Senate Report 113-182 - TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2015

[Senate Report 113-182]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

Calendar No. 412
113th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 113-182

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

TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2015
_______

June 5, 2014.--Ordered to be printed

_______

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

REPORT

[To accompany S. 2438]

The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 2438)
making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation and
Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2015, and for other purposes,
reports favorably thereon and recommends that the bill do pass.

Amounts of new budget (obligational) authority for fiscal year 2015

Total of bill as reported to the Senate................. $54,439,000,000
Amount of 2014 appropriations........................... 50,856,000,000
Amount of 2015 budget estimate\1\....................... 50,975,337,000
Bill as recommended to Senate compared to--
2014 appropriations................................. +3,583,000,000
2015 budget estimate................................ +3,463,663,000

\1\The budget estimate proposed converting $4,287,000,000 associated
with certain surface transportation programs previously treated as
budget authority into obligation limits. The Committee recommendation
does not reclassify the funding for these programs.

C O N T E N T S

----------
Page

Overview and Summary of the Bill................................. 3
Program, Project, and Activity................................... 4
Reprogramming Guidelines......................................... 4
Congressional Budget Justifications.............................. 5
Title I: Department of Transportation:
Office of the Secretary...................................... 8
Federal Aviation Administration.............................. 25
Federal Highway Administration............................... 46
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.................. 56
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration............... 62
Federal Railroad Administration.............................. 69
Federal Transit Administration............................... 75
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation................ 85
Maritime Administration...................................... 86
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration....... 92
Office of Inspector General.................................. 97
Surface Transportation Board................................. 98
General Provisions--Department of Transportation............. 98
Title II: Department of Housing and Urban Development:
Management and Administration................................ 101
Administrative Support Offices............................... 101
Program Offices Salaries and Expenses........................ 103
Public and Indian Housing.................................... 107
Community Planning and Development........................... 123
Housing Programs............................................. 130
Federal Housing Administration............................... 135
Government National Mortgage Association..................... 138
Policy Development and Research.............................. 139
Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity........................... 140
Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes.............. 141
Information Technology Fund.................................. 142
Office of Inspector General.................................. 143
Transformation Initiative.................................... 144
General Provisions--Department of Housing and Urban
Development................................................ 147
Title III: Independent Agencies:
Access Board................................................. 150
Federal Maritime Commission.................................. 151
National Railroad Passenger Corporation: Office of Inspector
General.................................................... 151
National Transportation Safety Board......................... 152
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation........................ 153
United States Interagency Council on Homelessness............ 155
Title IV: General Provisions--This Act........................... 157
Compliance With Paragraph 7, Rule XVI, of the Standing Rules of
the
Senate......................................................... 159
Compliance With Paragraph 7(c), Rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules
of the Senate.................................................. 160
Compliance With Paragraph 12, Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of
the Senate..................................................... 161
Budgetary Impact of Bill......................................... 178
Comparative Statement of Budget Authority........................ 179

OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY OF THE BILL

The Transportation and Housing and Urban Development, and
Related Agencies appropriations bill provides funding for a
wide array of Federal programs, mostly in the Departments of
Transportation [DOT] and Housing and Urban Development [HUD].
These programs include investment in road, transit, rail,
maritime, and airport infrastructure; the operation of the
Nation's air traffic control system; housing assistance for
those in need, including the homeless, elderly, and disabled;
resources to support community planning and development;
activities to improve road, rail, and pipeline safety; and a
wide range of research efforts.
The bill also provides funding for the Federal Housing
Administration and Government National Mortgage Association to
continue their traditional roles of providing access to
affordable homeownership in the United States.
The programs and activities supported by this bill include
significant responsibilities entrusted to the Federal
Government and its partners to protect human health and safety,
support a vibrant economy, and achieve policy objectives
strongly supported by the American people. The funding provided
in this bill supports the investments necessary for a strong
and economically competitive Nation. The ability to fulfill
these responsibilities and make important investments is made
challenging by pressure on available levels of discretionary
spending as a consequence of the overall public debate on
Federal spending, revenues, and size of the Federal debt.
This bill makes the operation of the interstate highway
system possible, as well as the world's safest air
transportation system. It ensures safe and sanitary housing for
5.4 million low and extremely low-income families and
individuals, over half of whom are elderly and/or disabled. It
provides funding that is leading to the gradual elimination of
homelessness among veterans. This bill also includes funding
for competitive grants to communities to support transportation
infrastructure projects of national or regional importance.
In the context of overall pressures on spending and the
competing priorities that the Committee faces, this bill, as
reported, provides the proper amount of emphasis on
transportation, housing, community development, and other
programs and activities funded within it. It is consistent with
the subcommittee's allocation for fiscal year 2015. All
accounts in the bill have been closely examined to ensure that
an appropriate level of funding is provided to carry out the
programs of DOT, HUD, and related agencies. Details on each of
the accounts, the funding level, and the Committee's
justifications for the funding levels are included in the
report.

PROGRAM, PROJECT, AND ACTIVITY

During fiscal year 2015, 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. For example, the
percentage reductions made pursuant to a sequestration order to
funds appropriated for facilities and equipment, Federal
Aviation Administration, would 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 (section 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 prior year enacted level; budget
request; adjustments made by Congress; adjustments for
rescissions, if appropriate; and the fiscal year enacted level.
The table shall delineate the appropriation and prior year
enacted level both by object class and by PPA, as well as
identify balances available for use under section 406 of the
bill. 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 the Department of Transportation's Working Capital
Fund, 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 2016 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 2016 to the fiscal year 2015
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
2016 budget request.

INCREASING EFFICIENCY

The departments, agencies, boards, and commissions funded
in this bill can and should continue to reduce operating
expenses by placing greater scrutiny on overhead costs. Savings
can and should be achieved by reducing non-essential travel,
office supply, rent, and utility costs. The Committee directs
each department, agency, board, and commission funded in this
bill to develop a plan to reduce such costs by at least 10
percent in fiscal year 2015. Plans to achieve these savings in
fiscal year 2015 should be submitted to the Committee no later
than 30 days after enactment of this act.

TITLE I

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

The Solvency of the Highway Trust Fund and Authorization of
Transportation Program.--This year, the Committee is in the
position of recommending funding levels for Federal highway,
transit, and highway and truck safety programs without any
assurances that sufficient balances will be available from the
Highway Trust Fund to support these programs, even at the
funding levels enacted for the current year. Furthermore, the
Committee is conducting its work without any certainty that the
necessary contract authority will be available for the whole of
fiscal year 2015.
The situation of the Highway Trust Fund is especially
precarious. Both the Congressional Budget Office and the
Department of Transportation project that current balances of
the highway and transit accounts of the Highway Trust Fund will
be depleted before the end of fiscal year 2015. In fact, the
Department of Transportation projects that the balances of the
trust fund's highway account to reach critical levels in July
of this year. At that point, the Department expects it will
have to delay reimbursements to States who have spent their own
funds on eligible highway projects.
When the Department of Transportation is forced to delay
its reimbursements, then the Federal Government has failed to
uphold its commitments to the State and local governments that
rely on these transportation programs to support their
communities. Because the highway program works on a
reimbursable basis, States work closely with the Department of
Transportation before beginning a project to ensure that it is
eligible for Federal funding. As work is completed on a
project, State agencies use their own money to pay contractors
the full cost of the work, knowing that the Federal Government
has agreed to pay its share in a timely manner. The State
submits vouchers to the Department of Transportation for the
Federal share of the work, which is usually reimbursed on the
same day that the voucher is submitted. However, these
reimbursements are paid out of the Highway Trust Fund. If we do
not protect the solvency of the trust fund, then we suddenly
leave State governments bearing the full cost of these
transportation projects.
This partnership between Federal and State governments has
been a fundamental part of building and maintaining our
highways for almost 100 years. Today, however, many States are
deciding that they cannot rely on the Federal Government this
summer. They are bracing for a shortfall in the Highway Trust
Fund by delaying construction projects that would have
supported jobs and improved their transportation systems.
The funding of most surface transportation programs also
relies on the availability of contract authority, which expires
under current law at the end of the current fiscal year. The
Administration has released its proposal for authorizing these
programs over the next 4 years, and the relevant authorizing
committees are putting together their legislation.
Unfortunately, it is still not clear if the levels of contract
authority for the next fiscal year will be enacted as part of a
multi-year authorization law, a short-term extension that
covers all of fiscal year 2015, or a series of short-term
extensions that eventually cover the whole fiscal year. What is
clear is that 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
investing in their communities.
The Committee has spoken on these issues many times in
recent years. Committee reports have repeatedly called for
bringing long-term solvency to the Highway Trust Fund, and for
4 years in a row, the Committee has recommended funding levels
without knowing when the necessary contract authority would be
enacted.
In the meantime, the Committee 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 authorization for transportation
programs will be extended through fiscal year 2015 at the
levels authorized for fiscal year 2014. This assumption is
consistent with recent extensions of the transportation
programs. This assumption is especially relevant for those
programs that rely on contract authority provided in the
authorization acts, including the Federal-aid Highways 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.
Crimea.--The Committee remains concerned about the Russian
aggression in Ukraine, Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea,
and Russia's illegal and unacceptable efforts to exploit stolen
Crimean resources, and urges that none of the funds in this act
be used to recognize, or imply recognition of, the sovereignty
of the Russian Federation over Crimea, its territory, airspace,
or territorial waters.

Office of the Secretary

Section 3 of the Department of Transportation Act of
October 15, 1966 (Public Law 89-670) provides for the
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 Policy; four Assistant Secretarial offices for
Budget and Programs, Governmental Affairs, Research and
Technology, 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, 2014.................................... $107,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................... 109,916,000
Committee recommendation................................ 108,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total of $108,000,000 for
salaries and expenses of the Office of the Secretary of
Transportation, including $60,000 for reception and
representation expenses. The recommendation is $1,916,000 less
than the budget request and $1,000,000 more than the fiscal
year 2014 enacted level. The accompanying bill stipulates that
none of the funding provided may be used for the position of
Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs.
The accompanying bill authorizes the Secretary to transfer
up to 5 percent of the funds from any office within the Office
of the Secretary to another. The Committee recommendation also
continues language that permits up to $2,500,000 of fees to be
credited to the Office of the Secretary for salaries and
expenses.
The following table summarizes the Committee's
recommendation in comparison to the fiscal year 2014 enacted
level and the budget request:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
2014 enacted 2015 estimate recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Secretary...................................... $2,652,000 $2,696,000 $2,696,000
Office of the Deputy Secretary............................... 1,000,000 1,011,000 1,011,000
Office of the General Counsel................................ 19,900,000 20,312,000 19,980,000
Office of the Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy... 10,271,000 10,417,000 10,300,000
Office of the Assistance Secretary for Budget and Programs... 12,676,000 13,111,000 12,676,000
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs... 2,530,000 2,567,000 2,500,000
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration......... 26,378,000 27,420,000 27,131,000
Office of Public Affairs..................................... 2,020,000 2,061,000 2,000,000
Office of the Executive Secretariat.......................... 1,714,000 1,746,000 1,714,000
Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization....... 1,386,000 1,414,000 1,414,000
Office of Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response..... 10,778,000 11,055,000 10,778,000
Office of the Chief Information Officer...................... 15,695,000 16,106,000 15,800,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................. 107,000,000 109,916,000 108,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 $2,696,000 for fiscal year 2015
for the Immediate Office of the Secretary. The recommendation
is equal to the budget request and $44,000 more than the fiscal
year 2014 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 $1,011,000 for the Immediate
Office of the Deputy Secretary, which is equal to the budget
request and $11,000 more than the fiscal year 2014 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 $19,980,000 for expenses of the
Office of the General Counsel for fiscal year 2015. The
recommended funding level is $332,000 less than the budget
request and $80,000 more than the fiscal year 2014 enacted
level.
Mobile Wireless Devices.--On February 24, 2014, the
Department published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(Docket No. DOT-OST-2014-0002) regarding the use of mobile
wireless devices for voice calls on commercial aircraft. The
approval of voice communication over mobile wireless devices
during commercial airline flights would be problematic for many
of the two million Americans who fly each day and challenging
for the airlines. The Committee directs the Department to
complete its rulemaking expeditiously and put in place a clear
rule that takes into account the full impact on consumers and
the commercial aviation industry.

