay should 
be minimized.
    Set-asides for Special Circumstances.--The Committee has 
provided a set-aside of $103,000,000 to allow the Secretary to 
adjust allocations to PHAs under certain prescribed 
circumstances. Since the funds provided to PHAs through this 
set-aside result in increases in future costs, the Committee 
has reduced the amount requested by the administration's 
request of $135,000,000 by $32,000,000 in fiscal year 2012. The 
Committee believes that this level of funding will still allow 
HUD to assist PHAs that would otherwise be unable to meet the 
needs of program participants. The Committee expects this will 
provide the Secretary with a means of assisting PHAs facing 
unexpectedly high unemployment and loss of income. 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; (3) 
for adjustments or costs associated with HUD-VASH vouchers; and 
(4) to continue vouchers for disaster victims that currently 
receiving rental assistance through disaster recovery programs 
set to expire. 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 11,000 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. According to data released 
by HUD and the Department of Veterans Affairs [VA], over 75,000 
veterans were homeless on a single night in 2009, 43 percent of 
whom were living on the street. Given the limited number of 
HUD-VASH vouchers available, it is imperative that they are 
targeted to veterans most in need.
    Allocating vouchers to areas of greatest need is important 
to achieving the goals of ending veteran homelessness by 2015. 
In order to achieve this goal, vouchers are allocated based on 
the number of homeless veterans in an area. In conducting the 
analysis of need, the Committee directs HUD, in cooperation 
with the VA, to be mindful of the needs in rural areas. 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. 
However, the needs of these veterans must still be met. 
Therefore, the Committee encourages HUD, working with the VA, 
to explore ways to ensure that HUD-VASH can meet the needs of 
veterans in rural areas. For example, HUD could consider 
reducing the minimum allocation of vouchers a PHA could 
receive, which is often based on sufficient numbers to justify 
a case manager, by utilizing 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 therefore 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.
    The Committee notes that the HUD and the VA have been 
involved in a demonstration in Washington, DC, which has 
achieved improved leasing rates. These improvements have 
resulted from efforts by the DC Public Housing Authority to 
streamline many of its processes, including screening of 
clients and inspection of units. In addition, the city has 
demonstrated the importance of partnerships among PHAs, the VA, 
and local providers. The Committee expects HUD to share and 
encourage these best practices with other PHAs.
    Homelessness Demonstrations.--The administration's fiscal 
year 2012 budget request included $56,906,000 for approximately 
7,500 new vouchers as part of a demonstration to leverage 
funding for services from mainstream programs such as Temporary 
Assistance for Needy Families [TANF] and Substance Abuse and 
Mental Health Services Administration [SAMSA]. The 
demonstration was designed to assist homeless families as well 
as the chronically homeless. Given the budgetary constraints, 
the Committee is unable to provide funding for new vouchers for 
this purpose. However, the Committee is encouraged by the 
efforts of HUD, the Department of Health and Human Services, 
the Department of Education, and others to improve coordination 
as they considered the design of such a demonstration. To 
facilitate efforts to enhance coordination and leverage 
services from mainstream programs, the Committee has included 
$5,000,000 to support the goals of the demonstration. The 
Committee expects that funding will be awarded to PHAs 
interested in the demonstration as a way to offset the 
additional costs of coordinating with various partners and 
providing case management services. The Committee expects that 
this demonstration will provide important lesson for how PHAs 
can leverage other service dollars to meet the needs of 
tenants.
    Administrative Fees and Family Self-sufficiency 
Coordinators.--The Committee recommends $1,400,000,000 for 
administrative fees, which is $247,780,000 less than the budget 
request and $47,100,000 less than the fiscal year 2011 enacted 
level. However, the Committee has included several provisions 
that are expected to streamline requirements and reduce the 
administrative burden on PHAs.
    Mainstream Vouchers.--A total of $113,452,000 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. The Committee began the 
transition of program funding from the ``Housing for Persons 
with Disabilities'' account to the ``Tenant-based Rental 
Assistance'' account in fiscal year 2011. In the first 
transition year, the Committee realized a one-time savings 
since only partial funding was necessary for the contracts that 
expired at various points in the year. Now that all contracts 
are synced, the full yearly cost of funding existing mainstream 
vouchers is included under this heading. 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

                              (RESCISSION)

Appropriations, 2011....................................................
Budget estimate, 2012...................................................
Committee recommendation................................   -$200,000,000

                          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 bill includes a rescission of $200,000,000 from 
unobligated balances and recaptures from prior-year 
appropriations provided in the tenant-based rental assistance 
and the project-based rental assistance accounts or any other 
account within this title. This rescission is to be effected no 
later than September 30, 2012.

                      PUBLIC HOUSING CAPITAL FUND

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2011....................................  $2,040,112,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................   2,405,345,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,875,000,000

                          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 $1,875,000,000 
for the Public Housing Capital Fund, which is $530,345,000 less 
than the budget request and $165,112,000 less than the fiscal 
year 2011 enacted level.
    Of the amount made available under this section, 
$50,000,000 is for supportive services for residents of public 
housing and up to $5,000,000 is made available to pay the costs 
of administrative and judicial receiverships. The Committee 
recommends up to $10,000,000 to support the ongoing financial 
and physical assessment activities primarily at the Real Estate 
Assessment Center [REAC]. This amount is $5,345,000 below the 
budget request because of carryover available to cover these 
costs. 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 and expects the Department to fund eligible projects.
    The Public Housing Capital Fund supports the maintenance of 
critical affordable housing, which provides more than 1.1 
million low-income households with safe and stable 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. Congress recently received a report on the Capital 
Needs in the Public Housing Program. This study estimated the 
backlog of public housing capital improvements to be 
approximately $25,600,000,000 as of June 2008, although this 
number does not include the $4,000,000,000 provided through the 
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for capital 
improvements. While some progress was noted since the last 
study was conducted in 1998, the backlog remains significant. 
Given the budget constraints, the Committee has included other 
provisions in the bill outside of this account to help PHAs 
address their capital needs. This language includes the Rental 
Assistance Demonstration to try and leverage non-Federal 
sources of funding, and provisions to encourage flexibility in 
allowing PHAs to use operating fund reserves for capital needs.

                     PUBLIC HOUSING OPERATING FUND

Appropriations, 2011....................................  $4,616,748,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................   3,961,850,000
Committee recommendation................................   3,961,850,000

                          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 $3,961,850,000 
for the public housing operating fund, which is equal to the 
budget request and $654,898,000 less than the fiscal year 2011 
enacted level. Consistent with the administration's request, 
the bill includes language giving the Secretary authority to 
offset public housing authorities' [PHAs] allocations of 
operating funds in fiscal year 2012 based on excess reserves 
they have available to meet their operating needs. The 
Committee has limited the amount of reserves HUD may use as an 
offset to $750,000,000. The Committee has included this policy 
as a means of accommodating a difficult budget environment, and 
urges HUD to move cautiously to ensure that public housing 
authorities can continue to meet residents' needs.
    Since this policy was first proposed by the administration, 
concerns have been raised about how it will affect the ability 
of PHAs to meet the needs of their properties and tenants. In 
evaluating this proposal, the Committee placed a priority on 
protecting PHA residents, and has worked to mitigate any 
potential negative impacts. For example, the Committee has 
included language ensuring that no PHA will see its reserves 
reduced below $100,000, which is particularly important for 
small PHAs. In addition, the Committee wants to ensure that 
PHAs have an adequate opportunity to appeal the offset HUD 
proposes. The appeals process is critical since a PHA may have 
more timely data, and the data HUD collects may not capture 
commitments a PHA has already made.
    In recognition of the uncertainties that come with 
implementing a new policy, as well as the outcome of the 
appeals process, the Committee has limited the amount of 
funding that can be offset. The Committee believes that this 
will limit the potential negative impact of the offset, while 
continuing to protect all public housing residents.
    Finally, the Committee is concerned about the lack of 
clarity on the eligible uses of operating fund reserves. In 
particular, there appears to be inconsistent guidance on how 
PHAs may use operating reserves to address capital needs. In 
proposing an offset, HUD felt compelled to send out guidance on 
eligible uses of operating fund reserves. However, in the 
process of distributing such guidance it became apparent that 
over the years, HUD has been inconsistent in determining 
eligible uses of these funds and PHAs felt like HUD was 
significantly changing the rules. The Committee agrees that 
clarity is needed, but encourages HUD to consider the impact of 
being too rigid in its application of this policy. Particularly 
in light of the budget challenges, and the level of funding 
available for the Public Housing Capital Fund, some flexibility 
is warranted so that capital needs can be addressed to preserve 
public housing and ensure the safety of residents.
    The Committee directs HUD to submit a report to the 
Committees on Appropriations on its guidance to PHAs on 
eligible uses of operating fund reserves within 90 days of the 
enactment of this act. The Committee further directs HUD to 
include in its report a clear methodology for determining 
excessive reserves, as well as a strategy to better assist PHAs 
in assessing and managing reserves to the benefit of residents. 
To the extent HUD believes PHAs require technical assistance 
with better managing and deploying reserves, the Committee 
encourages HUD to include a proposal for such assistance in its 
2012 Transformation Initiative proposal. The Committee also 
reminds HUD that PHAs with fewer than 250 units have unlimited 
flexibility in the use of reserves to address capital needs and 
that PHAs with greater than 250 units should be afforded 
adequate flexibility to enable the optimal use of limited 
resources to serve their residents' needs. When formulating its 
plan and guidance, the Committee also encourages HUD to 
consider that some capital expenditures, such as installing 
more energy efficient appliances, may directly result in 
reduced operating costs and should therefore be afforded the 
most flexibility with respect to operating fund eligibility. In 
the interim, as HUD develops guidance that will be applied 
going forward, the Committee has included language giving the 
Secretary the flexibility to allow the use of operating fund 
reserves for capital improvements.

     REVITALIZATION OF SEVERELY DISTRESSED PUBLIC HOUSING [HOPE VI]

Appropriations, 2011....................................     $99,800,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................................
Committee recommendation................................................

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The HOPE VI program has been a vital tool used to 
revitalize low-income neighborhoods and improve the lives of 
public housing residents. The Committee remains supportive of 
the goal of the HOPE VI program to replace severely distressed 
public housing with new housing and stronger communities. The 
Committee has included funding for the President's proposed 
Choice Neighborhoods Initiative, which builds on the successes 
of HOPE VI and expands the program to other HUD-assisted 
housing. The Committee is therefore not recommending any 
additional funding for HOPE VI in fiscal year 2012.

                          CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS

Appropriations, 2011....................................................
Budget estimate, 2012...................................    $250,000,000
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 proposal.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $120,000,000 
for the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative. This amount is 
$130,000,000 less than the amount requested by the President. 
The fiscal year 2011 appropriations bill included $99,800,000 
for the HOPE VI program, of which up to $65,000,000 was set-
aside for Choice Neighborhoods. Both HOPE VI and Choice 
Neighborhoods seek to address the needs of distressed housing 
and neighborhoods and create vibrant, mixed-income communities. 
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 services and increased opportunities for 
community residents. However, HUD funding cannot support all of 
these activities, so the Committee supports the emphasis Choice 
Neighborhoods places on both local and Federal partnerships.
    In August 2011, HUD announced the first five Choice 
Neighborhood implementation grant recipients. The Committee was 
encouraged to see the partners associated with each of the 
selected projects, such as schools, workforce development 
agencies, and health clinics. In addition to local and 
philanthropic partners, Choice Neighborhoods also provides an 
opportunity to effectively leverage other Federal resources. 
The Committee notes that projects included resources from the 
Department of Education and the Department of Transportation. 
In light of the current and future budget constraints, 
coordination and leveraging is critical to ensuring the 
greatest return on Federal investment.

                  NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2011....................................    $648,700,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................     700,000,000
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, of which 
$2,000,000 is set aside for a credit subsidy to support a loan 
level not to exceed $20,000,000 for the section 601 Loan 
Guarantee Program. The recommended level of funding is 
$1,300,000 more than the level provided in fiscal year 2011 and 
$51,300,000 less than 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.
    Consultation With Tribes on Housing Needs Assessment.--In 
fiscal year 2010, Congress required HUD to conduct a housing 
needs assessment for Native Americans, including a review of 
how sustainable building practices can be used in Native 
American communities. The Committee intends for this assessment 
to take a comprehensive look at the housing needs and 
challenges facing Native American tribes. This document should 
provide a quantifiable assessment of need, but it should also 
look at both barriers and opportunities in addressing their 
housing needs. In order to ensure the most usable and 
informative document, the Committee expects HUD to consult with 
Native American tribes in conducting this evaluation, 
consistent with Executive Order 13175. In order to ensure a 
broad array of perspectives, the Committee also expects HUD to 
provide technical assistance that will enable tribes to 
participate, especially smaller tribes with limited access to 
data.
    Technical Assistance.--The Committee continues to include 
$3,500,000 for technical assistance through a national 
organization representing Native American housing interests, 
and $4,250,000 for inspections of Indian housing units, 
contract expertise, training, technical assistance, oversight, 
and management.
    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 U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Indian 
Health Service.

                  NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANT

Appropriations, 2011....................................     $12,974,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................      10,000,000
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 
$3,000,000 more than the budget request and equal to the fiscal 
year 2011 enacted level. Of the amount provided, $300,000 shall 
be for training and technical assistance activities, including 
up to $100,000 for related travel for Hawaii-based HUD 
employees.

           INDIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Limitation on
                                        Program account     guaranteed
                                                              loans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2011..................       $6,986,000     $919,000,000
Budget estimate, 2012.................        7,000,000      428,000,000
Committee recommendation..............        7,000,000      428,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $7,000,000 in 
program subsidies to support a loan level of $428,000,000. This 
subsidy amount is equal to the budget request and the fiscal 
year 2011 enacted level.

      NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Limitation on
                                        Program account     guaranteed
                                                              loans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2011..................       $1,042,000      $41,504,255
Budget estimate, 2012.................  ...............  ...............
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 equal to the subsidy and loan levels provided in fiscal year 
2011. The budget request did not include any subsidy to support 
this program.

                   Community Planning and Development


          HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS [HOPWA]

Appropriations, 2011....................................    $334,330,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................     335,000,000
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.
    Statutorily, 90 percent of formula-appropriated funds are 
distributed to qualifying States and metropolitan areas on the 
basis of the number of AIDS cases reported to the Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention by March 31 of the year 
preceding the appropriation year. The remaining 10 percent of 
funds are distributed through a national competition.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $330,000,000 
for the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS [HOPWA] 
program. This level of funding is $5,000,000 less than the 
President's budget request and $4,330,000 less than the fiscal 
year 2011 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 60,600 households in 134 eligible areas 
nationwide. Of the households receiving assistance, over 90 
percent have extremely low or very low incomes. According to 
grantee annual reports from 2010, 13 percent of new clients, 
representing 2,305 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 94 percent of households receiving 
assistance in 2010 achieved housing stability and 73 percent of 
households receiving supportive services 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 over $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 29 percent of the 
identified eligible housing need at program's current funding 
level.

                       community development fund


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2011....................................  $3,500,984,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................   3,781,368,000
Committee recommendation................................   3,001,027,000

                          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.
    The resources provided as part of this program will also 
fund the Sustainable Communities Initiative, a joint HUD-
Department of Transportation [DOT] effort to improve 
coordination of transportation and housing investments that 
result in more regional and local sustainable development 
patterns, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and more transit 
accessible housing choices for residents. These funds will 
stimulate more integrated regional planning to guide State, 
metropolitan, and local decisions, investments, and reforms in 
land use, transportation, and housing.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,001,027,000 
for the Community Development Fund in fiscal year 2012. This 
level is $780,341,000 less than the budget request and 
$499,957,000 less than the fiscal year 2011 enacted level.
    The Committee has provided $2,851,027,000 for Community 
Development Block Grants. 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.
    The Committee includes $60,000,000 for grants to Indian 
tribes for essential economic and community development 
activities which is $5,000,000 below the budget request and the 
fiscal year 2011 enacted level.
    Sustainable Communities Initiative.--The Committee has 
recommended $90,000,000 to support the President's Sustainable 
Communities Initiative. The funding provided will support an 
interagency collaboration among HUD, DOT, and the Environmental 
Protection Agency [EPA]. The resources provided include: 
$63,000,000 for Regional Integrated Planning grants and 
$27,000,000 for Community Challenge Planning grants.
    Sustainability in Rural Communities.--The Committee 
continues a set-aside of at least $15,750,000 within the 
Regional Integrated Planning Grants funding for smaller 
communities to ensure that planning assistance will be provided 
to all types of communities. 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 BLOCK GRANT DISASTER FUNDING

Appropriations, 2011....................................................
Appropriations, 2012....................................................
Committee recommendation................................    $400,000,000

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommendation includes $400,000,000 in 
Disaster Relief funding for the Community Development Block 
Grant [CDBG] program to assist communities impacted by major 
disasters in 2011 with long-term recovery. The funding may be 
used by communities to address recovery needs including those 
related to infrastructure, housing and economic development. 
The funding will be provided directly to States or local units 
of government, who will submit a plan for the use of such 
funds.

         COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LOAN GUARANTEES PROGRAM ACCOUNT

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Limitation on
                                        Program account     guaranteed
                                                              loans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2011..................       $5,988,000     $275,000,000
Budget estimate, 2012.................  ...............      500,000,000
Committee recommendation..............        4,960,000      200,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          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 has recommended an appropriation of 
$4,960,000 to support a loan level guarantee of $200,000,000 
for the section 108 loan guarantees account for fiscal year 
2012. This guaranteed loan level is $75,000,000 less than the 
fiscal year 2011 level.
    This loan level is $225,000,000 less than the President's 
request. However, the President proposed to charge fees for 
this program, which the Committee has not approved.
    This program enables Community Development Block Grant 
[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

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2011....................................  $1,606,780,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................   1,650,000,000
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 
$606,780,000 below the funding level provided in fiscal year 
2011, and $650,000,000 below the budget request.
    Earlier this year, the Washington Post did an investigative 
report on the HOME program focusing on stalled and delayed 
projects. The series highlighted several egregious examples of 
misuse of Federal funding. The Committee is deeply concerned by 
the abuses outlined in the report. At the same time, the 
examples represent a tiny fraction of HOME program projects. 
The Committee recognizes that the HOME program is an important 
tool for increasing the access to and affordability of housing 
for low-income Americans, a program that has successfully 
created over 1 million units of housing.
    There is a pressing need nationally for the support the 
HOME program provides to communities. HUD recently issued The 
Worst Case Housing Needs 2009: A Report to Congress, which 
highlighted the startling statistic that over 7 million people 
now spend more than 50 percent of their income on rent, live in 
substandard housing, or both. The report's findings underscore 
how critical it is that scarce Federal resources be used 
effectively to meet the increasing need for affordable housing.
    In an effort to address the concerns raised by the 
Washington Post stories, the Committee requested the HUD Office 
of Inspector General [OIG] identify measures that would address 
program weaknesses. As part of its work, the OIG examined 
revisions to program rules that HUD is considering. The 
Committee has included several new requirements in the HOME 
program that the OIG has identified as a priority for 
mitigating program risk. These include discontinuing or 
recapturing funds for projects not completed within 4 years of 
commitment, instituting new requirements before program funds 
can be committed to a project to ensure that it is viable and 
has been properly underwritten, requiring adequate development 
capacity of community housing development organizations, and 
requiring that homeownership units that can't be sold will be 
available to rent to eligible tenants. HUD has already taken 
steps to improve program management and oversight, and the 
Committee encourages it to continue to work with the OIG to 
strengthen and improve the HOME program.
    Program Oversight.--The Committee believes that the 
additional requirements it has included in the bill will 
strengthen the HOME program, but the oversight of grantees is 
critical. The Committee is encouraged that HUD is using 
Transformation Initiative funding to update the systems it 
relies on to monitor the activities and performance of 
grantees, which is consistent with recommendations by the OIG. 
The Committee expects that the system improvements will 
strengthen HUD's ability to monitor the large number of HOME 
grantees. However, the Committee reminds HUD that adequate 
oversight of the program requires engagement by HUD staff, 
particularly those in the field. For example, HUD has 
instituted an auto-cancellation system designed to halt 
projects that are stalled. While these automated checks are an 
improvement, they are tools to help manage oversight, and their 
value comes in how effectively they are utilized by HUD staff. 
In addition, since the success of projects can be directly 
affected by market conditions, sufficient monitoring is 
necessary to distinguish between project delays that are a 
result of grant mismanagement versus those due to market 
conditions. To ensure that adequate oversight occurs, the 
Committee directs HUD to report to the Committees on 
Appropriations within 120 days of enactment of this act on how 
HUD is monitoring and evaluating grantee performance, including 
how participating jurisdictions can get approval to restart a 
stalled or cancelled project.
    Finally, the Committee is concerned about project funds 
that were awarded over 10 years ago for projects that are still 
not complete. The Committee has included language in a separate 
part of the bill calling on HUD to rescind certain funds 
provided prior to 2011. The Committee expects that HUD will 
rescind these decade-old HOME balances. In addition, the 
Committee directs HUD to provide a report by March 16, 2012, 
and annually thereafter, on all HUD funds that are 5 years old 
or older.

        SELF-HELP AND ASSISTED HOMEOWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2011....................................     $81,836,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................................
Committee recommendation................................      57,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $57,000,000 for the Self-Help and 
Assisted Homeownership Program, which is $57,000,000 more than 
the budget request and $24,836,000 less than the fiscal year 
2011 enacted level. The Committee has included $17,000,000 for 
the Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program 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 this 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

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2011....................................  $1,901,190,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................   2,372,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,901,190,000

                          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 funded 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 $1,901,190,000 
for Homeless Assistance Grants in fiscal year 2012. This amount 
is $470,810,000 less than the President's request, and equal to 
the fiscal year 2011 enacted level.
    As part of the Committee recommendation, $1,602,190,000 
will support the Continuum of Care Program, including the 
renewal of existing projects, and the new Rural Housing 
Stability Assistance Program. The recommendation also includes 
at least $286,000,000 for the emergency solutions grants 
program, representing an increase of $61,000,000 over the level 
provided in fiscal year 2011. This increased funding 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 this increase is possible within the 
current funding level because more updated renewal estimates 
are lower than anticipated in the budget request.
    In June 2011, HUD released the 2010 Annual Homeless 
Assessment Report [AHAR] to Congress, which estimated that 1.6 
million persons experienced homelessness in fiscal year 2010. 
The data show that as a result of targeted investments in 
permanent housing, the number of chronically homeless 
individuals has decreased 11 percent since 2007. The Committee 
continues to support efforts to create permanent supportive 
housing, and is encouraged by the use of existing programs such 
as section 8 to continue to address the needs of the 
chronically homeless.
    Unfortunately, the data also show the impact of the 
recession on low-income families. Since 2007, family 
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. This report provides an important guide for how federal 
resources can be more effectively targeted to meet current 
needs. Importantly, the HEARTH Act authorized new programs and 
activities, such as the Emergency Solutions Grant [ESG] program 
and the Rural Housing Stability Assistance Program that will 
make it possible to better address the needs of homeless 
families and rural communities. Based on the AHAR data, the 
Committee is recommending increased investments in these new 
programs to respond to current needs.
    Increased funding for ESG is particularly important as 
communities run out of funding provided through the American 
Recovery and Reinvestment Act for the Homelessness Prevention 
and Rapid Re-Housing Program [HPRP]. According to data HUD has 
gathered from grantees, as of June 30, 2011, HPRP has served 
over 1,050,000 people, and 94 percent of those exited the 
program into permanent housing. Compared with many other 
interventions, prevention and rapid re-housing assistance is 
typically shorter in duration and less expensive. In addition, 
preventing or reducing time families spend in homelessness 
helps avoid the negative effects on children that are 
associated with prolonged time in the homeless system. Since 
ESG builds on HPRP, resources dedicated to ESG are able to 
better serve a greater number of people at less cost. At a time 
when millions of Americans are struggling with unemployment, 
but fewer federal resources are available to serve them, the 
Committee believes that ESG represents a sound investment.
    For many communities, HPRP represented the first time that 
prevention or rapid re-housing strategies were deployed. The 
Committee notes that as compared with prevention activities, 
people receiving rapid re-housing assistance often had a 
shorter length of participation, despite the fact that people 
were moving from homelessness to housing. As HUD evaluates this 
and other outcomes of HRPR, the Committee encourages it to 
examine and compare the benefits of each intervention and share 
best practices with grantees so that communities can adjust 
their strategies to most effectively use ESG to serve those 
most in need.
    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 homeless information in other 
Federal programs. As a result of these efforts, HUD and the VA 
released a joint report on veteran homelessness in February 
2011. This was the first time that there has been a common 
national figure on veteran homelessness. 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 14, 2012. 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 2013 budget justification. 
This should include estimated costs of renewing permanent 
supportive housing.

                            Housing Programs


                    PROJECT-BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2011\1\.................................  $9,264,563,000
Budget estimate, 2012\1\................................   9,428,672,000
Committee recommendation\1\.............................   9,418,672,000

\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 Committee recommends a total appropriation of 
$9,418,672,000 for the annual renewal of project-based 
contracts, of which up to $289,000,000 is for the cost of 
contract administrators. The recommended level of funding is 
$154,109,000 more than the amount provided in fiscal year 2011 
and $10,000,000 less than the budget request.
    The section 8 project-based rental assistance [PBRA] 
program provides more than 1,200,000 low-income Americans with 
safe, stable and sanitary housing. For many years, the program 
was plagued by inadequate budgets that threatened this supply 
of affordable housing. Moreover, the policy of short-funding 
contracts, devised to keep the program within its budget, 
jeopardized the Department's credibility. Congress provided 
significant resources through the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act to address this shortfall in order to enable 
HUD to fully fund contracts. Sufficient funding was then 
provided in fiscal years 2010 and 2011 to continue this 
practice. Now that the program is on sound footing, it is 
imperative for HUD to focus its attention on improving program 
management to preserve this housing while better controlling 
costs.
    The annual growth in the cost of providing PBRA is driven 
by both the first-time renewal of expiring contracts and an 
operating cost adjustment factor [OCAF] intended to account for 
increased costs in operating housing units. The Committee 
supports HUD's revised methodology for determining the OFAC in 
order to utilize more recent data sources for the cost 
component categories. This ensures the OCAF more closely 
reflects actual operating expenses, minimizes upward bias, and 
prevents large fluctuations in the rate from year to year. The 
Committee directs HUD to include detailed information on OCAF, 
the number of contracts, and the required funding associated 
with the first-time renewal of expiring contracts and 
subsequent years in its fiscal year 2013 congressional 
justification. In addition, the Committee expects HUD to 
highlight the steps it is taking to curb PBRA's cost growth.
    The Committee is concerned with the lack of transparency 
and communication in the recent award of contracts for project-
based rental assistance contract administrators. HUD is 
directed to provide consistent information to all applicants in 
a timely manner.

