Senate Report 112-83 - TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2012

[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:

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)

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:

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

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

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:

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:

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)

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

* * * * * * *

(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.

* * * * * * *

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