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 $10,300,000 for the Office of the
Under Secretary for Policy. The recommended funding level is
$117,000 less than the budget request and $29,000 more than the
fiscal year 2014 enacted level.

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR BUDGET AND PROGRAMS

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $12,676,000 for the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs. The recommended
level is $435,000 less than the budget request and equal to the
fiscal year 2014 enacted level.

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 $2,500,000 for the
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs. The
recommended level is $67,000 less than the budget request and
$30,000 less than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level.

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Assistant Secretary for Administration is responsible
for establishing policies and procedures, setting guidelines,
working with the operating administrations to improve the
effectiveness and efficiency of the Department in human
resource management, security and administrative management,
real and personal property management, and acquisition and
grants management.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $27,131,000 for the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Administration. The recommended funding
level is $289,000 less than the budget request and $753,000
more than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level.
Response to the Government Accountability Office.--The
Committee understands that although the Government
Accountability Office [GAO], consistent with generally accepted
Government auditing standards, provides the Secretary of
Transportation with the opportunity to give substantive
comments on draft GAO reports before they are issued, the
Secretary's longstanding practice has been to decline to
provide such comments. In particular, the Committee understands
that the Secretary routinely declines to state the Department's
position on whether it agrees or disagrees with GAO
recommendations for agency action and the rationale for any
disagreement. The Committee has therefore included a provision
in title IV that requires all agencies and departments funded
in the act to respond to GAO recommendations in a timely
manner.

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 $2,000,000 for the Office of
Public Affairs, which is $61,000 less than the budget request
and $20,000 less than the fiscal year 2014 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 $1,714,000 for the Executive
Secretariat. The recommendation is $32,000 less than the budget
request and equal to the fiscal year 2014 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 $1,414,000, an amount that is
equal to the budget request and $28,000 more than the fiscal
year 2014 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 $10,778,000 for the Office of
Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response. The
recommendation is $277,000 less than the budget request and
equal to the fiscal year 2014 enacted level.

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of the Chief Information Officer serves as the
principal adviser to the Secretary on matters involving
information technology, cybersecurity, privacy, and records
management.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $15,800,000, which is $306,000
less than the budget request and $105,000 more than the fiscal
year 2014 enacted level.

RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

Appropriations, 2014.................................... $14,765,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................... 14,625,000
Committee recommendation................................ 13,500,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $13,500,000
for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and
Technology. This amount is $1,125,000 less than the budget
request, and $1,265,000 less than the fiscal year 2014 enacted
level. The following table summarizes the Committee's
recommendation in comparison to the budget request and the
fiscal year 2014 enacted level:

University Transportation Centers.--The Committee
recommendation includes $72,500,000 for University
Transportation Centers. This funding is provided through the
Federal Highway Administration, and the level is consistent
with the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act.
Small Business Innovation Research.--The Small Business
Innovation Research [SBIR] program encourages domestic small
businesses to engage in Federal research or research and
development activities that have the potential for
commercialization. The Volpe Center directs the Department's
SBIR program due to its extensive background in innovative
programs such as technology transfer, cooperative research and
development agreements, outreach projects involving a cross-
section of the transportation community, and technical
assistance to private organizations and State and local
governments. The Committee recognizes the importance of the
SBIR program and its success in commercialization from Federal
funded research and development projects. Through its work, the
SBIR program creates jobs in the smallest firms. The Committee
therefore encourages the Department to place an increased focus
on awarding SBIR awards to firms with fewer than 50 people. In
addition, the Committee directs the Department to take steps to
ensure that SBIR spending levels meet or exceed statutory
requirements.

NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS

Appropriations, 2014.................................... $600,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015\1\................................ 1,250,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 550,000,000

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

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation includes $550,000,000 for
grants and credit assistance for investment in significant
transportation projects, which is $50,000,000 less than the
fiscal year 2014 enacted level. The administration assumed that
this program would be funded as a part of comprehensive
legislation to reauthorize surface transportation programs, and
classified the funding as mandatory spending. The Committee,
however, does not expect the enactment of legislation that
funds this program on the mandatory side of the budget, and so
provides its funding recommendation in order to continue
investment in these important transportation projects.
Management Review by the Government Accountability
Offices.--On May 28, the Government Accountability Office [GAO]
issued a management report following its review of how the
Department provided grants in fiscal year 2013 under this
heading. GAO wrote in support of the grant program, saying,
``In prior work, we have recommended that a merit-based
competitive approach be used to direct a portion of Federal
funds to transportation projects of national and regional
significance.'' GAO offers recommendations as a way to
strengthen the program by taking measures to improve its
accountability. Specifically, GAO recommends that the
Department establish clear policies on how applications
submitted after the deadline are treated, and on how program
managers document major decisions in the application evaluation
and project selection process.
In its response to GAO's report, the Department recognized
the value of GAO's recommendations and described specific steps
it has already undertaken to implement them. The Department
also acknowledged that it experienced challenges during the
fiscal year 2013 process, including technical difficulties with
the grants.gov Web site, the loss of key members of the
program's leadership team, and a compressed schedule caused by
a late appropriation and an obligation deadline of less than 18
months. The Committee appreciates that the program now has a
strong leadership team that is committed to the program's
accountability, and the Committee urges the Department to
implement all of the promised improvements. In addition, the
Committee has lengthened the amount of time that TIGER funds
are available for obligation, ensuring that the Department will
have the time necessary to conduct a responsible competition
and fully document its process without making compromises due
to time constraints.
Planning Activities.--The Committee recommendation includes
up to $35,000,000 for the planning, preparation or design of
projects eligible for funding under this heading.
Protections for Rural Areas.--The Committee continues to
believe that our Federal infrastructure programs must benefit
communities across the country. For this reason, the Committee
continues to require the Secretary to award grants and credit
assistance in a manner that ensures an equitable geographic
distribution of funds and an appropriate balance in addressing
the needs of urban and rural communities.
Investing in infrastructure in rural America is extremely
important for growing the economy, increasing exports and
expanding markets. For this reason, the Committee also set
aside no less than 20 percent of the program's funding for
projects located in rural areas, and included specific
provisions to match grant requirements with the needs of rural
areas. Specifically, the Committee has lowered the minimum size
of a grant awarded to a rural area and increased the Federal
share of the total project cost.

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT CAPITAL

Appropriations, 2014.................................... $7,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................... 5,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Financial Management Capital program is a multi-year
business transformation initiative to streamline and
standardize the financial systems and business processes across
the Department. 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 $5,000,000 to complete the
Secretary's Financial Management Capital initiative, which is
equal to the budget request and $2,000,000 less than the fiscal
year 2014 enacted level.

CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE

Appropriations, 2014.................................... $4,455,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................... 5,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000 to support
the Secretary's Cyber Security Initiative, which is equal to
the budget request and $545,000 more than the fiscal year 2014
enacted level.

OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS

Appropriations, 2014.................................... $9,551,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................... 9,600,000
Committee recommendation................................ 9,600,000

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 $9,600,000 for
the Office of Civil Rights. The recommendation is equal to the
budget request and $49,000 more than the fiscal year 2014
enacted level.

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2014.................................... $7,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................... 8,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 6,000,000

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 $6,000,000 for transportation
planning, research, and development, which is $1,000,000 less
than the budget request and $2,000,000 less than the fiscal
year 2014 enacted level.
Study on Air Quality in Rail Cars and Stations.--The
Committee is aware of news reports that have found poor air
quality in some diesel powered commuter rail cars and stations.
The Committee directs the Secretary of Transportation to
conduct a study of the air quality in passenger cars of
commuter or intercity trains with diesel or diesel-electric
locomotives and rail stations serviced by diesel or diesel-
electric locomotives, and determine cost-effective ways to
reduce diesel emissions and improve air quality in these
passenger cars and rail stations. The Secretary is encouraged
to work with modal Administrators, commuter rail transit
agencies, the public transportation industry, public health
groups, the transportation research board and commuter rail
worker organizations in conducting the study. The Secretary is
directed to issue a report to the House and Senate Committees
on Appropriations no later than one year after enactment of
this act on the findings of the study.

WORKING CAPITAL FUND

Limitation, 2014........................................ $178,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015\1\................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 182,000,000

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

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Working Capital Fund 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 $182,000,000 on
activities financed through the Working Capital Fund. The
recommended limit is $4,000,000 more than the limit enacted for
fiscal year 2014. The Department requested that no limitation
be included in the bill.
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 for 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 2015 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 2016.

MINORITY BUSINESS RESOURCE CENTER PROGRAM

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation on
Appropriations guaranteed loans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2014................. $925,000 $18,367,000
Budget estimate, 2015................ 1,013,000 18,367,000
Committee recommendation............. 925,000 18,367,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Minority Business Resource Center of the Office of
Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization provides
assistance in obtaining short-term working capital for
disadvantaged, minority, and women-owned businesses. The
program enables qualified businesses to obtain loans at prime
interest rates for transportation-related projects. As required
by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, this account records
the subsidy costs associated with guaranteed loans for this
program as well as administrative expenses of this program.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $333,000 to
cover the subsidy costs for guaranteed loans and $592,000 for
administrative expenses to carry out the guaranteed loan
program. These recommended levels add to a total funding level
of $925,000 for the Minority Business Resource Center. This
total funding level is $88,000 less than the budget estimate
and equal to the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. The Committee
also recommends a limitation on guaranteed loans of
$18,367,000, which is equal to the budget request and the
fiscal year 2014 enacted level.
The Department requested an increase in funding to cover
the subsidy cost and administrative expenses of this program.
However, the current funding level still gives the Department
sufficient room to cover an increase in the cost of providing
each loan guarantee as well as growth in the overall size of
the program. Should the funding level become a constraint to
the program in the future, the Committee will revisit this
issue.