                        HOUSING FOR THE ELDERLY

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2011....................................    $399,200,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................     757,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     369,627,000

                          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 $369,627,000 
for the section 202 program. This level is $387,373,000 below 
the budget request and $29,573,000 below the fiscal year 2011 
enacted level. The Committee recommends $91,000,000 for service 
coordinators and the continuation of existing congregate 
service grants and up to $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 385,749 federally 
assisted, privately owned affordable apartments for the 
elderly. An additional 15,739 housing units are expected to 
become available 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 $58,000,000 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.

                 HOUSING FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2011....................................    $149,700,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................     196,000,000
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 
project-based rental assistance contracts [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 $46,000,000 less 
than the budget request and $300,000 more than the fiscal year 
2011 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 Project 
Rental Assistance Contract renewals and amendments, and allows 
the Secretary to conduct a demonstration program for 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, 2011....................................................
Budget estimate, 2012...................................     $88,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      60,000,000

                          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 $60,000,000 
for the Housing Counseling Assistance program, which is 
$28,000,000 less than the budget request and $60,000,000 more 
than the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. The Committee has 
restored funding for housing counseling assistance, which was 
eliminated in fiscal year 2011. 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.
    As a result of the housing crisis, foreclosure prevention 
counseling is in great demand, especially as distressed 
homeowners try to navigate the loan modification process. The 
Committee notes that the National Foreclosure Mitigation 
Counseling [NFMC] program, funded through NeighborWorks, 
provides targeted, supplemental funding to help counselors 
respond to the current, elevated demand for foreclosure 
counseling. Therefore, there will be some instances that 
grantees will utilize both programs to meet client needs. 
However, the Committee encourages HUD to work with 
NeighborWorks to reduce duplication in the allocation of 
resources. In addition, the Committee encourages HUD to 
prioritize funding for counseling activities that aren't 
supported through NFMC without limiting the availability of 
counseling services to those in need.
    Program Reforms.--The Committee is aware that HUD is 
working to address concerns that have been raised about the 
operation and management of its housing counseling program. The 
Committee supports the reforms HUD is considering, which 
include streamlining the grant process, adopting a risk-based 
approach to conducting oversight, and collecting client level 
data to better measure the outcomes of HUD counseling 
expenditures. The Committee expects HUD to implement changes 
quickly, and directs it to submit a report to the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations on the reforms and their 
expected outcomes within 90 days of enactment of this act.

                    OTHER ASSISTED HOUSING PROGRAMS

                       RENTAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE

Appropriations, 2011....................................     $39,920,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................      15,733,000
Committee recommendation................................       1,300,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $1,300,000 for HUD-assisted, 
State-aided, noninsured rental housing projects, which is 
$14,433,000 less than the budget request and $38,620,000 less 
than the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. The Committee is 
reducing this amount based on carryover balances available to 
meet this need in fiscal year 2012.

                            RENT SUPPLEMENT

                              (RESCISSION)

    The Committee recommends a rescission of $231,600,000 for 
section 236 payments to State-aided, noninsured projects, which 
is $225,000,000 more than the requested rescission and 
$191,000,000 more than the rescission taken in fiscal year 
2011.

                         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, 2011....................................     $15,982,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................      14,000,000
Committee recommendation................................       9,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $9,000,000 to support the 
manufactured housing standards programs, of which $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 
$5,000,000 shall be available from the general fund. The total 
amount recommended is $5,000,000 below the budget request and 
$6,982,000 below the fiscal year 2011 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 recognizes that manufactured housing 
production has declined substantially since peak industry 
production in 1998, and has continued to decline in 2011 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. The Committee recommends an 
increase in the amount allocated to State Administrative 
Agencies [SAAs] to at least $3,300,000, which is $500,000 more 
than the level provided in fiscal year 2011, to maintain State 
participation in the programs.

                     Federal Housing Administration


               mutual mortgage insurance program account


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Limitation on       Limitation on      Administrative
                                                         direct loans      guaranteed loans    contract expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2011................................         $50,000,000    $400,000,000,000        $206,586,000
Budget estimate, 2012...............................          50,000,000     400,000,000,000         230,000,000
Committee recommendation............................          50,000,000     400,000,000,000         206,586,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                GENERAL AND SPECIAL RISK PROGRAM ACCOUNT

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Limitation on       Limitation on
                                                            direct loans     guaranteed loans     Program costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2011...................................        $20,000,000     $20,000,000,000        $8,583,000
Budget estimate, 2012..................................         20,000,000      25,000,000,000         8,600,000
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 fund [GI] fund, and the special risk 
insurance [SRI] fund. For presentation and accounting control 
purposes, these are divided into two sets of accounts based on 
shared characteristics. The unsubsidized insurance programs of 
the mutual mortgage insurance fund and the cooperative 
management housing insurance fund constitute one set; and the 
general risk insurance and special risk insurance funds, which 
are partially composed of subsidized programs, make up the 
other.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee has included the following amounts for the 
``Mutual Mortgage Insurance Program'' account: a limitation on 
guaranteed loans of $400,000,000,000; a limitation on direct 
loans of $50,000,000; and $206,586,000 for administrative 
contract expenses, of which up to $70,652,000 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.
    Since its inception in 1934, the FHA has played a critical 
role in meeting the demands of borrowers that the private 
market would not serve--creating housing products that have 
insured over 34 million homes.
    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. Last fall, FHA reported that its capital 
reserve remained below the 2 percent required by Congress.
    Even as FHA worked to fill the place in the market after 
private capital left, it recognized and took steps to mitigate 
risk and improve FHA's financial standing. It established the 
Office of Risk Management and Regulatory Affairs headed by 
FHA's first Chief Risk Officer.
    In addition to an enhanced focus on risk, FHA has also made 
several policy changes to improve the quality of its portfolio, 
including establishing minimum FICO scores, increasing 
downpayment requirements for riskier borrowers, and expanding 
enforcement authorities. FHA has also increased annual premiums 
on FHA-insured mortgages. Increased premiums will provide FHA 
with additional revenue to offset future losses and help to 
ensure that the American taxpayer is not forced to subsidize 
the cost of FHA.
    While FHA is appropriately focusing on attracting quality 
borrowers, it is also stepping up enforcement against 
fraudulent and predatory lenders. Since 2009, FHA has moved to 
suspend or remove lenders from the program that have violated 
FHA rules and subjected the agency--and the taxpayer--to 
increased losses. In fiscal year 2010, the Mortgage Review 
Board considered 1,640 cases and withdrew approval of 1,318 
lenders and suspend 2 more. From 2000 to 2008, the average 
number of cases considered was 50 with actions taken against 12 
lenders, on average. This focus on enforcement must continue, 
since FHA's larger role in the market makes it more vulnerable 
to fraudulent and predatory lenders. The Committee also expects 
FHA to continue working with the OIG to hold fraudulent lenders 
accountable and recoup losses to the MMI Fund.
    The Committee notes that HUD's portfolio of Real Estate 
Owned [REO] properties has increased in recent years due to 
elevated levels of foreclosures. As a result of decreased home 
values, and the cost associated with maintaining these 
properties, REOs are a drain on HUD's finances. The Committee 
notes that the administration is seeking ways to reduce its 
supply of REO properties, including options to convert them to 
rental properties. The Committee is encouraged by the 
administration's efforts to work with the private sector to 
find solutions that could minimize FHA's losses on these homes, 
while addressing needs in the housing market.
    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 evidence by falling vacancy rates. The 
private sector is seeking to address this increased demand, and 
according to U.S. Census data through July, permits for 
multifamily buildings are up 12 percent from 2010. 
Consequently, demand for FHA multifamily loans has also 
increased. According to HUD, this year, FHA has endorsed more 
than seven times the number of loans the agency endorsed just 3 
years ago. In an effort to respond to this increased demand, 
HUD is streamlining its multifamily processes and updating its 
programs to address current market conditions. The Committee 
also expects FHA to increase its attention to the additional 
risk this volume brings, and expects FHA to dedicate the same 
level of attention to risks in the multifamily program as it 
has to risks in its single family program.

                Government National Mortgage Association


guarantees of mortgage-backed securities loan guarantee program account


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Limitation on
                                                          personnel,
                                     Limitation on     compensation and
                                   guaranteed loans     administrative
                                                           expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2011............    $500,000,000,000               (\1\)
Budget estimate, 2012...........     500,000,000,000         $30,000,000
Committee recommendation........     500,000,000,000          20,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\In fiscal year 2011, funding for personnel, compensation and
  administrative expenses of Ginnie Mae were provided under the
  Management and Administration heading.

                          program description

    The Government National Mortgage Association [Ginnie Mae], 
through the mortgage-backed securities program, guarantees 
privately issued securities backed by pools of 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 
Federal Housing Administration [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.

                        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 2011 level.
    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 23 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 expects Ginne Mae to work closely with the Office of 
the Inspector General to implement measures that will 
strengthen risk management practices.
    New Funding Structure.--The Committee has included bill 
language that will give Ginnie Mae the authority to use up to 
$20,000,000 in fees it collects to support its operations. The 
fees that will be used to cover these expenses are currently 
being collected by Ginnie Mae, but have not previously been 
reflected in the budget. As a result of this change, Ginnie Mae 
will no longer require discretionary funding for staffing and 
administrative expenses. This new structure is similar to that 
proposed in the President's fiscal year 2012 budget.
    Importantly, by placing a limitation on how much funding 
Ginnie Mae can utilize for staffing and administrative costs, 
Congress will maintain necessary oversight of Ginnie Mae. When 
compared to direct appropriations provided to Ginnie Mae in 
fiscal year 2011, the limitation provided in fiscal year 2012 
represents an increase of $3,027,289 in the amount of 
operations funding. The potential risk to the taxpayers as a 
result of the Ginnie Mae's increased volume demands adequate 
staff to oversee its portfolio. The Committee expects these 
increased resources to be used to hire staff that will help 
Ginnie Mae manage its increased portfolio, particularly staff 
who will directly improve Ginnie Mae's ability to detect, 
monitor, and mitigate potential risks in the program. While the 
Committee notes that Ginnie Mae has improved its ability to 
recruit, it continues to encounter challenges in hiring and 
retaining staff. Therefore, the Committee directs Ginnie Mae to 
provide the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations with 
quarterly staffing reports so the Committees can monitor its 
progress in maintaining an adequate workforce.

                    Policy Development and Research


                        research and technology

Appropriations, 2011....................................     $47,904,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................      57,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      45,825,000

                          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 $45,825,000 
for research, technology, and community development activities 
in fiscal year 2012. This level is $2,079,000 less than the 
fiscal year 2011 enacted level and $11,175,000 less than the 
budget request.
    The Committee recommendation does not include funding for 
the doctoral research grant program, or proposed new activities 
such as the young scholars post doctoral program. Since most 
program funding is dedicated to on-going surveys utilized by 
the Federal Government as well as private entities, the 
Committee expects reductions will be achieved through cuts to 
dissemination and research support activities.
    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 includes 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, 2011....................................     $71,856,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................      72,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      64,287,000

                          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 $64,287,000 
for the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. Of the 
amounts provided, $28,347,000 is for the fair housing 
assistance program [FHAP] and $35,940,000 is for the fair 
housing initiatives program [FHIP]. The total amount is 
$7,713,000 less than the budget request and $7,569,000 less 
than the fiscal year 2011 enacted level.
    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. After reviewing the budget, the Committee is 
recommending a series of reductions to both the FHAP and FHIP 
programs. The Committee believes the resources provided will 
still enable HUD and its partner agencies to enforce fair 
housing laws.
    Within the funding provided for FHAP, the Committee 
recommends an overall reduction of $1,094,000 below the fiscal 
year 2011 enacted level. Specifically, the Committee recommends 
a reduction of $400,000 to the Fair Housing Conference; a 
reduction of $495,000 to administrative costs; and of a 
reduction of $199,000 for the creation and translation of 
documents for persons with limited English proficiency.
    Within the funding provided for FHIP, the Committee 
recommends a reduction of $6,475,000. The Committee recommends 
a reduction of $2,491,000 to Education and Outreach Initiative 
[EOI] activities and a reduction of $3,984,000 to Fair Housing 
Organizations Initiative [FHOI]. These reductions are 
consistent with cuts proposed by the Administration in its 
fiscal year 2012 budget requests. However, the Committee is not 
supporting increases in other activities that were proposed in 
the fiscal year 2012 budget such as increased outreach to 
colleges and universities.
    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 in met. HUD 
should also identify any barriers that limit its application.
    Limited English Proficiency.--The Committee has included 
$300,000 for the creation and promotion of translated materials 
that support the assistance of persons with limited English 
proficiency. The funding previously provided for this activity 
supports both the translation and dissemination of documents. 
The Committee urges the Department to move expeditiously to 
meet the intent of these funds. In addition, HUD is directed to 
provide information on its work on this program in its 2013 
budget justification. This should include plans and costs of: 
translating and updating documents, conducting outreach and 
disseminating vital documents, and operating an interpretation 
hotline.

            Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control

Appropriations, 2011....................................    $119,760,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................     140,000,000
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 2012. This amount is $20,000,000 less than the 
President's budget request and $240,000 more than the amount 
available in fiscal year 2011. Of this amount, the Committee 
recommends an appropriation of $45,000,000 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, 2011....................................    $199,600,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................     243,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     199,035,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $199,035,000 
for the Working Capital Fund [WCF] for fiscal year 2012. This 
level of funding is $565,000 less than the fiscal year 2011 
enacted level and $43,965,000 less than the budget request. The 
Working Capital Fund is also supported with additional funding 
provided through a transfer of $70,652,000 from the FHA's 
Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund as proposed by the President. 
The difference between the Committee recommendation and the 
President's request is the result of a shift of salaries and 
expenses resources from WCF to an account under the 
``Administration, Operations and Management'' heading.
    The Committee recommendation includes several changes to 
HUD's Working Capital Fund to bring greater transparency and 
accountability to information technology [IT] spending at HUD. 
The Committee has moved the salaries and expenses of the Office 
of the Chief Information Officer [OCIO] from the WCF to the 
``Administration, Operations and Management'' heading to bring 
the OCIO under the same structure as other HUD offices, and 
allow Congress and HUD to better monitor the performance of the 
OCIO.
    The Committee has also recommended moving funding for 
development, modernization and enhancement [DME] activities 
from the Transformation Initiative [TI] to the WCF, as 
requested. When the administration first proposed this change, 
the Committee was concerned that the WCF did not have the 
necessary controls in place to ensure adequate oversight of 
these critical investments. However, HUD's intention is to 
bring the same level of oversight to all WCF activities as it 
has to the TI projects.
    In the months since this proposal was made, HUD has made 
important changes to improve controls of the WCF. This included 
giving the Chief Information Officer control over WCF funds. In 
order to ensure that HUD continues the oversight of DME 
activities funded through the WCF, the Committee has retained 
language requiring the Government Accountability Office [GAO] 
to review spend plans for all DME projects funded through the 
WCF.
    Work of GAO to Monitor HUD IT Investments.--In fiscal years 
2010 and 2011, the Committee required HUD to produce a spend 
plan for its IT investments funded under TI, which GAO was 
instructed to review. GAO has provided continuous briefings on 
the results of their reviews to the Committee and, based on 
this work, it is clear that GAO's involvement in the process is 
helping to ensure that HUD is focused both on completing these 
projects, as well as on identifying and addressing potential 
risks. The Committee is once again requiring HUD to develop a 
spend plan for its information technology projects. This plan 
should include the identification of projects to be undertaken, 
project goals, and costs. In addition, the Committee directs 
GAO to evaluate this plan. This plan may also include 
additional IT system investments that will improve the 
efficiency of HUD programs. Separately, in order to monitor 
progress in achieving project goals and costs for these 
investments, the Committee directs GAO to evaluate HUD's IT 
program management practices, including contractor oversight 
and cost estimating, and HUD's institutionalization of IT 
governance, including any achieved cost savings or operational 
efficiencies that have resulted.

                      Office of Inspector General


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2011....................................    $124,750,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................     126,455,000
Committee recommendation................................     124,750,000

                          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 $124,750,000 
for the Office of Inspector General [OIG]. The amount of 
funding is equal to the level provided in fiscal year 2011 and 
$1,705,000 less than the President's request. The Office of 
Inspector General serves a critical role in auditing HUD 
grantees to uncover waste, fraud and abuse. The OIG should also 
serve as an important resource for the Committee to understand 
and address systemic concerns. For example, the OIG's work on 
FHA resulted in important recommendations to reduce program 
risks. These recommendations assisted HUD and Congress in 
developing and implementing critical reforms.
    Regrettably, this type of work has not been as prevalent 
across other HUD programs. While the OIG conducts audits and 
investigations of HUD grantees, there is little effort to 
develop the grantee-specific recommendations into broader 
recommendations geared at improving the operation and 
management of HUD's programs. As a result, the Committee has 
not been able to rely on the OIG to inform its work as much as 
it would like. The Committee believes that the OIG needs to 
balance individual audits with program evaluations. The 
Committee expects the OIG's audit plan for fiscal year 2012 to 
include program evaluations, including identification of 
management challenges, examples of best practices and 
recommendation for program improvements. The Committee will 
evaluate the OIG's work in this area and expects its semi-
annual reports to Congress to include these efforts.

                       Transformation Initiative


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2011.................................... \1\$170,000,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................  \2\120,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   \3\51,263,085

\1\This amount includes an appropriation of $70,858,000 and $99,142,000 
by transfer.
\2\This entire amount is by transfer.
\3\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 a recommended level of funding of up 
to $51,263,085 for the Transformation Initiative. This funding 
is provided by transfers of up to 0.5 percent from other 
accounts. This amount is $68,736,915 below the President's 
request, and $118,736,915 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted 
level.
    In fiscal year 2010, the administration launched the 
Transformation Initiative [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.
    The Committee has seen improvements resulting from the TI. 
This year, the budget requested the transfer of information 
technology [IT] investments from TI to the ``Working Capital 
Fund''. With this change, the focus of the TI account is 
technical assistance and research and demonstrations. Since the 
TI fund no longer has to support the significant investments 
related to IT, and given the significant reduction in program 
levels, HUD may only transfer up to 0.5 percent from select 
programs to the TI.
    The Committee places the greatest priority for these funds 
on technical assistance [TA]. 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. The Committee expects that HUD will 
spend at least $23,000,000 on the OneCPD: Integrated 
Practitioner Assistance System to deliver comprehensive TA to 
HUD grantees. This assistance should support improving 
grantees' ability to achieve results using HUD funding, such as 
CDBG and HOME. In addition, the Joint Core Skills Certification 
proposal to provide grantees with core skills to administer HUD 
programs across Public and Indian Housing, Community Planning 
and Development, and Multifamily Housing will also help 
increase the capacity of HUD grantees. The Committee also 
directs HUD to work with the OIG to identify grantees that have 
capacity challenges and provide additional assistance to them 
to ensure that problems are resolved.
    National Resource Bank.--The fiscal year 2012 budget 
requests $50,000,000 for a National Resource Bank [NRB]. The 
goal of the NRB is to provide place-based technical assistance 
to communities most in need through third party experts. This 
technical assistance would be tailored to the specific needs of 
each community. In many ways, the NRB builds upon the success 
of HUD's OneCPD program. However, NRB seeks to address the 
broader needs of local communities and grantees who may also 
receive funding from other Federal agencies. The Committee is 
providing authority for HUD to use up to $10,000,000 from the 
TI to support this initiative. The Committee encourages the 
Office of Management and Budget to seek resources from other 
departments whose programs may benefit from the NRB to expand 
the program.

                           General Provisions

    The Committee recommends administrative provisions. A brief 
description follows.
    Sec. 201. This section promotes the refinancing of certain 
housing bonds.
    Sec. 202. This section clarifies a limitation on use of 
funds under the Fair Housing Act.
    Sec. 203. This section clarifies the allocation of HOPWA 
funding for fiscal year 2006.
    Sec. 204. This section requires HUD to award funds on a 
competitive basis unless otherwise provided.
    Sec. 205. This section allows funds to be used to reimburse 
GSEs and other Federal entities for various administrative 
expenses.
    Sec. 206. This section limits HUD spending to amounts set 
out in the budget justification.
    Sec. 207. This section clarifies expenditure authority for 
entities subject to the Government Corporation Control Act.
    Sec. 208. This section requires quarterly reports on all 
uncommitted, unobligated and excess funds associated with HUD 
programs.
    Sec. 209. This section makes a number of corrections to the 
award of HOPWA funding.
    Sec. 210. This section requires HUD to submit its fiscal 
year 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 2006. 
Instead, the public housing agencies in these States are 
required to establish advisory boards that include public 
housing tenants and section 8 recipients.
    Sec. 212. This section allows HUD to authorize the transfer 
of existing project-based subsidies and liabilities from 
obsolete housing to housing that better meets the needs of the 
assisted tenants.
    Sec. 213. This section provides allocation requirements for 
Native Alaskans under the Native American Indian Housing Block 
Grant program.
    Sec. 214. This section exempts GNMA from certain 
requirements of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990.
    Sec. 215. This section reforms certain section 8 rent 
calculations as to athletic scholarships.
    Sec. 216. This section 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 the 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, 2012.
    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 the Secretary to report 
quarterly on the status of all project-based section 8 housing.
    Sec. 227. This section limits attorney fees.
    Sec. 228. The section modifies the NOFA process to include 
the Internet.
    Sec. 229. The section makes reforms to the Federal Surplus 
Property Program under the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance 
Act.
    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 provides the Secretary with the 
authority to add up to three additional public housing agencies 
to the Moving-to-Work demonstration program.
    Sec. 235. This section rescinds $750,000,000 from advanced 
appropriation included in the fiscal year 2011 continuing 
resolution for the tenant-based rental assistance account. To 
implement this rescission, the Secretary is to adjust the 2012 
allocations for public housing agencies taking into account 
their net restricted assets.
    Sec. 236. This section makes several revisions to rental 
assistance programs authorized by the United States Housing Act 
of 1937. The provision expands eligibility of working poor in 
low income areas, increases the standard elderly or disabled 
allowance, increases the medical expense threshold, only 
requires recertification for families with 90 percent or more 
fixed income every 3 years, increases access to housing for 
persons with disabilities, streamlines fair market rent 
publication, and requires annual publication of income limits.
    Sec. 237. This section extends the Mark-to-Market program 
authorized by the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and 
Affordability Act until October 1, 2015.

                               TITLE III

                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                              Access Board

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2011....................................      $7,285,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................       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 Election Assistance 
Commission develop voluntary guidelines and guidance for voting 
systems, including accessibility for people with disabilities.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $7,285,000 for the operations of 
the Access Board. This level of funding is $115,000 more than 
the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and equal to the President's 
fiscal year 2012 request.

                      Federal Maritime Commission


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2011....................................     $24,087,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................      26,265,000
Committee recommendation................................      24,100,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Federal Maritime Commission [FMC] is an independent 
regulatory agency which administers the Shipping Act of 1984 
(Public Law 98-237), as amended by the Ocean Shipping Reform 
Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-258); section 19 of the Merchant 
Marine Act, 1920 (41 Stat. 998); the Foreign Shipping Practices 
Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-418); and Public Law 89-777.
    FMC regulates the international waterborne commerce of the 
United States. In addition, the FMC has responsibility for 
licensing and bonding ocean transportation intermediaries and 
assuring that vessel owners or operators establish financial 
responsibility to pay judgments for death or injury to 
passengers, or nonperformance of a cruise, on voyages from U.S. 
ports.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $24,100,000 for the salaries and 
expenses of the Federal Maritime Commission [FMC] for fiscal 
year 2012. This amount is $2,165,000 less than the budget 
request and $13,000 more than the fiscal year 2011 enacted 
level.
    The Committee commends the FMC's 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 the FMC's 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, 2011....................................     $19,311,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................      22,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      19,311,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $19,311,000 for the Amtrak Office 
of Inspector General [OIG]. This funding level is $2,689,000 
less than the budget request and equal to the fiscal year 2011 
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 Council of Inspectors General 
on Integrity and Efficiency [CIGIE] certified that policies and 
procedures are consistent with the letter and the spirit of the 
Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended. The technological 
and programmatic changes required to achieve this necessary 
independence are substantial and challenging in a constrained 
fiscal climate. Many of these changes stem from the National 
Academy of Public Administration's [NAPA] assessment, which 
generated 41 recommendations to improve management, 
communications, investigative practices and operations. Moving 
forward, the OIG still needs to implement performance and 
accountability measures, develop human capital management 
policies and practices, and define annual work prioritization 
and planning. The Committee expects the OIG to report on its 
progress in addressing these issues and the NAPA 
recommendations in its semi-annual report.

                  National Transportation Safety Board


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2011....................................     $97,854,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................     102,400,000
Committee recommendation................................      99,275,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $99,275,000 for the National 
Transportation Safety Board, which is $3,125,000 less than the 
budget request and $1,421,000 more than the fiscal year 2011 
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.
    Protecting the Current Workforce.--Managing its workforce 
is crucial to the NTSB. The agency must maintain a highly 
skilled workforce with the expertise necessary to investigate 
accidents, determine their probable causes, and extract 
important lessons so that future accidents may be prevented. No 
other agency or firm in the United States does the work of the 
NTSB, acting as an honest broker and offering unbiased analysis 
and safety recommendations.
    Unfortunately, between fiscal years 2003 and 2007, low 
funding levels forced the NTSB to cut its staff by a total of 
50 FTE. The Committee recognized the damage caused by these low 
funding levels, and for the following 3 years, it placed a 
clear priority on rebuilding the NTSB workforce.
    For fiscal year 2012, the Committee provides a modest 
increase of $1,421,000 to cover the cost of inflation and 
accommodate the NTSB's rent increase. The Committee's goal in 
providing this increase is to prevent these costs from eroding 
the workforce of the NTSB. The NTSB requested another 
$2,929,000 to pay for an additional 16 FTE across the agency. 
The Committee understands the value of further investments in 
NTSB staff; however, the Committee recommendation does not 
provide this increase because such a large addition to the 
staff may be impossible to sustain as fiscal constraints grow 
even tighter beyond the budget year.