MINORITY BUSINESS OUTREACH

Appropriations, 2014.................................... $3,088,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................... 3,099,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,099,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation provides contractual support to assist
small, women-owned, Native American, and other disadvantaged
business firms in securing contracts and subcontracts for
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 $3,099,000 for grants and
contractual support provided under this program for fiscal year
2015. The recommendation is equal to the budget request and
$11,000 more than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level.

PAYMENTS TO AIR CARRIERS

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations Mandatory\1\ Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, 2014............................................. $149,000,000 $120,640,000 $269,640,000
Budget estimate, 2015........................................... 155,000,000 106,000,000 261,000,000
Committee recommendation........................................ 155,000,000 106,000,000 261,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Mandatory funding is supported by overflight fees provided to the Federal Aviation Administration pursuant to
section 41742 of title 49, United States Code.

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 [FAA] collects user
fees that cover the air traffic control services the agency
provides to aircraft that neither take off from, nor land in,
the United States. These fees are commonly referred to as
``overflight fees'', and the receipts from the fees are used to
help finance the EAS program.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends the appropriation of $155,000,000
for the EAS program. This appropriation would be in addition to
an estimated $106,000,000 of overflight fees collected by the
Federal Aviation Administration, allowing the Department to
support a total program level for EAS of about $261,000,000.
The appropriation and the level of funding from overflight fees
under the Committee's recommendation are both equal to the
budget request. The total program level under the Committee's
recommendation is $8,640,000 less than the total program level
enacted for fiscal year 2014; the total program level enacted
for that year was comprised of an appropriation of $149,000,000
plus $120,640,000 in overflight fees.
Proximity to the Nearest Hub Airport.--The Committee
continues to include a provision that prohibits the Department
from entering into a new contract with an EAS community located
less than 40 miles from the nearest hub airport before the
Secretary has negotiated with the community over a local cost
share. This provision was first added in the fiscal year 2014
Consolidated Appropriations Act.
Aircraft Size Requirement.--The Committee continues to
include a provision that removes the requirement for 15-
passenger seat aircraft, as requested by the Administration.
This requirement adds to the cost of the EAS program because
the fleet of 15-passenger seat aircraft continues to age and
grow more difficult for airlines to maintain. The Committee,
however, expects that the Department will use this flexibility
judiciously. The Department should use it for communities where
historical passenger levels indicate that smaller aircraft
would still accommodate the great majority of passengers, or
for communities where viable proposals for service are not
available. The Committee does not expect the Department to use
this flexibility simply to lower costs if a community can show
regular enplanement levels that would justify larger aircraft.
Passenger Levels and Subsidy Rates.--The table below
reflects the points in the continental United States currently
receiving EAS service, their annual subsidy rates, and their
level of subsidy per passenger.

ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE SUBSIDY PER PASSENGER
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Est. miles
to nearest Average Annual subsidy Passenger Subsidy per
State EAS communities hub (S, M, enplanements rates at 6/1/13 totals at passenger
or L) per day 12/31/12 at 6/1/13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALMuscle Shoals 60 6.3 $2,603,365 3,973 $655
AREl Dorado/Camden 117 12.4 1,977,153 7,742 255
ARHarrison 86 17.6 2,251,207 11,017 204
ARHot Springs 51 8.6 1,637,012 5,353 306
ARJonesboro 82 15.6 1,942,890 9,796 198
AZKingman 121 2.7 1,635,180 1,661 984
AZPage 282 20.2 2,472,028 12,639 196
AZPrescott 102 17.2 2,094,325 10,797 194
AZShow Low 154 11.9 1,672,000 7,461 224
CACrescent City 231 40.4 1,996,959 25,279 79
CAEl Centro 101 9.5 1,943,751 5,950 327
CAMerced 60 7.7 1,698,878 4,810 353
CAVisalia 47 10.8 1,697,929 6,762 251
COAlamosa 164 22.3 2,078,676 13,941 149
COCortez 255 26.1 2,240,766 16,336 137
COPueblo 36 14.6 1,737,732 9,141 190
GAAthens 72 5.9 1,630,410 3,681 443
GAMacon 82 4.0 1,998,696 2,482 805
IABurlington 74 20.8 1,917,566 12,994 148
IAFort Dodge 91 9.4 1,798,693 5,868 307
IAMason City 131 11.3 1,174,468 7,096 166
IASioux City 88 80.7 1,512,799 50,509 30
IAWaterloo 63 61.5 1,541,824 38,472 40
ILDecatur 126 20.5 2,667,922 12,803 208
ILMarion/Herrin 123 32.1 2,104,616 20,099 105
ILQuincy 111 33.1 1,956,856 20,728 94
KSDodge City 150 18.7 1,688,598 11,712 144
KSGarden City 202 73.4 2,919,026 45,951 64
KSGreat Bend 114 3.2 1,082,020 1,983 546
KSHays 166 28.9 2,164,041 18,068 120
KSLiberal/Guymon 138 19.3 2,555,150 12,099 211
KSSalina 97 7.5 1,490,479 4,705 317
KYOwensboro 105 12.4 1,529,913 7,738 198
KYPaducah 146 63.8 2,034,160 39,962 51
MDHagerstown 78 3.9 1,785,638 2,419 738
MEAugusta/Waterville 58 17.9 1,362,616 11,222 121
MEBar Harbor 157 16.3 1,631,223 10,190 160
MEPresque Isle/Houlton 274 34.8 3,892,174 21,800 179
MERockland 76 23.5 1,420,545 14,704 97
MIAlpena 174 51.6 3,098,472 32,300 96
MIEscanaba 227 46.0 2,833,558 28,803 98
MIHancock/Houghton 321 80.0 690,976 50,103 14
MIIron Mountain/Kingsford 229 30.0 2,512,971 18,766 134
MIIronwood/Ashland 213 8.1 1,747,326 5,066 345
MIManistee/Ludington 233 7.7 2,055,781 4,820 427
MIMuskegon 49 50.5 1,389,952 31,631 44
MIPellston 213 84.5 1,077,413 52,925 20
MISault Ste. Marie 347 67.3 1,765,393 42,130 42
MNBemidji 128 70.6 1,118,050 44,220 25
MNBrainerd 123 46.5 1,356,764 29,108 47
MNChisholm/Hibbing 199 33.6 2,517,770 21,060 120
MNInternational Falls 298 44.8 1,107,900 28,039 40
MNThief River Falls 305 6.9 1,881,815 4,323 435
MOCape Girardeau/Sikeston 127 19.4 1,627,966 12,160 134
MOFort Leonard Wood 136 26.9 2,905,794 16,811 173
MOJoplin 167 75.2 342,560 47,095 7
MOKirksville 137 18.1 1,649,248 11,357 145
MSGreenville 124 9.3 3,522,398 5,836 604
MSLaurel/Hattiesburg 66 18.9 2,965,667 11,830 251
MSMeridian 84 21.6 2,417,808 13,552 178
MSTupelo 94 18.3 3,522,398 11,438 308
MTButte 75 82.9 735,956 51,920 14
MTGlasgow 285 6.5 2,046,800 4,057 \1\n/a
MTGlendive 223 1.9 1,944,467 1,178 \1\n/a
MTHavre 230 3.7 2,036,254 2,338 \1\n/a
MTSidney 272 29.4 3,777,579 18,405 \1\n/a
MTWest Yellowstone 89 44.0 535,141 10,727 50
MTWolf Point 293 8.7 2,145,326 5,473 \1\n/a
NDDevils Lake 159 8.9 2,797,467 5,583 501
NDJamestown 92 8.3 1,987,655 5,183 383
NEAlliance 233 5.2 1,309,865 3,229 406
NEChadron 290 7.2 1,309,865 4,515 290
NEGrand Island 138 71.5 1,837,021 44,781 41
NEKearney 181 42.2 1,752,904 26,389 66
NEMcCook 256 6.2 1,976,338 3,877 510
NENorth Platte 255 26.7 1,697,510 16,690 102
NEScottsbluff 192 30.4 1,398,351 19,032 73
NHLebanon/White River Jct. 74 31.3 2,347,744 19,588 120
NMCarlsbad 149 8.6 1,397,081 5,364 260
NMClovis 102 5.0 1,954,490 3,143 622
NMSilver City/Hurley/Deming 134 4.5 2,098,460 2,803 749
NYJamestown 76 10.1 1,940,272 6,321 307
NYMassena 138 15.5 2,090,949 9,708 215
NYOgdensburg 105 17.0 1,702,697 10,647 160
NYPlattsburgh 82 23.6 2,470,834 14,748 168
NYSaranac Lake/Lake Placid 132 16.9 1,832,064 10,552 174
NYWatertown 54 61.2 3,356,349 38,282 88
ORPendleton 185 13.6 1,834,708 8,524 215
PAAltoona 112 12.5 1,998,594 7,830 255
PABradford 77 6.9 1,940,272 4,292 452
PADuBois 112 15.6 2,587,029 9,793 264
PAFranklin/Oil City 85 5.0 1,293,515 3,134 413
PAJohnstown 84 19.6 1,998,594 12,287 163
PALancaster 28 6.3 2,504,174 3,943 635
PRMayaguez 105 17.3 1,198,824 10,802 111
SDAberdeen 176 80.2 1,043,719 50,202 21
SDHuron 121 5.6 1,929,349 3,485 554
SDWatertown 102 14.2 1,710,324 8,872 193
TNJackson 86 7.8 1,115,210 4,865 229
TXVictoria 93 10.4 2,294,036 6,518 352
UTCedar City 179 37.9 2,317,439 23,716 98
UTMoab 256 13.8 2,303,347 8,635 267
UTVernal 150 26.6 1,415,696 16,660 85
VAStaunton 113 45.1 3,394,629 28,203 120
VTRutland 69 17.3 1,360,481 10,827 126
WIEau Claire 92 62.5 1,546,536 39,104 40
WIRhinelander 190 53.5 1,519,619 33,471 45
WVBeckley 168 12.0 2,512,494 7,502 335
WVClarksburg/Fairmont 96 18.8 1,728,125 11,784 147
WVGreenbrier/W.Sulphur Sps 162 21.9 3,484,710 13,698 254
WVMorgantown 75 32.6 1,728,125 20,381 85
WVParkersburg/Marietta 110 26.1 2,587,029 16,357 158
WYCody 106 43.0 1,380,779 26,909 51
WYLaramie 145 35.3 1,635,346 22,085 74
WYWorland 161 8.9 1,987,148 5,589 356
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Cape Air began service at five Montana communities in December 2013, which is too recent for an accurate
measurement of the subsidy per passenger.

SAFE TRANSPORT OF OIL

Appropriations, 2014....................................................
Budget estimate, 2015................................... $40,000,000
Committee recommendation................................................

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The administration proposed a new appropriation to fund a
multi-modal initiative to support prevention and response
activities associated with the safe transportation of crude
oil. The funds would be available for work conducted by the
Federal Railroad Administration, Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration, and Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration. The Administrators of those operating
administrations and representatives from the Office of the
Secretary would serve as a board that would make decisions on
the use of the funding and would oversee its implementation.
Funds also could be used to support collaborative efforts with
other Federal departments and agencies, such as the Department
of Energy, the Department of the Interior, and the
Environmental Protection Agency.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee does not recommend providing a new
appropriation for initiatives to improve the safety of crude
oil transportation. The Committee has instead recommended
funding through the regular appropriations to the offices and
agencies that conduct this work.
The dramatic increase in domestic energy production in
recent years has led to a rapid change in the demands on our
transportation network. The vast and growing shipments of crude
oil and ethanol by rail pose new challenges to the Department
as it works to ensure the safe transportation of these
hazardous materials in interstate commerce. To that end, the
Committee recognizes the pressing need to increase the
resources available to the Department to support activities
related to research, regulations, oversight and enforcement.
The Committee recommendation includes additional resources in
the modal administrations targeted to research activities,
inspectors, and training and awareness efforts to improve
emergency response and safety. This funding will assist the
Secretary in providing a comprehensive prevention, mitigation,
and response safety strategy for the shipment of energy
products.

INTERAGENCY INFRASTRUCTURE PERMITTING IMPROVEMENT CENTER

Appropriations, 2014....................................................
Budget estimate, 2015................................... $8,000,000
Committee recommendation................................................

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Administration proposed a new appropriation to fund the
establishment and operation of an Interagency Infrastructure
Permitting Improvement Center. The goals of the center would be
to develop and implement reforms for the permitting and review
of major infrastructure projects, develop and deploy
information technology tools to track project schedules and
metrics, and improve the transparency and accountability of the
permitting process.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee does not recommend providing a new
appropriation for an Interagency Infrastructure Permitting
Improvement Center. The Committee notes that the Department
regularly undertakes activities to improve permitting and
review processes, and the Committee expects the Department to
continue its efforts to advance project delivery using its
existing agencies and offices. The Committee has not yet seen
evidence that a new center dedicated to these activities would
improve the effectiveness of the Department's efforts. Under
current budgetary constraints, the Committee cannot afford to
dedicate funding to a new center without more proof that it
would significantly improve outcomes.

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 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 103 allows the Department of Transportation to make
use of the Working Capital Fund in providing transit benefits
to Federal employees.
Section 104 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
Transportation Security Administration.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The total recommended funding level for the FAA for fiscal
year 2015 amounts to $15,860,450,000 including new budget
authority and a limitation on the obligation of contract
authority. This funding level is $580,000,000 more than the
budget request and $126,420,000 more than the fiscal year 2014
enacted level.
The following table summarizes the Committee's
recommendations for fiscal year 2015 in comparison to the
budget request and the fiscal year 2014 enacted level:

OPERATIONS

Appropriations, 2014.................................... $9,651,422,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................... 9,750,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 9,750,000,000

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 and support offices.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total of $9,750,000,000 for FAA
operations. This funding level is equal to the budget request,
and $98,578,000 more than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level.
The Committee recommendation derives $8,595,000,000 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 following table summarizes the Committee's
recommendation in comparison to the budget estimate and fiscal
year 2014 enacted level:

FAA OPERATIONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-------------------------------------- Committee
2014 enacted 2015 estimate recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air traffic organization............................... $7,311,790,000 $7,396,654,000 $7,396,654,000
Aviation safety........................................ 1,204,777,000 1,215,458,000 1,215,458,000
Commercial space transportation........................ 16,011,000 16,605,000 16,605,000
Finance and management................................. 762,462,000 765,047,000 765,047,000
NextGen operations and planning........................ 59,782,000 60,089,000 60,089,000
Staff offices:
Office of the Administrator........................ 4,017,000 4,049,000 4,049,000
Office of audit and evaluation..................... 3,200,000 3,227,000 3,227,000
Office of civil rights............................. 11,868,000 11,940,000 11,940,000
Government and industry affairs.................... 1,530,000 1,541,000 1,400,000
Office of communications........................... 6,003,000 6,056,000 6,056,000
Office of the Chief Counsel........................ 44,190,000 44,772,000 44,772,000
Office of policy, international affairs and environ- 33,630,000 33,579,000 33,720,000
ment.............................................
Human resources management......................... 103,490,000 101,195,000 101,195,000
Office of security and hazardous materials safety.. 88,672,000 89,788,000 89,788,000
--------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal......................................... 296,600,000 296,147,000 296,147,000
--------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................ 9,651,422,000 9,750,000,000 9,750,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FAA Administrative Expenses.--The Committee continues to
expect the FAA to use its Federal resources judiciously, and
does not believe that providing retention bonuses to the same
employee for repeated years in a row represents a responsible
use of those taxpayer dollars. A retention bonus should offer a
short-term enticement to stay at the FAA for employees
possessing critical and hard-to-replace skills, thereby giving
the agency extra time to find a suitable replacement. When
given every year to a broad spectrum of employees, however, a
retention bonus acts as a loophole in the Federal
administrative process, allowing the FAA to give a permanent
pay raise to certain employees without being held accountable
to the regular administrative requirements. The Committee is
still concerned about the FAA's failure to manage this
authority responsibly, and retains bill language directing the
Department's Assistant Secretary for Administration to be the
approving official for any request for a retention bonus by the
FAA during fiscal year 2015.
Contract Towers.--The Committee recommendation provides a
total of $149,000,000 for the contract tower program, which
includes $138,650,000 for the base program and $10,350,000 for
the contract tower cost share program. This total funding level
is sufficient to cover all towers that will be operating during
fiscal year 2015. The Committee also retains language that
limits contributions in the contract tower cost share program
to 20 percent of total costs.
Critical Workforces of the FAA.--The Committee remains
committed to FAA's critical workforces, including air traffic
controllers and aviation safety inspectors and technicians. The
Committee recommendation fully funds the Administration's
request for the Air Traffic Organization and the Office of
Aviation Safety, which will allow the FAA to maintain its
critical workforces in fiscal year 2015.
FAA's New Process for Hiring Air Traffic Controllers.--This
past December, the FAA announced that it would begin hiring
additional air traffic controllers, and that it would use an
entirely new process to fill those positions. Among its
changes, the FAA decided that it would start a new competition,
no longer using the list or ``inventory'' of candidates that
the agency had reviewed from prior job announcements; it would
open the competition to the general public, whereas the agency
had traditionally targeted its announcements to veterans or
graduates of schools designed by the FAA as Collegiate Training
Institutes [CTI]; and it would start using a new tool called
the biographical questionnaire to screen its candidates.
The Committee understands that the FAA's new hiring
policies are necessary to address important shortcomings in the
way the agency had been hiring air traffic controllers. The old
process did not appropriately apply veterans' preference law,
and it raised barriers against the FAA's ability to hire a
diverse group of new air traffic controllers. The Committee
agrees that the FAA, as an agency of the Federal Government,
should ensure that its hiring processes are open and fair for
everyone.
However, the FAA managed the change to its hiring process
poorly. For many, the FAA's announcement was unexpected and
came suddenly. The FAA had dedicated several years to research
and development for the new hiring process, and the agency had
reached out to a variety of stakeholder groups who could help
inform its decisions. Even so, as valuable as this effort was,
the FAA never reached out to key participants in the aviation
community, including controller candidates and CTI schools.
Instead, the FAA announced its decision in the middle of a
school year, issued its next job announcement immediately, and
caused confusion among the very people who needed to navigate
the new process.
Furthermore, significant questions have been raised now
that the FAA has conducted the biographical questionnaire for
the first time. According to the National Air Traffic
Controllers Association, who worked closely with the FAA in
developing its new hiring process, the agency had expected
about 30 percent of its candidates to advance beyond the
biographical questionnaire. Yet, less than 8 percent have
advanced beyond the questionnaire this year. Candidates who had
applied for a controller position through a previous job
announcement, taken the FAA's technical skills test, and been
told that they were considered ``well qualified,'' now find
themselves being screened out by the biographical
questionnaire. They are shaken by this experience because they
feel that they had already proven their technical abilities,
but they are now being screened out by a questionnaire that
asks them, for example, to decide if other people would
describe them as a person with great ``drive'' or great
``persistence.''
The FAA has placed great confidence in its new hiring
process, arguing that it will lead to more open and fair
competition. The Committee, however, is concerned that
confusion about the new process and the role of the
biographical questionnaire has detracted from this year's
recruiting effort.
The Committee has included a new provision in its bill
language to ensure that the FAA's new hiring process truly
gives every applicant the ability to compete openly and fairly
for a job as an air traffic controller. This year's process may
have been marked by confusion, but the Committee believes that
applicants should be held harmless from the FAA's inability to
manage the transition to the new hiring process. The bill
clarifies that any person who held a position on the FAA's
``inventory'' of qualified candidates from previous job
announcements can apply for a position as an air traffic
controller during fiscal year 2015, even if they turned 31
years old and aged out of the process during this past year.
In addition, the Committee expects that in the future FAA
will consider its partnership with CTI schools more seriously,
and invite their input when contemplating significant policy
changes that would affect their students.
Aircraft Certification Process Review and Reform.--The
Committee continues to be keenly interested in FAA's progress
toward implementing section 312 of the FAA Modernization and
Reform Act of 2012, which requires the FAA to develop a more
streamlined certification process. An aviation rulemaking
committee [ARC], with representatives from both FAA and the
aviation industry, issued its recommendations on May 22, 2012.
The recommendations included expanding the use of FAA's
delegated authority and a risk-based, systems safety approach
to its oversight. FAA must now face a far more challenging task
of implementing those recommendations, and measuring the
effectiveness of its efforts.
It is essential for FAA to document its progress to the
Committee and other aviation stakeholders. The Committee
therefore directs FAA to submit to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations a report no later than April 3,
2015, on the measures of effectiveness that FAA is applying to
its work in implementing the ARC's recommendations. The report
should detail the measures of effectiveness and the extent to
which they track FAA's progress, including the agency's
progress in relying more fully on delegated authorities and
toward a systems safety approach; how regularly the FAA will
collect this data and how it will be used to improve FAA's
process over time; the extent to which FAA has modified its
personnel expectations and its training course content to
communicate changes to field offices; and the extent to which
ARC members were consulted in drafting the measures of
effectiveness.
FAA's success in streamlining its certification process
relies on the agency's workforce of trained inspectors,
engineers and specialists. The Committee directs the FAA to
include in its annual aviation safety workforce plan a section
devoted to the actions undertaken and planned by the agency to
further enhance aircraft certification workforce skills and
training.
The Committee also expects FAA to continue its efforts to
educate and coordinate with other international aviation
authorities about its certification process. These efforts are
consistent with the FAA's strategic plan, and they are critical
to FAA's ability to streamline and enhance the validation and
acceptance of FAA certifications globally.
Finally, the Committee expects the FAA to use the resources
provided in its recommendation to support the completion of a
final rule that advances the safety and continued development
of small airplanes, as required by the Small Airplane
Revitalization Act of 2013.
Consistency of Regulatory Interpretation.--Section 313 of
the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 requires FAA to
improve how consistently its offices and field locations
enforce agency regulations. An aviation rulemaking committee
developed recommendations on this issue and issued its report
on November 28, 2012. As with FAA's work on certification
streamlining, the agency must now face the challenge of
implementing the recommendations.
The Committee is acutely interested in the FAA's progress
toward improving the consistency of its regulatory
interpretation, but remains concerned about the current state
of affairs. Recently, for example, an airline that interacts
with flight standards district offices in Seattle, Washington,
as well as Juneau and Anchorage, Alaska, reported startling
differences in how these offices treated the same situation.
The airline had voluntarily raised a concern documentation
related to its aircraft. The offices in Alaska worked closely
with several airlines to fix the issue, knowing that it did not
have any safety implications. In contrast, the office in
Seattle issued a formal letter of investigation that threatened
regulatory action against the airline, which would have
resulted in grounding its fleet.
Even more startling was the reaction of managers at the
Seattle office when the airline suggested that its working
relationship with the Alaska offices could be a model for
addressing similar issues in the future. The airline was told
that each flight standards district office works independently
and has no relationship with the other offices. This assertion
is true only to the extent that each district office has the
authority to conduct its own oversight, but completely ignores
the fact that each office works on behalf of the FAA and must
conduct its work accordingly.
As this incident shows, there are significant differences
among field offices in their workplace culture and their
understanding of how to use best practices when enforcing FAA
policy and regulations, as well as a large gap between field
offices and FAA headquarters. The Committee therefore directs
the FAA to include a section in its annual aviation safety
workforce plan devoted to the actions undertaken and planned by
the agency to improve the consistency of its regulatory
interpretations.
Air Traffic Control Optimum Training Solution.--To protect
the safety of the national airspace, the FAA must maintain a
full workforce of trained air traffic controllers. According to
the FAA's current Controller Workforce Plan, the agency will
hire 10,031 air traffic controllers over the next 9 years. The
FAA needs an effective strategy for training all of these
controllers.
In September 2008, the FAA awarded the Air Traffic Control
Optimum Training Solution [ATCOTS] contract to provide up to 10
years of controller training. The FAA claimed that the ATCOTS
program would modernize how the agency trained its air traffic
controllers, reducing the time it took to train each controller
and the total cost of controller training. The ATCOTS contract
included provisions that were supposed to encourage the
contractor to develop training innovations.
In reality, ATCOTS has not produced results. The program
resulted in cost overruns each year over the first 4 years,
racking up about $89,000,000 in additional expenses and
exhausting the program's base level of funding a year ahead of
time. The additional spending, however, was not buying the FAA
a more efficient training program. Over the fiscal year 2009-
2012 period, the amount of time needed to certify controllers
increased by an average of 41 percent. That is, under the
ATCOTS program, it took an average of 9 months longer to
certify each air traffic controller. Running out of room under
its ATCOTS budget, the FAA exercised the contract's first
extension a year in advance, lengthening the contract by 3
years. FAA has improved its oversight of the contract, but
according to a report issued by the Inspector General in
December 2013, the agency still has not adequately defined its
requirements or fully identified training costs.
Since last November, this Committee has been asking for a
briefing from the FAA that would cover the status of the ATCOTS
program, the program's procurement schedule, and the agency's
strategy for improving the program's performance. The FAA has
been unwilling or unable to provide this briefing, and the
FAA's unwillingness to discuss the status of ATCOTS reflects
poorly on agency's ability to manage the program.
The Committee directs the FAA to provide the requested
briefing to staff members for the House and Senate Committees
on Appropriations immediately. In addition, given the long
history of briefing requests, the Committee turns to the Office
of Inspector General [OIG] to provide further insight into the
FAA's ability to estimate the cost of the ATCOTS program, and
the FAA's strategy for managing this program after the current
contract period. The Committee directs the OIG to submit an
update to the December 2013 report on the ATCOTS program no
later than 6 months after enactment of this act.
Pilot Records Database.--The Committee directs FAA to
continue implementing section 203 of the Airline Safety Act of
2010, which requires the agency to create a pilot records
database. This database will contain various types of pilot
records that air carriers will use to perform a record check on
pilots before making hiring decisions. The FAA has encountered
significant obstacles in collecting and collating many years'
worth of industry records and developing a software database.
The Committee recognizes the difficulty of these obstacles, but
remains concerned with the pace of the rulemaking. The
Committee directs the FAA to provide a letter report on its
progress in meeting the requirements of section 203 to the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations no later than
March 2, 2015.
FAA's Telecommunications.--The executive branch has issued
an order allowing commercial telecommunication carriers to test
the transition from time-division multiplexed [TDM] circuit
switched voice services to Internet protocol [IP] networks.
This transition from TDM to IP could have a significant impact
on the FAA because 92 percent of the agency's
telecommunications services are TDM-based. FAA is working with
its telecommunications service provider and the Federal
Communications Commission to ensure that FAA operations are not
disrupted by this transition. FAA also recognizes the need for
a long-term plan that is consistent with its effort to
modernize the air traffic control system. The Committee directs
FAA to report to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations no later than March 31, 2015, on the status of
its investment analysis of the transition to IP services.
Public Comment Periods.--The Committee recognizes the
critical role of public comment periods on FAA's rulemaking
proceedings and the agency's non-rulemaking activities related
to special use airspace. These efforts could affect a
significant portion of the public, and full and fair public
comment periods improve transparency and confidence among
stakeholders that the FAA will take all views into account. The
Committee, however, is concerned that the FAA has failed to
take meaningful steps to improve transparency in its rulemaking
process. To ensure the public's ability to submit comments on
actions being considered by the FAA, it is important to make
electronic submissions available, especially as many
individuals have shifted toward providing comments to the
Federal Government through the Internet. Therefore, the
Committee directs the FAA to update its procedures for handling
airspace matters to ensure an online venue is available for
comment submission on all public comment solicitations,
including solicitations on special use airspace non-rulemaking
circulars.
Aeronautical Navigation Products.--The Committee remains
concerned about Aeronautical Navigation Products' [AeroNav]
plans to impose a per person charge and erect a digital
copyright on digital products produced by the FAA for the
public benefit. The FAA has previously made these products
available for download from its Web site without charge. The
Committee is concerned that the proposed scheme will be used to
support the declining paper chart services by charging those
that are moving to a digital format. In contrast to AeroNav's
efforts, Executive Order 13642 was issued on May 14, 2013, to
make government data available to foster entrepreneurship and
innovation. This order builds on another order issued in 2012
to open up government systems with public interfaces for
commercial application providers.
With these concerns in mind, the Committee continues to
include bill language that prohibits AeroNav from implementing
new charges on AeroNav products until the FAA provides the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a report that
describes (1) the estimated cost of producing only its digital
products, on a product-by-product basis (for example,
delineating costs for electronic navigation charts and vector
charts separately), for use on computers, tablets, and other
displays; (2) the cost of producing both digital products and
paper products, on a product-by-product basis; (3) safety and
operational benefits of using digital products; and (4) how
AeroNav's actions conflict with the direction in Executive
Order 13642 to support open data for entrepreneurship,
innovation, and scientific discovery.
FAA Public Hearing.--The Committee remains concerned with
the proposed modifications to the Condor 1 and Condor 2
military operating areas and encourages FAA to continue working
with its partner agencies by holding a public hearing with
representatives from the relevant Federal agencies in western
Maine upon completion of the Air National Guard's environmental
impact statement and the record of decision. The Committee
recognizes that the Air National Guard, as the lead agency
under the NEPA process, has sought to meet the minimum legal
requirements for public participation and comment. However, the
Committee remains troubled with how the authorization of low-
altitude military training in the proposed airspace would
affect areas that significantly contribute to the local economy
and areas that are culturally and environmentally sensitive.
Furthermore, the Committee notes the FAA is the only Federal
agency that can modify special airspace and that the FAA may
adopt the Air National Guard's EIS in whole, or in part, once
the Final EIS has been issued. In addition, the Committee
directs the FAA to report to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations prior to the issuance of a record of decision
regarding the modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2
military operations areas that includes a summary of any public
meeting and hearing and a list of the comments, questions, and
responses presented at these meetings and hearings.
Unmanned Aerial Systems.--Section 333 of the FAA
Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 authorized the FAA to
approve, where appropriate and consistent with criteria
specified in the law, the operation of certain unmanned
aircraft systems before the completion of certain rules and
planning requirements specified in the law. The Committee
encourages the FAA to consider whether UAS test sites may be
appropriate in assisting the Secretary in making determinations
under section 333. The Committee also urges the FAA to
communicate clearly with the UAS industry regarding its
priorities for section 333 consideration.

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2014.................................... $2,600,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................... 2,603,700,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,473,700,000

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 $2,473,700,000
for the Facilities and Equipment account of the Federal
Aviation Administration. The recommended level is $130,000,000
less than the budget request and $126,300,000 less than the
fiscal year 2014 enacted level. In addition, the Committee
recommendation increases the obligation limitation of the
grants-in-aid for airports program by $130,000,000 and sets
aside this funding for FAA facilities and equipment that are
located on airport property, bringing the total amount of
funding for facilities and equipment under the Committee
recommendation to a level equal to the President's budget
request. This provision is discussed in more depth under the
heading for grants-in-aid to airports.
Capital Investment Plan.--For the past 2 years, the FAA has
failed to produce its annual capital investment plan in a
timely manner. The appropriations laws for fiscal years 2012
and 2013 required the FAA to issue its next plan with the
Administration's submission of its budget request. The fiscal
year 2013 plan was not submitted to Congress until August, 6
months after the deadline, and the fiscal year 2014 plan has
not yet been submitted. The Committee therefore has included a
new provision in its bill language that would lower the
appropriation for FAA's facilities and equipment by $100,000
for each day after the submission of the fiscal year 2016
budget request that the plan has not been submitted to
Congress.
Budget Activities Format.--The Committee directs that the
fiscal year 2016 budget request for the Facilities and
Equipment account conform to the same organizational structure
of budget activities as displayed below.
The following table shows the Committee's recommended
distribution of funds for each of the budget activities funded
by this appropriation and by resources provided under grants-
in-aid to airports:

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-------------------------------------- Committee
2014 enacted 2015 estimate recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Activity 1--Engineering, Development, Test and
Evaluation:
Advanced technology development and prototyping.... $32,000,000 $29,900,000 $29,900,000
NAS improvement of system support laboratory....... 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000
William J. Hughes Technical Center facilities...... 11,000,000 12,049,000 12,049,000
William J. Hughes Technical Center infrastructure 5,000,000 12,200,000 12,200,000
sustainment.......................................
Data communications in support of NextGen.......... 115,450,000 ................. .................
NextGen--Demonstrations and infrastructure 20,000,000 ................. .................
development.......................................
NextGen--Systems development....................... 58,075,883 ................. .................
NextGen--Trajectory based operations............... 15,988,063 ................. .................
NextGen--Reduce weather impact..................... 2,729,354 ................. .................
NextGen--High density/arrivals/departures.......... 5,484,247 ................. .................
NextGen--Collaborative ATM......................... 20,250,589 ................. .................
NextGen--Flexible terminals and airports........... 12,923,385 ................. .................
NextGen--System network facilities................. 5,094,032 ................. .................
NextGen--Future facilities......................... 10,000,000 ................. .................
Performance based navigation/RNAV/RNP.............. 32,200,000 ................. .................
NextGen--Separation management..................... ................. 13,000,000 13,000,000
NextGen--Improved surface/TFDM..................... ................. 38,808,000 38,808,000
NextGen--On demand NAS............................. ................. 6,000,000 6,000,000
NextGen--Environment............................... ................. 2,500,000 5,500,000
NextGen--Improved multiple runway operations....... ................. 3,500,000 3,500,000
NextGen--NAS infrastructure........................ ................. 13,480,000 13,480,000
NextGen--Support................................... ................. 13,000,000 13,000,000
NextGen--Performance based navigation and metroplex ................. 25,500,000 25,500,000