                 Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation


          PAYMENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT CORPORATION

Appropriations, 2011....................................    $232,534,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................     215,300,000
Committee recommendation................................     200,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $200,000,000 
for the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation [NRC] for fiscal 
year 2012. This amount is $15,300,000 less than the budget 
request and $32,534,000 less than the fiscal year 2011 enacted 
level. The Committee has included $135,000,000 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 2013 budget 
justification.
    Housing Counseling Assistance.--The Committee has included 
$65,000,000 to continue the National Foreclosure Mitigation 
Counseling Program [NFMC] initiated by Congress in fiscal year 
2008.
    According to the most recent data from Lender Processing 
Services, more than 12 percent of U.S. mortgages are in default 
or foreclosure, with many more struggling to stay current on 
their payments. This figure underscores the need for 
foreclosure counseling. NeighborWorks reported more than 3 
times as much funding being requested by counseling agencies 
than was available in the last round of NFMC funding. The NFMC 
funding is being put to use across the country and is 
successfully helping troubled homeowners modify mortgages, 
reduce their monthly payments, and avoid foreclosure. According 
to a report by the Urban Institute that analyzed the impact of 
the program, NFMC counseled homeowners had a 70 percent greater 
chance of avoiding foreclosure than those who didn't receive 
counseling. In addition, homeowners who obtained loan 
modifications after receiving NFMC counseling saved an average 
of $3,200 per year on loan payments.
    The Committee supports NeighborWorks's effort to target 
funds not only to areas of greatest need, as required, but also 
to low-income and minority communities, since minorities have 
been affected disproportionately by the foreclosure crisis. The 
Committee will continue to track the use of these funds through 
the required regular reporting by NeighborWorks, and looks 
forward to the complete study by the Urban Institute.
    Mortgage Rescue Scams.--Since 2009, NeighborWorks American 
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. It has reached homeowners in over 40 States, 
the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. NeighborWorks also 
used funds provided by Congress to launch a Web site, 
Loanscamalert.org, where people can report loan scams. As of 
April 2011, over 150,000 people had accessed this site. Within 
the funds provided, the Committee expects NeighborWorks to 
continue its efforts address mortgage rescue scams, which 
remain prevalent.
    NeighborWorks is also part of a national coalition called 
the Anti-Fraud Campaign Coordination Committee, which includes 
partners such as HUD, the Federal Trade Commission, the 
Department of Justice, and State Attorneys General. Since 
outreach and education will be strengthened by strong 
enforcement action, it is important that the coalition includes 
partners that can use their authority to catch and punish those 
perpetrating loan scams. The Committee expects NeighborWorks to 
continue its work with these groups.
    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, 2011....................................      $2,675,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................       3,880,000
Committee recommendation................................       3,640,000

                          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 $3,640,000 for 
the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness [ICH]. 
This amount is $965,200 more than the fiscal year 2011 enacted 
level and $239,800 below the budget request. The increase in 
this account is attributable to a transfer of 10 FTE from HUD 
to ICH, to provide regional support to ICH. By having staff at 
ICH instead detailed from HUD, ICH will be better able to 
monitor and oversee employee performance.
    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. Producing 
the Federal strategic plan was an impressive undertaking, but 
the more challenging task is implementing the strategies 
necessary to achieve the plan's goals. The Committee applauds 
ICH's continued work to ensure that the Federal strategic plan 
acts as a guide for Federal and local decision makers serving 
the Nation's homeless.
    The Committee notes the various activities proposed in 
ICH's budget for fiscal year 2012 that are designed to improve 
Federal coordination. These include working with agencies to 
identify barriers facing homeless children trying to access 
mainstream services, and improving access to housing and 
services in rural areas. The Committee is pleased that ICH is 
not only following the strategic plan, but is also using the 
work and recommendations of the Government Accountability 
Office [GAO] to guide its efforts to improve coordination and 
reduce fragmentation in the Federal service system. For 
example, ICH convened a group of stakeholders to address the 
GAO recommendation to develop a common vocabulary and common 
data standards on housing stability. The Committee agrees with 
GAO's observation that the lack of common vocabulary limits the 
ability to track and share data on the homeless across 
agencies, and creates challenges for homeless clients seeking 
services, as well as providers trying to serve them. The 
Committee expects ICH take the lead in working to address GAO's 
recommendation to develop and implement a common vocabulary.
    Homeless Veterans.--The Committee applauds the inclusion of 
the goal to prevent and end homelessness among veterans by 2015 
in the Federal strategic plan to end homelessness. Importantly, 
the administration has worked to develop and implement 
strategies and tools necessary to achieving this goal. A 
critical piece of addressing veteran homelessness, especially 
chronic homelessness, is the HUD-VASH program. The Committee 
has seen progress in the implementation of HUD-VASH, yet there 
are still communities that struggle to target vouchers to those 
most in need and get veterans into housing quickly.
    The Committee notes the work that ICH has done in bringing 
PHA and VA Medical Center staff together with Federal and local 
partners to find more efficient ways to manage HUD-VASH 
programs and serve homeless veterans. The Committee believes 
that this is a pivotal role for ICH. The Committee directs ICH 
to continue to work with HUD and the VA and other Federal and 
local partners to improve HUD-VASH and address veteran 
homelessness. In particularly, the Committee would like ICH to 
focus on how to leverage the skills of existing homeless 
providers to improve the HUD-VASH program; how to improve 
targeting of HUD-VASH vouchers to those most in need; and how 
to address the needs of homeless veterans in rural areas and on 
Native American reservations. ICH is further directed to submit 
a report to the Committees on Appropriations and relevant 
authorizing Committees on progress being made and opportunities 
for improvement in each these areas.

                                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 from being used to establish, 
issue, implement, administer, or enforce any prohibition or 
restriction on occupancy preference for veterans in HUD 
facilities located/leased on VA property.
    Section 417 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 418 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. When either department first announces the 
availability of funding for a particular program, the 
appropriate Secretary must post a description of the program's 
goals, the criteria that will be used to evaluate applications, 
and an explanation of how applications will be selected. When 
either department announces the results of its competition, the 
appropriate Secretary must post the name and address of each 
successful applicant, the amount of the award, the amount of 
local match expected, and an explanation of how the award meets 
the program's goals. Making this information readily available 
on Government Web sites will improve transparency and bolster 
the public's confidence in these competitive programs.

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

         Title II--Department of Housing and Urban Development

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

                      Title III--Related Agencies

    National Transportation Safety Board

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

    Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on September 21, 
2011, the Committee ordered favorably reported an original bill 
(S. 1596) making appropriations the Departments of 
Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and related 
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for 
other purposes, provided that the bill be subject to amendment 
and that the bill be consistent with its spending allocations, 
by a recorded vote of 28-2, a quorum being present. The vote 
was as follows:
        Yeas                          Nays
Chairman Inouye                     Mr. McConnell
Mr. Leahy                           Mr. Johnson (WI)
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. Shelby
Mrs. Hutchison
Mr. Alexander
Ms. Collins
Ms. Murkowski
Mr. Graham
Mr. Kirk
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 23--HIGHWAYS


                    Chapter 1--Federal-Aid Highways


Sec. 109. Standards

    (a) In General.-- * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (q) Phase Construction.--Safety considerations for a 
project under this title may be met by phase construction 
consistent with the operative safety management system 
established in accordance with section 303 or in accordance 
with a statewide transportation improvement program approved by 
the Secretary.
    (r) Guardrails.--The Secretary shall not approve any 
project that includes beam rail elements and terminal sections 
that are not galvanized in accordance with AASHTO M-180, Class 
A, Type II, except that the rail shall be galvanized after 
fabrication to include forming, cutting, shearing, punching, 
drilling, bending, welding, and riveting.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 127. Vehicle weight limitations--Interstate System

    (a) In General.--
            (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            [(11) With respect to all portions of the 
        Interstate Highway System in the State, laws (including 
        regulations) of the State of Maine concerning vehicle 
        weight limitations that were in effect on October 1, 
        1995, and are applicable to State highways other than 
        the Interstate System, shall be applicable in lieu of 
        the requirements of this subsection.]
            (11) (A) With respect to all portions of the 
        Interstate Highway System in the State of Maine, laws 
        (including regulations) of that State concerning 
        vehicle weight limitations applicable to other State 
        highways shall be applicable in lieu of the 
        requirements under this subsection.
            (B) With respect to all portions of the Interstate 
        Highway System in the State of Vermont, laws (including 
        regulations) of that State concerning vehicle weight 
        limitations applicable to other State highways shall be 
        applicable in lieu of the requirements under this 
        subsection.
                                ------                                


                    TITLE 26--INTERNAL REVENUE CODE


                      Chapter 98--Trust Fund Code


               Subchapter A--Establishment of Trust Funds


Sec. 9502. Airport and Airway Trust Fund

(a) Creation of Trust Fund

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

(d) Expenditures from Airport and Airway Trust Fund

    (1) Airport and airway program

            Amounts in the Airport and Airway Trust Fund shall 
        be available, as provided by appropriation Acts, for 
        making expenditures before April 1, 2010, to meet those 
        obligations of the United States--
                    (A) incurred under title I of the Airport 
                and Airway Development Act of 1970 or of the 
                Airport and Airway Development Act Amendments 
                of 1976 or of the Aviation Safety and Noise 
                Abatement Act of 1979 or under the Fiscal Year 
                1981 Airport Development Authorization Act or 
                the provisions of the Airport and Airway 
                Improvement Act of 1982 or the Airport and 
                Airway Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 
                1987 or the Federal Aviation Administration 
                Research, Engineering, and Development 
                Authorization Act of 1990 or the Aviation 
                Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 or 
                the Airport and Airway Safety, Capacity, Noise 
                Improvement, and Intermodal Transportation Act 
                of 1992 or the Airport Improvement Program 
                Temporary Extension Act of 1994 or the Federal 
                Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 
                1994 or the Federal Aviation Reauthorization 
                Act of 1996 or the provisions of the Omnibus 
                Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental 
                Appropriations Act, 1999 providing for payments 
                from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund or the 
                Interim Federal Aviation Administration 
                Authorization Act or section 6002 of the 1999 
                Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 
                Public Law 106-59, or the Wendell H. Ford 
                Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st 
                Century or the Aviation and Transportation 
                Security Act or the Vision 100-Century of 
                Aviation Reauthorization Act or any joint 
                resolution making continuing appropriations for 
                the fiscal year 2008 or the Department of 
                Transportation Appropriations Act, 2008 or the 
                Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2008 or the 
                Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act 
                of 2008 or the Federal Aviation Administration 
                Extension Act of 2008, Part II or the Federal 
                Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2009 
                or any joint resolution making continuing 
                appropriations for the fiscal year 2010 or the 
                Fiscal Year 2010 Federal Aviation 
                Administration Extension Act or the Fiscal Year 
                2010 Federal Aviation Administration Extension 
                Act, Part II or the Department of 
                Transportation Appropriations Act, 2012;
                                ------                                


                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) Dwelling units assisted under this chapter shall be 
rented only to families who are low-income families at the time 
of their initial occupancy of such units. Reviews of family 
income shall be made at least annually. Except as provided in 
paragraph (2) and subject to the requirement under paragraph 
(3), a family shall pay as rent for a dwelling unit assisted 
under this chapter (other than a family assisted under section 
1437f(o) or (y) of this title or paying rent under section 
1437f(c)(3)(B) 1 of this title) the highest of the following 
amounts, rounded to the nearest dollar, except in the case of 
any family with a fixed income, as defined by the Secretary, 
after the initial review of the family's income, the public 
housing agency or owner shall not be required to conduct a 
review of the family's income for any year for which such 
family certifies, in accordance with such requirements as the 
Secretary shall establish, that 90 percent or more of the 
income of the family consists of fixed income, and that the 
sources of such income have not changed since the previous 
year, except that the public housing agency or owner shall 
conduct a review of each such family's income not less than 
once every 3 years.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

(b) Definition of terms under this chapter

    (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (2) 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. 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. The 
term ``extremely low-income families'' means very low-income 
families whose incomes do not exceed the higher of (A) 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 (42 U.S.C. 9902(2)), 
applicable to a family of the size involved; or (B) 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, and 
except that clause (A) of this sentence shall not apply in the 
case of public housing agencies located in Puerto Rico or any 
other territory or possession of the United States. 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. The 
Secretary shall periodically, but not less than annually, 
determine or establish area median incomes and income ceilings 
and limits in accordance with this paragraph.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (5) Adjusted income.--
                    (A) Mandatory exclusions.--
                            (i) Elderly and disabled 
                        families.--[$400] $675 for any elderly 
                        or disabled family.
                            (ii) Medical expenses.--The amount 
                        by which [3 percent] 10 percent of the 
                        annual family income is exceeded by the 
                        sum of--

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 1437f. Low-income housing assistance

(a) Authorization for assistance payments

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

(c) Contents and purposes of contracts for assistance payments; 
            amount and scope of monthly assistance payments