Activity 2--Air Traffic Control Facilities and
Equipment:

a. En Route Programs:
En route automation modernization [ERAM]........... 66,800,000 10,500,000 10,500,000
En route automation modernization [ERAM]--system 35,000,000 45,200,000 45,200,000
enhancements and tech refresh.....................
En route communications gateway [ECG].............. 2,200,000 6,600,000 6,600,000
Next generation weather radar [NEXRAD]--provide.... 4,100,000 7,100,000 7,100,000
ARTCC building improvements/plant improvements..... 45,160,377 63,700,000 60,000,000
Air traffic management [ATM]....................... 13,800,000 5,729,000 5,729,000
Air/ground communications infrastructure........... 5,500,000 3,900,000 3,900,000
Air traffic control en route radar facilities 5,900,000 5,100,000 5,100,000
improvements......................................
Voice switching and control system [VSCS].......... 19,000,000 13,800,000 13,800,000
Oceanic automation system.......................... 4,800,000 3,508,000 3,508,000
Next generation very high frequency air/ground comm 20,250,000 40,000,000 40,000,000
[NEXCOM]..........................................
Systemwide information management.................. 66,550,000 60,261,000 60,261,000
ADS-B NAS-wide implementation...................... 282,100,400 247,200,000 257,200,000
Windshear detection service........................ 2,000,000 4,300,000 4,300,000
Weather and radar processor [WARP]................. 700,000 ................. .................
Collaborative air traffic management technologies 28,200,000 13,491,000 13,491,000
WP2 & WP3.........................................
Colorado ADS-B/WAM cost share...................... 3,400,000 ................. .................
Time based flow management......................... 10,500,000 21,000,000 21,000,000
ATC beacon interrogator [ATCBI]--sustainment....... 1,000,000 ................. .................
NextGen weather processors......................... 11,475,000 23,320,000 23,320,000
Airborne collision avoidance system X [ACASX]...... ................. 12,000,000 12,000,000
Data communications in support of NextGen.......... ................. 147,340,000 150,340,000

b. Terminal Programs:
Airport Surface Detection Equipment--Model X [ASDE- 12,100,000 5,436,000 5,436,000
X]................................................
Terminal doppler weather radar [TDWR]--provide..... 3,600,000 1,900,000 1,900,000
Standard terminal automation replacement system 45,500,000 50,700,000 50,700,000
[STARS] (TAMR Phase 1)............................
Terminal automation modernization/replacement 155,550,000 136,150,000 136,150,000
program (TAMR Phase 3)............................
Terminal automation program........................ 2,600,000 1,600,000 1,600,000
Terminal air traffic control facilities--replace\1\ 69,000,000 29,800,000 58,800,000
ATCT/Terminal radar approach control [TRACON] 48,228,833 45,040,000 45,040,000
facilities--improve\1\............................
Terminal voice switch replacement [TVSR]........... 5,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
NAS facilities OSHA and environmental standards 21,000,000 43,501,000 40,000,000
compliance........................................
Airport surveillance radar [ASR-9]................. 10,900,000 13,600,000 13,600,000
Terminal digital radar [ASR-11] tech refresh and 19,400,000 21,100,000 21,100,000
mobile airport surveillance radar [MASR]..........
Runway status lights\1\............................ 35,250,000 41,710,000 41,710,000
National airspace system voice system [NVS]........ 16,000,000 20,550,000 20,550,000
Integrated display system [IDS].................... 4,100,000 16,917,000 16,917,000
Remote monitoring and logging system [RMLS]........ 1,000,000 3,930,000 3,930,000
Mode S service life extension program [SLEP]....... 7,300,000 8,100,000 8,100,000
Surveillance interface modernization............... 6,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000
Tower flight data manager [TFDM]................... 19,250,000 ................. .................
Voice recorder replacement program [VRRP].......... 6,200,000 1,000,000 1,000,000
Precision runway monitor [PRM]..................... 5,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000
Integrated terminal weather system [ITWS].......... 1,300,000 4,400,000 4,400,000

c. Flight Service Programs:
Aviation surface observation system [ASOS]......... 10,000,000 8,000,000 8,000,000
Future flight service program...................... 3,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000
Alaska flight service facility modernization 1,500,000 2,800,000 2,800,000
[AFSFM]...........................................
Weather camera program............................. 1,200,000 200,000 200,000

d. Landing and Navigational Aids Program:
VHF Omnidirectional radio range [VOR] with 8,300,000 8,300,000 8,300,000
distance measuring equipment [DME]................
Instrument landing system [ILS]--establish\1\...... 7,000,000 7,000,000 7,000,000
Wide area augmentation system [WAAS] for GPS....... 84,000,000 103,600,000 103,600,000
Runway visual range [RVR] and enhanced low 6,000,000 6,000,000 7,500,000
visibility operations [ELVO]\1\...................
Approach lighting system improvement program 3,500,000 3,000,000 3,000,000
[ALSIP]\1\........................................
Distance measuring equipment [DME]................. 4,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000
Visual NAVAIDS--establish/expand................... 2,500,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
Instrument flight procedures automation [IFPA]..... 4,500,000 2,400,000 2,400,000
Navigation and landing aids--service life extension 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000
program [SLEP]....................................
VASI Replacement--replace with precision approach 2,500,000 5,000,000 5,000,000
path indicator\1\.................................
GPS Civil requirements............................. 6,000,000 27,000,000 10,000,000
Runway safety areas--navigational mitigation\1\.... 38,000,000 35,000,000 35,000,000

e. Other ATC Facilities Programs:
Fuel storage tank replacement and management....... 8,700,000 15,500,000 15,500,000
Unstaffed infrastructure sustainment............... 20,000,000 32,300,000 32,300,000
Aircraft related equipment program................. 10,400,000 9,000,000 9,000,000
Airport cable loop systems--sustained support...... 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000
Alaskan satellite telecommunications infrastructure 8,500,000 11,400,000 11,400,000
[ASTI]............................................
Facilities decommissioning......................... 6,500,000 5,700,000 5,700,000
Electrical power systems--sustain/support.......... 68,075,000 102,000,000 86,701,000
FAA Employee housing and life safety shelter system 2,500,000 ................. .................
service...........................................
Energy management and compliance [EMC]............. ................. 1,000,000 1,000,000

Activity 3--Nonair Traffic Control Facilities and
Equipment:

a. Support Equipment:
Hazardous materials management..................... 18,500,000 22,000,000 22,000,000
Aviation safety analysis system [ASAS]............. 12,700,000 11,900,000 11,900,000
Logistics support systems and facilities [LSSF].... 10,000,000 8,000,000 8,000,000
National airspace [NAS] recovery communications 12,000,000 12,000,000 12,000,000
[RCOM]............................................
Facility security risk management.................. 15,000,000 14,300,000 14,300,000
Information security............................... 13,000,000 12,000,000 12,000,000
System approach for safety oversight [SASO]........ 12,500,000 22,500,000 22,500,000
Aviation safety knowledge management environment 12,200,000 10,200,000 10,200,000
[ASKME]...........................................
Data center optimization........................... 1,000,000 ................. .................
Aerospace medical equipment needs [AMEN]........... 5,000,000 ................. .................
Aviation safety information analysis and sharing 15,000,000 ................. .................
[ASIAS]...........................................
System safety management portfolio................. ................. 18,700,000 18,700,000
National test equipment program.................... 3,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
Mobile assets management program................... 3,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000
Aerospace medicine safety information systems 3,900,000 3,000,000 3,000,000
[AMSIS]...........................................
Tower simulation system [TSS] tech refresh......... ................. 3,000,000 3,000,000

b. Training, Equipment and Facilities:
Aeronautical center infrastructure modernization... 9,000,000 13,180,000 13,180,000
Distance learning.................................. 1,000,000 1,500,000 1,500,000

Activity 4--Facilities and Equipment Mission Support:

a. System Support and Services:
System engineering and development support......... 34,314,837 34,504,000 34,504,000
Program support leases............................. 42,100,000 43,200,000 43,200,000
Logistics support services [LSS]................... 11,500,000 11,500,000 11,500,000
Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center leases........... 17,900,000 18,350,000 18,350,000
Transition engineering support..................... 16,500,000 16,596,000 16,596,000
Technical support services contract [TSSC]......... 23,000,000 23,000,000 23,000,000
Resource tracking program [RTP].................... 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000
Center for Advanced Aviation System Development 60,000,000 60,000,000 60,000,000
[CAASD]...........................................
Aeronautical information management program........ 9,050,000 12,650,000 12,650,000
Cross agency NextGen management.................... ................. 2,000,000 2,000,000

Activity 5--Personnel and Related Expenses............. 450,250,000 463,000,000 456,000,000
Reduction for programs paid out of grants-in-aid to ................. ................. -130,000,000
airports..........................................
--------------------------------------------------------
Total resources provided under this appropria- 2,600,000,000 2,603,700,000 2,473,700,000
tion..........................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\These programs may include amounts from grants-in-aid to airports in fiscal year 2015.

NextGen--Environment.--The Committee recommendation
includes $5,500,000 for the NextGen--Environment portfolio, an
increase of $3,000,000 above the budget request. The Committee
recommends this additional funding to support the Continuous
Low Energy, Emissions and Noise [CLEEN] program, in which the
FAA partners with the aviation industry to develop and test
aircraft technologies that reduce noise, emissions and fuel
burn. The Committee recommendation also includes an additional
$2,000,000 above the budget request for the CLEEN program in
the appropriation for FAA's research, engineering and
development activities. In total, the Committee recommendation
provides $21,200,000 for the CLEEN program, an increase of
$5,000,000 above the budget request.
En Route Automation Modernization [ERAM].--Under the ERAM
program, the FAA is replacing the computer system it uses to
manage high-altitude air traffic. Modernizing this network is
critical to the effective management of air traffic, and the
program is essential to moving the FAA into the next generation
of air traffic control. Although the FAA has improved its
management of ERAM, addressing many of the concerns that led to
significant cost increases and schedule delays early in its
schedule, the program is still subject to risk. The Committee
recommendation includes $10,500,000 for ERAM, which is equal to
the budget request and $56,300,000 lower than the fiscal year
2014 enacted level. The FAA has asserted that its budget
request for fiscal year 2015 represents the final installment
in the program's base budget, and the Committee does not expect
to see a funding request for this activity in the President's
budget request for fiscal year 2016.
ADS-B NAS-Wide Implementation.--The FAA is currently
replacing its radar-based air traffic control system with
satellite technology under the Automatic Dependent
Surveillance--Broadcast [ADS-B] program. ADS-B uses GPS signals
to transmit an aircraft's location to receivers installed on
the ground throughout the United States. The ground receivers
transmit that information to air traffic controller screens and
flight deck displays on any aircraft equipped with the
appropriate avionics. Using ADS-B will improve the safety and
efficiency of the national airspace, and it is a foundational
program of the FAA's NextGen effort to modernize our air
traffic control system. The Committee recommendation therefore
includes $257,200,000 for the implementation of ADS-B across
the national airspace, which is $10,000,000 more than the
budget request and $24,900,400 less than the fiscal year 2014
enacted level.
However, replacing radar technology with ADS-B throughout
our national airspace requires the use of ground receivers, and
so the FAA's current program will not improve surveillance of
the airspace over oceans or in remote areas that lack radar
coverage. A system of satellite communications has become
available that would extend the use of ADS-B over oceanic
airspace and other remote areas. Because the FAA manages a
large portion of oceanic airspace, the Committee believes that
satellite-based ADS-B represents an important opportunity for
the agency. This project would allow the FAA to improve the
flow of air traffic across oceanic airspace, reducing fuel
consumption and emissions. FAA's involvement would also protect
the agency's leadership position in aviation across the globe.
The FAA has considered this opportunity, but has not yet
made an investment decision. For this reason, the Committee
directs the FAA to make an investment decision regarding
satellite-based ADS-B no later than 30 days after enactment of
this act in order to address the Committee's concern that the
agency's absence from the program is undermining its status as
a global safety and technology leader, and limiting its ability
to fully promote NextGen.
Terminal Automation Modernization/Replacement Program [TAMR
Phase 3].--Under the TAMR program, the FAA is replacing the
computer system used in facilities that manage air traffic
coming into and leaving airports. Like ERAM, the TAMR program
is essential for the FAA to move forward with its effort to
modernize the air traffic control system.
Unfortunately, also like ERAM, TAMR has a history of cost
overruns and schedule delays. The Committee provided additional
funding for fiscal year 2014 to help TAMR recover from
disruptions caused by the temporary furlough of FAA employees
after the fiscal year 2013 sequestration. Most of the program's
difficulties, however, stem from more significant problems.
Last May, the Inspector General issued a report on TAMR that
questioned whether the FAA had developed a reliable schedule
and budget for the program. He asserted that the FAA did not
complete all of the risk assessments required by its own
acquisition management system before approving the program
schedule, and that the FAA ignored important elements of the
program when it approved the program's cost baseline.
The TAMR program has recently kept within the current
baseline for its budget and schedule, but too often the
Committee has been reassured that a program is making good
progress not long before the FAA significantly increases the
budget or lengthens the schedule. Addressing such adjustments
to the TAMR baseline would be increasingly difficult in today's
fiscal environment.
The Committee recommendation includes $136,150,000 for
TAMR, which is equal to the budget request and $19,400,000 less
than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. Because this funding
level is consistent with the budget request, and does not
include a funding increase for TAMR, the Committee
recommendation can also accommodate many of the other funding
levels in the budget request for the FAA's facilities and
equipment. Facing tight budget constraints, the Committee
cannot expect to provide funding increases for one program
without making offsetting cuts to other activities within the
FAA budget.
Terminal Air Traffic Control Facilities--Replace.--The
Committee recommends $58,800,000 for the replacement of air
traffic control facilities that manage terminal airspace,
including air traffic control towers and terminal radar
approach control facilities [TRACONs]. This funding level is
$29,000,000 above the budget request and $10,200,000 below the
fiscal year 2014 enacted level. The Committee recommendation
includes this additional funding to ensure that budgetary
constraints for fiscal year 2015 do not cause any of the
projects to experience construction delays, which could add
significantly to a project's total cost over the long term.
Enhanced Low Visibility Operations.--The Committee
recommendation includes $7,500,000 for runway visual range and
enhanced low visibility operations, an increase of $1,500,000
above the budget request and the fiscal year 2014 enacted
level. The Committee recommends this funding increase to
support enhanced low visibility operations, and directs the FAA
to use the funding for advanced aircraft and airport navigation
safety equipment for airports serving remote communities that
rely on aviation for basic transportation needs and cannot
afford to allow weather conditions to interrupt air operations.
FAA Management Training and Conference Center.--The
Committee continues to recommend that the FAA continue to
pursue new leased space for its Management Training and
Conference Center. A significant amount of both private and
public resources have been committed to this procurement
process. The Committee recognizes that a best value acquisition
will result in continuing the preceding procurement process as
the FAA's long-term need for such a facility remains. The
Committee, in understanding both the FAA's long-term needs and
costs of remaining in the current, temporary facility,
recognizes that it is appropriate to not only continue with the
procurement, but that doing so is consistent with the recently
enacted FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012.

RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, AND DEVELOPMENT

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2014.................................... $158,792,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................... 156,750,000
Committee recommendation................................ 156,750,000

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 to ensure that the system will safely and
efficiently handle future volumes of aircraft traffic.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $156,750,000 for the FAA's
research, engineering, and development activities. The
recommended level of funding is equal to the budget request and
$2,042,000 less than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level.
A table showing the fiscal year 2014 enacted level, the
fiscal year 2015 budget estimate and the Committee
recommendation follows:

RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, AND DEVELOPMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-------------------------------- Committee
2014 enacted 2015 estimate recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety:
Fire research and safety.................................... $8,000,000 $6,929,000 $6,000,000
Propulsion and fuel systems................................. 1,800,000 2,413,000 2,000,000
Advanced materials/structural safety........................ 2,600,000 2,909,000 2,909,000
Aircraft icing /digital system safety....................... 7,500,000 5,889,000 5,500,000
Continued airworthiness..................................... 8,000,000 9,619,000 9,619,000
Aircraft catastrophic failure prevention research........... 1,500,000 1,567,000 1,500,000
Flightdeck/maintenance/system integration human factors..... 5,000,000 9,897,000 8,500,000
System safety management.................................... 11,000,000 7,970,000 7,970,000
Air traffic control/technical operations human factors...... 5,000,000 5,898,000 5,400,000
Aeromedical research........................................ 7,000,000 8,919,000 8,300,000
Weather program............................................. 14,200,000 17,800,000 15,847,000
Unmanned aircraft systems research.......................... 8,644,000 8,974,000 12,974,000
NextGen--Alternative fuels for general aviation............. 6,000,000 5,700,000 6,000,000
NextGen--Advanced system and software validation............ 1,000,000 .............. ..............
Economic competitiveness:
NextGen--Wake turbulence.................................... 9,000,000 8,541,000 8,541,000
NextGen--Air ground integration human factors............... 11,329,000 9,697,000 9,697,000
NextGen--Weather technology in the cockpit.................. 4,000,000 4,048,000 4,048,000
Environmental sustainability:
Environment and energy...................................... 14,600,000 14,921,000 14,921,000
NextGen--Environmental research aircraft technologies, 26,979,000 19,514,000 21,514,000
fuels, and metrics.........................................
Mission support:
System planning and resource management..................... 2,200,000 2,135,000 2,100,000
William J. Hughes Technical Center.......................... 3,440,000 3,410,000 3,410,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 158,792,000 156,750,000 156,750,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unmanned Aerial Systems Research--Center of Excellence.--
The Committee recommendation includes $12,974,000 for unmanned
aircraft systems research, an increase of $4,000,000 above the
budget request and $4,330,000 above the fiscal year 2014
enacted level. The administration's request includes $1,000,000
for a new center of excellence on unmanned aircraft systems
[UAS], but given its importance, the Committee directs the FAA
to dedicate the full funding increase to the center, which
would receive a total of $5,000,000 under the Committee
recommendation.
The Committee is pleased with the Department's progress in
establishing a UAS center of excellence to address a host of
research challenges associated with integration of UAS into the
national airspace. The formation of a UAS center of excellence
is essential to meet the requirements enacted as part of the
FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. The Committee directs
that when the FAA selects candidates for the center, the agency
shall consider a geographically and climatically diverse team
of academic institutions with proven track records in unmanned
aircraft systems engineering and certification, airspace
integration, aviation modeling and simulation, UAS policy, UAS
training and pilot certification, and collaboration with
partners in the UAS industry. As cyber security is of paramount
importance to safe UAS operations, the FAA should pay
particular attention to teams with National Security
Administration and Department of Homeland Security cyber
education, research and operations certifications. Candidates
should be well integrated with the FAA UAS test sites, with
emphasis on teams that have the capacity to research beyond
line of sight small UAS operations. Candidates should have
close relations with disaster response agencies, the Department
of Homeland Security and the Department of Agriculture in order
to facilitate research into key UAS mission areas, such as
environmental monitoring, weather and hydrologic prediction,
precision agriculture, law enforcement, disaster response and
oil transportation systems monitoring.
Unmanned Aerial Systems Research--Strategic Plan for
Research.--In order to support the integration of UAS into the
national airspace, the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012
required the FAA to work with other Federal agencies and
representatives from the aviation industry on a comprehensive
plan that would include a timeline for the necessary research
and regulations. The law also required the FAA to write its own
roadmap for integrating UAS into the national airspace, to
update this roadmap each year, and to designate six test sites
that will collect data and conduct research.
Although the FAA has completed each of these requirements,
the Committee remains concerned that the FAA has not yet shown
details on how its research will directly lead to better UAS
integration. The first edition of FAA's roadmap, entitled the
``Integration of Civil Unmanned Aircraft Systems [UAS] in the
National Airspace System [NAS] Roadmap,'' contains no
discussion on what specific questions need to be answered
before integrating UAS into the national airspace, what
research projects would answer those questions, or which data
are necessary to support that research. Importantly, the
roadmap does not provide a strategy on how the test sites will
participate in these efforts.
The Committee understands that the new UAS center of
excellence can perform a vital role in coordinating with each
of the test sites and filling research gaps for the FAA.
However, the Committee believes that the FAA must direct the
strategy itself.
The Committee therefore directs the FAA to include a
strategic plan on research efforts as part of its next edition
of the roadmap. The roadmap shall include a section that
discusses the specific research needs to safely integrate UAS
into the NAS, including an examination of the research goals
that the FAA must reach in order to successfully and safety
advance NAS integration; FAA's strategy to obtain the
identified research through partnerships with other Federal
agencies, the UAS center of excellence, participants in the UAS
and aviation industry, and the UAS test sites; and an
evaluation of the ability of the UAS test sites to coordinate
with the FAA and its center of excellence, and participate in
the FAA's strategy, and help achieve the research goals
identified in the roadmap.
Unmanned Aerial Systems Research--Coordination with Other
Agencies.--Both the U.S. Customs and Border Protection [CBP]
and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration [NASA]
research and develop UAS technologies. The Committee therefore
encourages the FAA to leverage these research and development
efforts as it integrates UAS into the national airspace. The
Committee expects the FAA to use the resources provided for UAS
research under the Committee recommendation to collect and
evaluate data and information from CBP and NASA UAS projects,
and to collaborate with these partners on research efforts
necessary to integrate UAS into the national airspace. The
Committee also encourages the FAA to study how the Air Force
conducts routine UAS operations, including the safe takeoff and
landing of multiple platforms in a short period of time, as
part of its airspace integration efforts.
Alternative Fuels for General Aviation.--The Committee
recommendation includes $6,000,000 for research that supports
alternative fuels for general aviation. This funding level is
$300,000 above the budget request and equal to the fiscal year
2014 enacted level.
NextGen--Environmental Research--Aircraft Technologies,
Fuels, and Metrics.--The Committee recommendation includes
$21,514,000 for NextGen environmental research. This funding
level is $2,000,000 above the budget request and $5,465,000
below the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. The Committee
recommendation provides funding above the budget request to
support the Continuous Low Energy, Emissions and Noise [CLEEN]
program. Under the CLEEN program, the FAA partners with the
aviation industry to develop and test aircraft technologies
that reduce noise, emissions and fuel burn. The Committee
recommendation also includes an additional $3,000,000 above the
budget request for the CLEEN program in the appropriation for
FAA's facilities and equipment. In total, the Committee
recommendation provides $21,200,000 for the CLEEN program, an
increase of $5,000,000 above the budget request.
National Center for Advanced Materials Performance.--The
FAA has effectively partnered with the National Center for
Advanced Materials Performance [NCAMP] on mutually beneficial
initiatives that reduce Federal spending and improve FAA
standardization for aviation oversight. The Committee believes
that NCAMP will similarly contribute to future initiatives
within the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation [NNMI]
enterprise, and as such, the Committee encourages the FAA to
recommend adding NCAMP to the NNMI framework.