    (1) (A) An assistance contract entered into pursuant to 
this section shall establish the maximum monthly rent 
(including utilities and all maintenance and management 
charges) which the owner is entitled to receive for each 
dwelling unit with respect to which such assistance payments 
are to be made. The maximum monthly rent shall not exceed by 
more than 10 per centum the fair market rental established by 
the Secretary periodically but not less than annually for 
existing or newly constructed rental dwelling units of various 
sizes and types in the market area suitable for occupancy by 
persons assisted under this section, except that the maximum 
monthly rent may exceed the fair market rental (A) by more than 
10 but not more than 20 per centum where the Secretary 
determines that special circumstances warrant such higher 
maximum rent or that such higher rent is necessary to the 
implementation of a housing strategy as defined in section 
12705 of this title, or (B) by such higher amount as may be 
requested by a tenant and approved by the public housing agency 
in accordance with paragraph (3)(B). In the case of newly 
constructed and substantially rehabilitated units, the 
exception in the preceding sentence shall not apply to more 
than 20 per centum of the total amount of authority to enter 
into annual contributions contracts for such units which is 
allocated to an area and obligated with respect to any fiscal 
year beginning on or after October 1, 1980. [Proposed fair 
market rentals for an area shall be published in the Federal 
Register with reasonable time for public comment, and shall 
become effective upon the date of publication in final form in 
the Federal Register. Each fair market rental in effect under 
this subsection shall be adjusted to be effective on October 1 
of each year to reflect changes, based on the most recent 
available data trended so the rentals will be current for the 
year to which they apply, of rents for existing or newly 
constructed rental dwelling units, as the case may be, of 
various sizes and types in the market area suitable for 
occupancy by persons assisted under this section.] 
Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, after 
October 12, 1977, the Secretary shall prohibit high-rise 
elevator projects for families with children unless there is no 
practical alternative. [The Secretary shall establish separate 
fair market rentals under this paragraph for Westchester County 
in the State of New York. The Secretary shall also establish 
separate fair market rentals under this paragraph for Monroe 
County in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In establishing 
fair market rentals for the remaining portion of the market 
area in which Monroe County is located, the Secretary shall 
establish the fair market rentals as if such portion included 
Monroe County. If units assisted under this section are exempt 
from local rent control while they are so assisted or 
otherwise, the maximum monthly rent for such units shall be 
reasonable in comparison with other units in the market area 
that are exempt from local rent control].
    (B) Fair market rentals for an area shall be published not 
less than annually by the Secretary on the Department's 
Internet Web site and in any other manner specified by the 
Secretary. The Secretary shall publish notice of the 
publication of such fair market rentals in the Federal 
Register, and such fair market rentals shall become effective 
no earlier than 30 days after the date of such publication. The 
Secretary shall establish a procedure for public housing 
agencies and other interested parties to comment on such fair 
market rentals and to request, within a time specified by the 
Secretary, reevaluation of the fair market rental in a 
jurisdiction. The Secretary shall publish for comment in the 
Federal Register notices of proposed material changes in the 
methodology for estimating fair market rentals and notices 
specifying the final decisions regarding such proposed 
substantial methodological changes and responses to public 
comments.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

(o) Voucher program

        (1) Authority

                (A) In general

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                (B) Establishment of payment standard

                    Except as provided under subparagraph (D), 
                the payment standard for each size of dwelling 
                unit in a market area shall not exceed 110 
                percent of the fair market rental established 
                under subsection (c) of this section for the 
                same size of dwelling unit in the same market 
                area and shall be not less than 90 percent of 
                that fair market rental, except that no public 
                housing agency shall be required as a result of 
                a reduction in the fair market rental to reduce 
                the payment standard applied to a family 
                continuing to reside in a unit for which the 
                family was receiving assistance under this 
                section at the time the fair market rental was 
                reduced. The Secretary shall allow public 
                housing agencies to request exception payment 
                standards within fair market rental areas 
                subject to criteria and procedures established 
                by the Secretary.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                (D) Approval

                    The Secretary may require a public housing 
                agency to submit the payment standard of the 
                public housing agency to the Secretary for 
                approval, if the payment standard is less than 
                90 percent of the fair market rental or exceeds 
                110 percent of the fair market rental except 
                that a public housing agency may establish a 
                payment standard of not more than 120 percent 
                of the fair market rent, where necessary, as a 
                reasonable accommodation for a person with a 
                disability, without approval of the Secretary. 
                A public housing agency may seek approval of 
                the Secretary to use a payment standard greater 
                than 120 percent of the fair market rent as a 
                reasonable accommodation for a disabled family 
                or other family with a person with a 
                disability. In connection with the use of any 
                increased payment standard established or 
                approved pursuant to either of the preceding 
                two sentences as a reasonable accommodation for 
                a person with a disability, the Secretary may 
                not establish additional requirements regarding 
                the amount of adjusted income paid by such 
                person for rent.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 1437n. Eligibility for assisted housing

(a) Income eligibility for public housing

        (1) Income mix within projects

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

        (2) PHA income mix

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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

        (1) In general

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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

        (1) Pre-1981 act projects

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

        (3) Targeting

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


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

(a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

(m) Funding

    (1) Authorization of appropriations

            There are authorized to be appropriated for grants 
        under this section $574,000,000 for [fiscal year 2010.] 
        fiscal year 2012.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

(o) Sunset

    No assistance may be provided under this section after 
[September 30, 2010.] September 30, 2012.
                                ------                                


                        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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                        SUBTITLE VIII--PIPELINES


                          Chapter 601--Safety


Sec. 60117. Administrative

    (a) General Authority.-- * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    [(n) Cost Recovery for Design Reviews.--
            [(1) In general.--If the Secretary conducts 
        facility design safety reviews in connection with a 
        proposal to construct, expand, or operate a liquefied 
        natural gas pipeline facility, the Secretary may 
        require the person requesting such reviews to pay the 
        associated staff costs relating to such reviews 
        incurred by the Secretary in section 60301(d). The 
        Secretary may assess such costs in any reasonable 
        manner.
            [(2) Deposit.--The Secretary shall deposit all 
        funds paid to the Secretary under this subsection into 
        the Department of Treasury account 69-5172-0-2-407 or 
        its successor account.
            [(3) Authorization of appropriations.--Funds 
        deposited pursuant to this subsection are authorized to 
        be appropriated for the purposes set forth in section 
        60301(d).
    (n) Cost Recovery for Design Reviews.--
            (1) In general.--If the Secretary conducts facility 
        design safety reviews in connection with a proposal to 
        construct, expand, or operate a gas or hazardous liquid 
        pipeline or liquefied natural gas pipeline facility, 
        including construction inspections and oversight, the 
        Secretary may require the person or entity proposing 
        the project to pay the costs incurred by the Secretary 
        relating to such reviews. If the Secretary exercises 
        the cost recovery authority described in this section, 
        the Secretary shall prescribe a fee structure and 
        assessment methodology that is based on the costs of 
        providing these reviews and shall prescribe procedures 
        to collect fees under this section. This authority is 
        in addition to the authority provided in section 60301 
        of this title.
            (2) Notification.--For any new pipeline 
        construction project in which the Secretary will 
        conduct design reviews, the person or entity proposing 
        the project shall notify the Secretary and provide 
        design specifications, construction plans and 
        procedures, and related materials at least 120 days 
        prior to the commencement of construction.
            (3) Deposit and use.--The Secretary shall deposit 
        funds paid under this subsection into the Pipeline 
        Safety Design Review Fund. Funds deposited under this 
        section are authorized to be appropriated for the 
        purposes set forth in this chapter. Fees authorized 
        under this section shall be collected and available for 
        obligation only to the extent and in the amount 
        provided in advance in appropriations acts.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


       CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005, PUBLIC LAW 108-447


   DIVISION I--DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN 
     DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005


         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, 2004, and 
any collections made during fiscal year 2005 and all subsequent 
fiscal years, shall be transferred to the Flexible Subsidy 
Fund, as authorized by section 236(g) of the National Housing 
Act, as amended.]
                                ------                                


TRANSPORTATION, TREASURY, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, THE JUDICIARY, 
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                        2006, PUBLIC LAW 109-115


                               TITLE III


              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, 2005, and 
any collections made during fiscal year 2006 and all subsequent 
fiscal years, shall be transferred to the Flexible Subsidy 
Fund, as authorized by section 236(g) of the National Housing 
Act, as amended.]
                                ------                                


                               H.R. 2887


         TITLE I--EXTENSION OF SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS

                    Subtitle A--Federal-Aid Highways

SEC. 112. ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.

    (a) Authorization of Contract Authority.--Notwithstanding 
any other provision of this title or any other law, there is 
authorized to be appropriated from the Highway Trust Fund 
(other than the Mass Transit Account), from amounts provided 
under section 111, for administrative expenses of the Federal-
aid highway program [$196,427,625] an amount equal to one-half 
the sum authorized for such purpose for fiscal year 2011 by 
section 412(a)(2) of the Surface Transportation Extension Act 
of 2010 for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending 
on March 31, 2012.

                        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 2012: Subcommittee on Transportation and Housing and
 Urban Development, and Related Agencies
    Mandatory...............................................  ...........  ...........  ...........        (\1\)
    Discretionary...........................................       55,250       57,550      125,717   \1\122,721
        Security............................................  ...........  ...........           NA           NA
        Nonsecurity.........................................       55,250       57,550           NA           NA
Projections of outlays associated with the recommendation:
    2012....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........    \2\42,661
    2013....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........       34,250
    2014....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........       14,370
    2015....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........        6,262
    2016 and future years...................................  ...........  ...........  ...........        7,541
Financial assistance to State and local governments for                NA       32,092           NA       30,254
 2012.......................................................

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

NA: Not applicable.

Consistent with the funding recommended in the bill for disaster funding and in accordance with section
  251(b)(2)(D) of the BBEDCA and section 106 of the Deficit Control Act of 2011, the Committee anticipates that
  the Budget Committee will file a revised section 302(a) allocation for the Committee on Appropriations
  reflecting an upward adjustment of $2,300,000,000 in budget authority plus associated outlays.


  COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL
                                                                        YEAR 2012
                                                                [In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Senate Committee recommendation
                                                                                                                            compared with (+ or -)
                             Item                                     2011         Budget estimate      Committee    -----------------------------------
                                                                  appropriation                      recommendation         2011
                                                                                                                        appropriation    Budget estimate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                    Office of the Secretary

Salaries and expenses.........................................          102,481           118,842           102,202              -279           -16,640
    Immediate Office of the Secretary.........................           (2,626)           (2,623)           (2,618)              (-8)              (-5)
    Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary..................             (984)             (988)             (981)              (-3)              (-7)
    Office of the General Counsel.............................          (20,318)          (19,615)          (19,515)            (-803)            (-100)
    Office of the Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy          (11,078)          (12,831)          (11,004)             (-74)          (-1,827)
    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs.          (10,538)          (10,949)          (10,538)  ................            (-411)
    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs           (2,499)           (2,630)           (2,544)             (+45)             (-86)
    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration......          (25,469)          (27,697)          (25,469)  ................          (-2,228)
    Office of Public Affairs..................................           (2,051)           (2,137)           (2,046)              (-5)             (-91)
    Office of the Executive Secretariat.......................           (1,655)           (1,682)           (1,649)              (-6)             (-33)
    Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization....           (1,496)           (1,520)           (1,492)              (-4)             (-28)
    Office of Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response..          (10,579)          (10,797)          (10,578)              (-1)            (-219)
    Office of the Chief Information Officer...................          (13,189)          (17,750)          (13,768)            (+579)          (-3,982)
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................................          102,481           118,842           102,202              -279           -16,640

National infrastructure investments...........................          526,944   ................          550,000           +23,056          +550,000
    National infrastructure investments.......................  ................        2,000,000   ................  ................       -2,000,000
Livable communities initiative................................  ................           10,000   ................  ................          -10,000
Financial management capital..................................            4,990            17,000             4,990   ................          -12,010
Cyber-security initiatives....................................  ................  ................           10,000           +10,000           +10,000
Office of Civil Rights........................................            9,648             9,661             9,648   ................              -13
Rescission of excess compensation for general aviation          ................           -3,254            -3,254            -3,254   ................
 operations (rescission)......................................
Transportation planning, research, and development............            9,799             9,824             9,000              -799              -824
Working capital fund..........................................         (147,301)  ................         (147,596)            (+295)        (+147,596)
Minority business resource center program.....................              921               922               921   ................               -1
    (Limitation on guaranteed loans)..........................          (18,330)          (18,367)          (18,367)             (+37)  ................
Minority business outreach....................................            3,068             3,100             3,068   ................              -32
Payments to air carriers (Airport & Airway Trust Fund)........          149,700           123,254           143,000            -6,700           +19,746
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Office of the Secretary..........................          807,551         2,289,349           829,575           +22,024        -1,459,774

National infrastructure bank..................................  ................        5,000,000   ................  ................       -5,000,000

                Federal Aviation Administration

Operations....................................................        9,513,962         9,823,000         9,635,710          +121,748          -187,290
    Air traffic organization..................................       (7,473,299)       (7,646,145)       (7,560,815)         (+87,516)         (-85,330)
    Aviation safety...........................................       (1,253,020)       (1,283,568)       (1,253,381)            (+361)         (-30,187)
    Commercial space transportation...........................  ................          (26,625)          (15,005)         (+15,005)         (-11,620)
    Financial services........................................  ................         (112,369)         (112,459)        (+112,459)             (+90)
    Human resource management.................................  ................         (102,125)          (98,858)         (+98,858)          (-3,267)
    Region and center operations..............................  ................         (374,955)         (337,944)        (+337,944)         (-37,011)
    Staff offices.............................................  ................         (214,203)         (207,065)        (+207,065)          (-7,138)
    Information services......................................  ................          (63,010)          (50,183)         (+50,183)         (-12,827)

Facilities & equipment (Airport & Airway Trust Fund)..........        2,730,731         2,870,000         2,630,731          -100,000          -239,269
    Facilities equipment......................................  ................          250,000   ................  ................         -250,000

Research, engineering, and development (Airport & Airway Trust          169,660           190,000           157,000           -12,660           -33,000
 Fund)........................................................

Grants-in-aid for airports (Airport and Airway Trust Fund)           (3,550,000)       (3,600,000)       (4,691,000)      (+1,141,000)      (+1,091,000)
 (Liquidation of contract authorization)......................
    (Limitation on obligations)...............................       (3,515,000)       (2,424,000)       (3,515,000)  ................      (+1,091,000)
    Administration............................................          (93,422)         (101,000)         (101,000)          (+7,578)  ................
    Airport Cooperative Research Program......................          (15,000)          (15,000)          (15,000)  ................  ................
    Airport technology research...............................          (22,472)          (29,250)          (29,250)          (+6,778)  ................
    Small community air service development program...........           (6,000)  ................           (6,000)  ................          (+6,000)
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................................       (3,515,000)       (2,424,000)       (3,515,000)  ................      (+1,091,000)

    Grants-in-aid for airports................................  ................        3,100,000   ................  ................       -3,100,000

Aviation insurance revolving fund (Sec. 115)..................  ................           -1,000   ................  ................           +1,000
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Federal Aviation Administration..................       12,414,353        16,232,000        12,423,441            +9,088        -3,808,559
      (Limitations on obligations)............................       (3,515,000)       (2,424,000)       (3,515,000)  ................      (+1,091,000)

      Total budgetary resources...............................      (15,929,353)      (18,656,000)      (15,938,441)          (+9,088)      (-2,717,559)

                Federal Highway Administration

Limitation on administrative expenses.........................         (413,533)         (437,172)         (415,533)          (+2,000)         (-21,639)
Federal-aid highways (Highway Trust Fund):
    (Liquidation of contract authorization)...................      (41,846,000)      (70,414,000)      (41,846,000)  ................     (-28,568,000)
        (Limitation on obligations)...........................      (41,107,000)      (69,675,000)      (41,107,000)  ................     (-28,568,000)
        (Exempt contract authority)...........................         (739,000)         (739,000)         (739,000)  ................  ................
            Wireless initiative...............................  ................          100,000   ................  ................         -100,000
        Emergency relief (disaster relief category)...........  ................  ................        1,900,000        +1,900,000        +1,900,000
Rescission of contract authority (Highway Trust Fund).........       -2,500,000   ................  ................       +2,500,000   ................
Demonstration projects (rescission)...........................  ................  ................          -73,000           -73,000           -73,000
    (Rescission of contract authority)........................         -630,000   ................  ................         +630,000   ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Federal Highway Administration...................       -3,130,000           100,000         1,827,000        +4,957,000        +1,727,000
          Appropriations......................................  ................         (100,000)  ................  ................        (-100,000)
          Rescissions of contract authority...................      (-3,130,000)  ................  ................      (+3,130,000)  ................
      (Limitations on obligations)............................      (41,107,000)      (69,675,000)      (41,107,000)  ................     (-28,568,000)
      (Exempt contract authority).............................         (739,000)         (739,000)         (739,000)  ................  ................

      Total budgetary resources...............................      (38,716,000)      (70,514,000)      (43,673,000)      (+4,957,000)     (-26,841,000)

          Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

Motor carrier safety operations and programs (Highway Trust            (245,000)         (276,000)         (250,023)          (+5,023)         (-25,977)
 Fund) (Liquidation of contract authorization)................
    (Limitation on obligations)...............................         (245,000)         (276,000)         (250,023)          (+5,023)         (-25,977)
Motor carrier safety grants (Highway Trust Fund) Contract       ................  ................            1,000            +1,000            +1,000
 authority....................................................
    Rescission of contract authority..........................  ................  ................           -1,000            -1,000            -1,000
    (Liquidation of contract authorization)...................         (310,070)         (330,000)         (307,000)          (-3,070)         (-23,000)
    (Limitation on obligations)...............................         (310,070)         (330,000)         (307,000)          (-3,070)         (-23,000)
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration......  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
      (Limitations on obligations)............................         (555,070)         (606,000)         (557,023)          (+1,953)         (-48,977)

        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Operations and research (general fund)........................          140,146   ................          140,146   ................         +140,146
    Vehicle safety............................................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
Operations and research (Highway Trust Fund) (Liquidation of           (105,500)         (303,900)         (109,500)          (+4,000)        (-194,400)
 contract authorization)......................................
    (Limitation on obligations)...............................         (105,500)         (303,900)         (109,500)          (+4,000)        (-194,400)
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................................         (140,146)  ................         (140,146)  ................        (+140,146)

National driver register (Highway Trust Fund) (Liquidation of            (4,000)  ................  ................          (-4,000)  ................
 contract authorization)......................................
    (Limitation on obligations)...............................           (4,000)  ................  ................          (-4,000)  ................
National driver register modernization........................            3,343   ................  ................           -3,343   ................

Highway traffic safety grants (Highway Trust Fund)                     (619,500)         (556,100)         (550,328)         (-69,172)          (-5,772)
 (Liquidation of contract authorization)......................
    (Limitation on obligations)...............................         (619,500)         (556,100)         (550,328)         (-69,172)          (-5,772)
        Highway safety programs (23 USC 402)..................         (235,000)         (235,100)         (235,000)  ................            (-100)
        Occupant protection incentive grants (23 USC 405).....          (25,000)          (35,000)          (25,000)  ................         (-10,000)
        Safety belt performance grants (23 USC 406)...........         (124,500)  ................          (38,500)         (-86,000)         (+38,500)
        Distracted driving prevention.........................  ................          (50,000)          (10,000)         (+10,000)         (-40,000)
        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..................................          (18,500)          (18,600)          (25,328)          (+6,828)          (+6,728)
        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)  ................  ................

    Rescission of contract authority..........................          -76,000   ................  ................          +76,000   ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, National Highway Traffic Safety Admin............           67,489   ................          140,146           +72,657          +140,146
          Appropriations......................................         (143,489)  ................         (140,146)          (-3,343)        (+140,146)
          Rescissions of contract authority...................         (-76,000)  ................  ................         (+76,000)  ................
      (Limitations on obligations)............................         (729,000)         (860,000)         (659,828)         (-69,172)        (-200,172)

      Total budgetary resources...............................         (796,489)         (860,000)         (799,974)          (+3,485)         (-60,026)

                Federal Railroad Administration

Safety and operations.........................................          176,596           223,034           176,596   ................          -46,438
    Offsetting fee collections................................  ................          -80,000   ................  ................          +80,000
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................................          176,596           143,034           176,596   ................          +33,562

Railroad research and development.............................           35,030            40,000            30,000            -5,030           -10,000
Rail line relocation and improvement program..................           10,511   ................  ................          -10,511   ................

System preservation...........................................  ................        1,546,000   ................  ................       -1,546,000
    Multi-year investment initiative..........................  ................        2,500,000   ................  ................       -2,500,000
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................................  ................        4,046,000   ................  ................       -4,046,000

Network Development...........................................  ................        1,000,000   ................  ................       -1,000,000
    Multi-year investment initiative..........................  ................        3,000,000   ................  ................       -3,000,000
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................................  ................        4,000,000   ................  ................       -4,000,000

Capital assistance for high speed rail corridors and intercity  ................  ................          100,000          +100,000          +100,000
 passenger rail service.......................................
    Rescission................................................         -400,000   ................  ................         +400,000   ................
Railroad safety technology....................................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
Railroad safety...............................................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................

National Railroad Passenger Corporation:
    Operating grants to the National Railroad Passenger                 561,874   ................          544,000           -17,874          +544,000
     Corporation..............................................
    Capital and debt service grants to the National Railroad            921,778   ................          936,778           +15,000          +936,778
     Passenger Corporation....................................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................................        1,483,652   ................        1,480,778            -2,874        +1,480,778
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Federal Railroad Administration..................        1,305,789         8,229,034         1,787,374          +481,585        -6,441,660

                Federal Transit Administration

Administrative expenses.......................................           98,713   ................           98,713   ................          +98,713
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)...............................       (8,343,171)  ................       (8,360,565)         (+17,394)      (+8,360,565)
Research and technology deployment............................  ................          166,472   ................  ................         -166,472

Transit Formula Grants (Hwy Trust Fund, Mass Transit Account    ................      (10,000,000)  ................  ................     (-10,000,000)
 (Liquidation of contract authorization)......................
    (Limitation on obligations)...............................  ................       (4,691,000)  ................  ................      (-4,691,000)
        Multi-year investment initiative......................  ................       (3,000,000)  ................  ................      (-3,000,000)

Transit expansion and livable communities (liquidation of       ................         (600,000)  ................  ................        (-600,000)
 contract authorization)......................................
    (limitation on obligations)...............................  ................       (2,469,070)  ................  ................      (-2,469,070)
                                                                                                                                                Capital
                                                                                                                                             investment
                                                                                                                                                 grants
        Multi-year investment initiative......................  ................        1,000,000   ................  ................       -1,000,000
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal............................................  ................        1,000,000   ................  ................       -1,000,000

Operations and safety.........................................  ................          166,294   ................  ................         -166,294
    Administrative programs...................................  ................         (129,700)  ................  ................        (-129,700)
    Rail transit safety programs..............................  ................          (36,594)  ................  ................         (-36,594)
Research and University Research Centers......................           58,882   ................           40,000           -18,882           +40,000
Bus and rail state of good repair (liquidation of contract      ................       (3,000,000)  ................  ................      (-3,000,000)
 authorization)...............................................
    (limitation on obligations)...............................  ................       (3,207,178)  ................  ................      (-3,207,178)
        Multi-year investment initiative......................  ................       (7,500,000)  ................  ................      (-7,500,000)
Capital investment grants.....................................        1,596,800   ................        1,955,000          +358,200        +1,955,000
Energy efficiency and greenhouse gas reduction grants.........           49,900   ................           25,000           -24,900           +25,000
    (Rescission)..............................................         -280,000   ................          -27,000          +253,000           -27,000
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority capital and              149,700           150,000           150,000              +300   ................
 preventive maintenance.......................................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Federal Transit Administration...................        1,673,995         1,482,766         2,241,713          +567,718          +758,947
      (Limitations on obligations)............................       (8,343,171)      (20,867,248)       (8,360,565)         (+17,394)     (-12,506,683)

      Total budgetary resources...............................      (10,017,166)      (22,350,014)      (10,602,278)        (+585,112)     (-11,747,736)

         Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation

Operations and maintenance (Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund)....           32,259            33,996            34,000            +1,741                +4

                    Maritime Administration

Maritime security program.....................................          173,652           174,000           174,000              +348   ................
Operations and training.......................................          151,446           161,539           154,886            +3,440            -6,653
    (Rescission)..............................................  ................  ................           -1,000            -1,000            -1,000
Ship disposal.................................................           14,970            18,500            10,000            -4,970            -8,500
Assistance to small shipyards.................................            9,980   ................           10,000               +20           +10,000
Vessel operations revolving fund..............................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................

Maritime Guaranteed Loan (Title XI) Program Account:
    Administrative expenses...................................            3,992             3,740             4,000                +8              +260
    Rescission................................................  ................          -54,100           -35,000           -35,000           +19,100
    Guaranteed loans subsidy..................................            4,990   ................  ................           -4,990   ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................................            8,982           -50,360           -31,000           -39,982           +19,360
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Maritime Administration..........................          359,030           303,679           316,886           -42,144           +13,207

    Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Administrative expenses:
    General Fund..............................................           21,454            22,158            22,158              +704   ................
    Pipeline Safety Fund......................................              638               639   ................             -638              -639
    Pipeline Safety information grants to communities.........             (998)           (1,000)           (1,000)              (+2)  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................................           22,092            22,797            22,158               +66              -639

Hazardous materials safety....................................           39,020            50,089            39,020   ................          -11,069
    Offsetting fee collections................................  ................          -11,713   ................  ................          +11,713
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................................           39,020            38,376            39,020   ................             +644

Pipeline safety:
    Pipeline Safety Fund......................................           87,838            92,854            93,854            +6,016            +1,000
    Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund............................           18,867            21,510            21,510            +2,643   ................
    Pipeline Safety Design Review Fund (leg proposal).........  ................            4,000             3,000            +3,000            -1,000
    Pipeline Safety Special Permit Fund (leg proposal)........  ................              500   ................  ................             -500
    Pipeline safety user fees.................................          -88,014           -94,493           -94,493            -6,479   ................
    Additional Pipeline user fees (leg proposal)..............  ................  ................           -4,500            -4,500            -4,500
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................................           18,691            24,371            19,371              +680            -5,000

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                 79,803            85,544            80,549              +746            -4,995
           Administration.....................................

       Research and Innovative Technology Administration

Research and development......................................           12,981            17,600            15,981            +3,000            -1,619

                  Office of Inspector General

Salaries and expenses.........................................           74,964            89,185            82,409            +7,445            -6,776

                 Surface Transportation Board

Salaries and expenses.........................................           29,010            31,250            29,310              +300            -1,940
    Offsetting collections....................................           -1,250            -1,250            -1,250   ................  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Surface Transportation Board.....................           27,760            30,000            28,060              +300            -1,940
                                                               =========================================================================================

      Total, title I, Department of Transportation............       13,725,974        33,893,153        19,807,134        +6,081,160       -14,086,019
          Appropriations......................................      (17,611,974)      (33,950,507)      (18,046,388)        (+434,414)     (-15,904,119)
          Contract authority..................................  ................  ................           (1,000)          (+1,000)          (+1,000)
          Disaster relief category............................  ................  ................       (1,900,000)      (+1,900,000)      (+1,900,000)
          Rescissions.........................................        (-680,000)         (-57,354)        (-139,254)        (+540,746)         (-81,900)
          Rescissions of contract authority...................      (-3,206,000)  ................          (-1,000)      (+3,205,000)          (-1,000)
      (Limitations on obligations)............................      (54,249,241)      (94,432,248)      (54,199,416)         (-49,825)     (-40,232,832)

      Total budgetary resources...............................      (68,714,215)     (129,064,401)      (74,745,550)      (+6,031,335)     (-54,318,851)
                                                               =========================================================================================

     TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

                 Management and Administration

Executive direction...........................................           26,801            30,408   ................          -26,801           -30,408
Administration, operations and management.....................          523,990           530,117           549,499           +25,509           +19,382
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................................          523,990           530,117           549,499           +25,509           +19,382

Personnel compensation and benefits:
    Public and Indian Housing.................................          188,696           189,610           201,233           +12,537           +11,623
    Community Planning and Development........................           96,795            99,815           101,076            +4,281            +1,261
    Housing...................................................          381,123           397,660           392,796           +11,673            -4,864
    Office of the Government National Mortgage Association....           11,073   ................  ................          -11,073   ................
    Policy Development and Research...........................           19,100            21,390            23,016            +3,916            +1,626
    Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity........................           71,656            70,733            74,766            +3,110            +4,033
    Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control...........            7,137             7,167             7,502              +365              +335
    Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities.............  ................            3,100   ................  ................           -3,100
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................................          775,580           789,475           800,389           +24,809           +10,914
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Management and Administration....................        1,326,371         1,350,000         1,349,888           +23,517              -112

                   Public and Indian Housing

Tenant-based rental assistance:
    Renewals..................................................       16,669,283        17,143,837        17,143,905          +474,622               +68
    Tenant protection vouchers................................          109,780            75,000            75,000           -34,780   ................
    Administrative fees.......................................        1,447,100         1,647,780         1,400,000           -47,100          -247,780
    Family self-sufficiency coordinators......................           59,880            60,000            60,000              +120   ................
    Veterans affairs supportive housing.......................           49,900            75,000            75,000           +25,100   ................
    Sec. 811 Mainstream voucher renewals......................           34,930           114,046           113,452           +78,522              -594
    Disaster housing assistance program.......................  ................           50,000   ................  ................          -50,000
    Homeless vouchers demonstration program...................  ................           56,906             5,000            +5,000           -51,906
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal (available this fiscal year)...................       18,370,873        19,222,569        18,872,357          +501,484          -350,212

    Advance appropriations....................................        3,992,000         4,000,000         4,000,000            +8,000   ................
    Less appropriations from prior year advances..............       -4,000,000        -4,000,000        -4,000,000   ................  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Tenant-based rental assistance appropriated in          18,362,873        19,222,569        18,872,357          +509,484          -350,212
       this bill..............................................

Transforming rental assistance demonstration program..........  ................          200,000   ................  ................         -200,000
Public Housing Capital Fund...................................        2,040,112         2,405,345         1,875,000          -165,112          -530,345
Public Housing Operating Fund.................................        4,616,748         3,961,850         3,961,850          -654,898   ................
Revitalization of severely distressed public housing..........           99,800   ................  ................          -99,800   ................
Choice neighborhoods..........................................  ................          250,000           120,000          +120,000          -130,000
Native American housing block grants..........................          648,700           700,000           650,000            +1,300           -50,000
Native Hawaiian housing block grant...........................           12,974            10,000            13,000               +26            +3,000
Indian housing loan guarantee fund program account............            6,986             7,000             7,000               +14   ................
    (Limitation on guaranteed loans)..........................         (919,000)         (428,000)         (428,000)        (-491,000)  ................
Native Hawaiian loan guarantee fund program account...........            1,042   ................              386              -656              +386
    (Limitation on guaranteed loans)..........................          (41,504)  ................          (41,504)  ................         (+41,504)
Housing Certificate Fund......................................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
    Rescission................................................  ................  ................         -200,000          -200,000          -200,000
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Public and Indian Housing........................       25,789,235        26,756,764        25,299,593          -489,642        -1,457,171

              Community Planning and Development

Housing opportunities for persons with AIDS...................          334,330           335,000           330,000            -4,330            -5,000

Community development fund: CDBG formula......................        3,336,314         3,691,368         2,851,027          -485,287          -840,341
    Indian CDBG...............................................           64,870            65,000            60,000            -4,870            -5,000
    Sustainable Communities...................................           99,800   ................           90,000            -9,800           +90,000
    Disaster (Disaster relief category).......................  ................  ................          400,000          +400,000          +400,000
    Rural Innovation Fund.....................................  ................           25,000   ................  ................          -25,000
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Community Development Fund.......................        3,500,984         3,781,368         3,401,027           -99,957          -380,341

Community development loan guarantees (Section 108):
    (Limitation on guaranteed loans)..........................         (275,000)         (500,000)         (200,000)         (-75,000)        (-300,000)
    Credit subsidy............................................            5,988   ................            4,960            -1,028            +4,960

Capacity building.............................................  ................           50,000   ................  ................          -50,000
HOME investment partnerships program..........................        1,606,780         1,650,000         1,000,000          -606,780          -650,000
Self-help and assisted homeownership opportunity program......           81,836   ................           57,000           -24,836           +57,000
Homeless assistance grants....................................        1,901,190         2,372,000         1,901,190   ................         -470,810
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Community Planning and Development...............        7,431,108         8,188,368         6,694,177          -736,931        -1,494,191

                       Housing Programs

Project-based rental assistance:
    Renewals..................................................        8,932,100         9,139,672         9,129,672          +197,572           -10,000
    Contract administrators...................................          325,348           289,000           289,000           -36,348   ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal (available this fiscal year)...................        9,257,448         9,428,672         9,418,672          +161,224           -10,000

    Advance appropriations....................................          400,000           400,000           400,000   ................  ................
    Less appropriations from prior year advances..............         -392,885          -400,000          -400,000            -7,115   ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Project-based rental assistance appropriated in          9,264,563         9,428,672         9,418,672          +154,109           -10,000
       this bill..............................................

Housing for the elderly.......................................          399,200           757,000           369,627           -29,573          -387,373
Housing for persons with disabilities.........................          149,700           196,000           150,000              +300           -46,000
Housing counseling assistance.................................  ................           88,000            60,000           +60,000           -28,000
Rental housing assistance.....................................           39,920            15,733             1,300           -38,620           -14,433
Rent supplement (rescission)..................................          -40,600            -6,600          -231,600          -191,000          -225,000
Manufactured housing fees trust fund..........................           15,982            14,000             9,000            -6,982            -5,000
    Offsetting collections....................................           -7,000            -7,000            -4,000            +3,000            +3,000
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................................            8,982             7,000             5,000            -3,982            -2,000
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Housing Programs.................................        9,821,765        10,485,805         9,772,999           -48,766          -712,806
          Appropriations......................................       (9,869,365)      (10,499,405)      (10,008,599)        (+139,234)        (-490,806)
          Rescissions.........................................         (-40,600)          (-6,600)        (-231,600)        (-191,000)        (-225,000)
          Offsetting collections..............................          (-7,000)          (-7,000)          (-4,000)          (+3,000)          (+3,000)

                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.......................................         -960,000        -4,427,000        -4,427,000        -3,467,000   ................
    Proposed offsetting receipts (HECM) (Sec. 210)............  ................         -286,000          -286,000          -286,000   ................
    Additional offsetting receipts............................       -2,076,000   ................  ................       +2,076,000   ................
    Additional offsetting receipts (Sec. 145).................          -35,000   ................  ................          +35,000   ................
    Administrative contract expenses..........................          206,586           230,000           206,586   ................          -23,414
    Working capital fund (transfer out).......................         (-70,652)         (-72,000)         (-70,652)  ................          (+1,348)

FHA--General and special risk program account:
    (Limitation on guaranteed loans)..........................      (20,000,000)      (25,000,000)      (25,000,000)      (+5,000,000)  ................
    (Limitation on direct loans)..............................          (20,000)          (20,000)          (20,000)  ................  ................
    Offsetting receipts.......................................         -315,000          -400,000          -400,000           -85,000   ................
    Credit subsidy............................................            8,583             8,600   ................           -8,583            -8,600
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Federal Housing Administration...................       -3,170,831        -4,874,400        -4,906,414        -1,735,583           -32,014

        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)............  ................           30,000            20,000           +20,000           -10,000
    Offsetting receipts (legislative proposal)................  ................         -100,000          -100,000          -100,000   ................
    Offsetting receipts.......................................         -720,000          -521,000          -521,000          +199,000   ................
    Offsetting receipts (Sec. 145)............................           -9,000   ................  ................           +9,000   ................
    Proposed offsetting receipts (HECM) (Sec. 210)............  ................          -24,000           -24,000           -24,000   ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Gov't National Mortgage Association..............         -729,000          -615,000          -625,000          +104,000           -10,000

                Policy Development and Research

Research and technology.......................................           47,904            57,000            45,825            -2,079           -11,175

              Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity

Fair housing activities.......................................           71,856            72,000            64,287            -7,569            -7,713

        Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes

Lead hazard reduction.........................................          119,760           140,000           120,000              +240           -20,000

         Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities

Sustainable Housing Initiative................................  ................          150,000   ................  ................         -150,000

                 Management and Administration
Working capital fund..........................................          199,600           243,000           199,035              -565           -43,965
    (By transfer).............................................          (70,652)          (72,000)          (70,652)  ................          (-1,348)

Office of Inspector General...................................          124,750           126,455           124,750   ................           -1,705
Transformation initiative.....................................           70,858   ................  ................          -70,858   ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Management and Administration....................          395,208           369,455           323,785           -71,423           -45,670

      (Grand total, Management and Administration)............       (1,721,579)       (1,719,455)       (1,673,673)         (-47,906)         (-45,782)

Rescission of prior year advance(net restricted assets........  ................  ................         -750,000          -750,000          -750,000
                                                               =========================================================================================
      Total, title II, Department of Housing and Urban               41,103,376        42,079,992        37,389,140        -3,714,236        -4,690,852
       Development............................................
          Appropriations......................................      (40,873,976)      (43,451,592)      (39,532,740)      (-1,341,236)      (-3,918,852)
          Disaster relief category............................  ................  ................         (400,000)        (+400,000)        (+400,000)
          Rescissions.........................................         (-40,600)          (-6,600)        (-431,600)        (-391,000)        (-425,000)
          Rescission of prior year advance....................  ................  ................        (-750,000)        (-750,000)        (-750,000)
          Advance appropriations..............................       (4,392,000)       (4,400,000)       (4,400,000)          (+8,000)  ................
          Offsetting receipts.................................      (-4,115,000)      (-5,758,000)      (-5,758,000)      (-1,643,000)  ................
          Offsetting collections..............................          (-7,000)          (-7,000)          (-4,000)          (+3,000)          (+3,000)
      (By transfer)...........................................          (70,652)          (72,000)          (70,652)  ................          (-1,348)
      (Transfer out)..........................................         (-70,652)         (-72,000)         (-70,652)  ................          (+1,348)
      (Limitation on direct loans)............................          (70,000)          (70,000)          (70,000)  ................  ................
      (Limitation on guaranteed loans)........................     (921,235,504)     (925,928,000)     (925,669,504)      (+4,434,000)        (-258,496)
                                                               =========================================================================================

             TITLE III--OTHER INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Access Board..................................................            7,285             7,400             7,400              +115   ................
Federal Maritime Commission...................................           24,087            26,265            24,100               +13            -2,165
National Transportation Safety Board salaries and National               97,854           102,400            99,275            +1,421            -3,125
 Transportation Board.........................................
Amtrak Office of Inspector General............................           19,311            22,000            19,311   ................           -2,689
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation.........................          232,534           215,300           200,000           -32,534           -15,300
United States Interagency Council on Homelessness.............            2,675             3,880             3,640              +965              -240
Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac (Sec. 146).............................          155,000   ................  ................         -155,000   ................
                                                               =========================================================================================
      Total, title III, Other Independent Agencies............          538,746           377,245           353,726          -185,020           -23,519
                                                               =========================================================================================

      Grand total (net).......................................       55,368,096        76,350,390        57,550,000        +2,181,904       -18,800,390
          Appropriations......................................      (59,024,696)      (77,779,344)      (57,932,854)      (-1,091,842)     (-19,846,490)
          Contract authority..................................  ................  ................           (1,000)          (+1,000)          (+1,000)
          Disaster relief category............................  ................  ................       (2,300,000)      (+2,300,000)      (+2,300,000)
          Rescissions.........................................        (-720,600)         (-63,954)        (-570,854)        (+149,746)        (-506,900)
          Rescissions of contract authority...................      (-3,206,000)  ................          (-1,000)      (+3,205,000)          (-1,000)
          Rescission of prior year advance....................  ................  ................        (-750,000)        (-750,000)        (-750,000)
          Advance appropriations..............................       (4,392,000)       (4,400,000)       (4,400,000)          (+8,000)  ................
          Negative subsidy receipts...........................      (-4,115,000)      (-5,758,000)      (-5,758,000)      (-1,643,000)  ................
          Offsetting collections..............................          (-7,000)          (-7,000)          (-4,000)          (+3,000)          (+3,000)
      (Limitation on obligations).............................      (54,249,241)      (94,432,248)      (54,199,416)         (-49,825)     (-40,232,832)
      (By transfer)...........................................          (70,652)          (72,000)          (70,652)  ................          (-1,348)
      (Transfer out)..........................................         (-70,652)         (-72,000)         (-70,652)  ................          (+1,348)

      Total budgetary resources...............................     (109,617,337)     (170,782,638)     (111,749,416)      (+2,132,079)     (-59,033,222)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