GRANTS-IN-AID FOR AIRPORTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

(INCLUDING RESCISSION)

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
$3,480,000,000 for grants-in-aid to airports for fiscal year
2015. The recommended limitation on obligations is $130,000,000
more than the enacted level for fiscal year 2014, and
$580,000,000 more than the budget estimate. Under the
administration's request, large commercial airports no longer
receive formula grants from the program, but they would be
allowed to raise their passenger facility charges to finance
capital improvements. The Committee notes that an increase to
passenger facility charges was considered as part of the debate
over the bill to reauthorize the FAA. That increase, however,
was not included in the final legislation. The Committee
therefore recommends a funding level that would fund capital
improvements at all airports that support our Nation's air
transportation system.
In addition, the Committee recommends a liquidating cash
appropriation of $3,200,000,000 for grants-in-aid to airports.
The recommended level is equal to the budget estimate and the
fiscal year 2014 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.
Protecting Infrastructure at Our Nation's Airports.--The
administration's budget request would rescind $130,000,000 in
additional contract authority that was provided in fiscal year
2014 under section 48112 of title 49, United States Code. This
section of the code provides new contract authority when the
amount appropriated for the FAA's facilities and equipment is
less than the amount authorized. The 2014 Consolidated
Appropriations Act provided $130,000,000 less for the FAA's
facilities and equipment than the authorized level, which
created $130,000,000 of additional contract authority for
grants-in-aid to airports. Because the 2014 obligation
limitation did not provide sufficient room to spend the
additional contract authority, it remains available today.
The Committee recommendation does not include the
Administration's proposed rescission because it would put
future airport investments at risk. The rescission would
artificially lower the total program level for grants-in-aid to
airports when the Congressional Budget Office constructs its
next baseline. By lowering the total program level for 2015,
the last year of the authorization period, this lower program
level would be carried through each of the following years. As
a result, the rescission would require the authorizing
committees to find an offset in order to return the program to
its $3,350,000,000 funding level in the next authorization
period.
The Committee recommendation instead uses the additional
contract authority to support an additional $130,000,000 in
obligation limitation for grants-in-aid to airports. The
Committee recommendation also sets aside this funding for
investments in FAA's facilities and equipment, and lowers the
funding provided in the Facilities and Equipment account by an
equal amount, since the contract authority itself was created
when those needs received less investment. Recognizing that the
funding is provided through the grants-in-aid to airports
program, however, the Committee recommendation requires that
the funding support facilities and equipment that are located
on airport property. Such investments include runway safety
areas, runway status lights, landing and navigational lighting
systems, and air traffic control tower improvements and
replacements.
Finally, the Committee recommendation includes a rescission
of any contract authority that would be created under section
48112 in fiscal year 2015. This rescission would not affect the
baseline.
Airport Privatization.--Congress created the Airport
Privatization Pilot Program in 1996 to attract private
companies to lease or buy public airports. The Committee is
aware there are some public airports interested in being sold
or leased through the pilot program. The Department of
Transportation has the discretionary authority to waive
existing Federal funding repayment requirements. The Committee
expects the Department to use its discretionary authority to
waive repayment of past Federal funds at privatized airports
judiciously. Last year, the Committee directed the Government
Accountability Office [GAO] to evaluate the benefits, costs,
and trade-offs of airport public-private partnerships; how
public officials have identified and acted to protect the
public interest in these arrangements; and the Federal role in
such public-private partnerships and potential changes in this
role. The Committee looks forward to examining GAO's report
when it is issued.
Administrative Expenses.--The Committee recommends
$107,100,000 to cover administrative expenses. This funding
level is equal to the budget request, and $500,000 more than
the fiscal year 2014 enacted level.
Airport Cooperative Research.--The Committee recommends
$15,000,000 for the airport cooperative research program. This
funding level is equal to the budget estimate and the fiscal
year 2014 enacted level.
Airport Technology.--The Committee recommends $29,750,000
for airport technology research. This funding level is equal to
the budget request, and $250,000 more than the fiscal year 2014
level.
The Committee recommends that the FAA study whether it is
appropriate to expand the installation of foreign object debris
detection technology at hub airports in order to increase
safety.
Small Community Air Service Development Program [SCASDP].--
The Committee recommends $8,000,000 for the Small Community Air
Service Development Program. This funding level is $2,000,000
more than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. The
administration requested no funds for this program for fiscal
year 2015.
The Small Community Air Service Development Program
[SCASDP] was initially established to help small communities
throughout the country enhance air service and address airfare
issues. In doing so, the program has played an instrumental
role in the economic growth and transformation of many
communities. The Committee directs the Department to submit a
report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations no
later than 1 year after enactment of this act on how
communities have benefitted from the program, how SCADSP grants
have achieved the program's goals, and what airports are doing
to respond to air transportation needs, particularly in rural
areas.

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 2015.
Section 111 prohibits funds in this act from being used to
adopt guidelines or regulations requiring airport sponsors to
provide the FAA ``without cost'' buildings, maintenance, or
space for FAA services. The prohibition does not apply to
negotiations between the FAA and airport sponsors concerning
``below market'' rates for such services or to grant assurances
that require airport sponsors to provide land without cost to
the FAA for air traffic control facilities.
Section 112 permits the Administrator to reimburse FAA
appropriations for amounts made available for 49 U.S.C.
41742(a)(1) as fees are collected and credited under 49 U.S.C.
45303.
Section 113 allows funds received to reimburse the FAA for
providing technical assistance to foreign aviation authorities
to be credited to the Operations account.
Section 114 prohibits the FAA from paying Sunday premium
pay except in those cases where the individual actually worked
on a Sunday.
Section 115 prohibits the FAA from using funds provided in
the bill to purchase store gift cards or gift certificates
through a Government-issued credit card.
Section 116 allows all airports experiencing the required
level of boardings through charter and scheduled air service to
be eligible for funds under 49 U.S.C. 47114(c).
Section 117 requires approval from the Assistant Secretary
for Administration of the Department of Transportation for
retention bonuses for any FAA employee.
Section 118 limits to 20 percent the cost-share required
under the contract tower cost-share program.
Section 119 requires that, upon request by a private owner
or operator of an aircraft, the Secretary block the display of
that owner or operator's aircraft registration number in the
Aircraft Situational Display to Industry program.
Section 119A prohibits funds in this act for salaries and
expenses of more than nine political and Presidential
appointees in the Federal Aviation Administration.
Section 119B requires the FAA to conduct public outreach
and provide justification to the Committee before increasing
fees under section 44721 of title 49, United States Code.
Section 119C prohibits funds from being used to change
weight restrictions or prior permission rules at Teterboro
Airport in New Jersey.
Section 119D requires the FAA to notify the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations at least 90 days before
closing a regional operations center or reducing the services
it provides. In addition, the Committee directs the FAA to
provide to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations no
later than 120 days after enactment of this act a strategic
plan for staffing and operating its regional operations
centers.
Section 119E clarifies the name of the FAA center of
excellence on advanced materials.
Section 119F provides an average Federal share for any
airport project located in a public lands State and no more
than 15 miles from the border of another public lands State
with a higher Federal share.

Federal Highway Administration

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 $40,995,000,000 would be provided for the activities of the
Federal Highway Administration in fiscal year 2015. The
recommendation is $7,567,248,000 less than the budget request
and equal to the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. The following
table summarizes the Committee's recommendations:

LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Limitation, 2014........................................ $416,100,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................... 439,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 426,100,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of
$426,100,000 for administrative expenses of the agency. This
limitation is $12,900,000 less than the budget request and
$10,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level.
In addition, $3,248,000 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 Committee recommendation includes bill language that
would make of sufficient contract authority available for
FHWA's administrative expenses to meet its needs in fiscal year
2015. However, the Committee recognizes that budgetary
constraints will continue to pose a challenge for meeting
FHWA's administrative needs for years to come. For this reason,
the Committee directs FHWA to submit to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations a strategic plan for funding its
administrative expenses for the next 6 years at an annual level
of contract authority that equals the funding authorized under
Public Law 112-141 for fiscal year 2014. The Committee expects
this plan to include details on the activities and services
that FHWA currently conducts at its headquarters and division
offices, the activities and services that could be accommodated
over the next 6 years, and any impact of this plan on
operations of State departments of transportation. The
Committee also expects this plan to address staffing levels at
both FHWA headquarters and division offices under current
funding levels and funding levels projected for the next 6
years. FHWA should submit this plan no later than 120 days
after enactment.

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Limitation, 2014........................................ $40,256,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................... 47,323,248,000
Committee recommendation................................ 40,256,000,000

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 2015 Federal-
aid highways obligations to $40,256,000,000, which is
$7,567,248,000 less than the budget request and equal to the
fiscal year 2014 enacted level for the Federal-aid highway
program. This funding level is consistent with the most recent
authorization law, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st
Century Act [MAP-21].
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.
Recent Emergencies.--Recent emergencies--including the
mudslide in the State of Washington, flooding in Alabama and
Florida, and damage to the I-813 bridge in Delaware--call
attention to the importance of the Federal Highway
Administration's Emergency Relief [ER] program. This program
provides essential funding to help communities repair or
rebuild their roads and bridges after a declared emergency. The
Committee urges FHWA to continue providing States with
allocations from the ER program in a timely manner so that
communities do not have to shoulder the financial burden of
these emergencies longer than necessary.
Benefit Cost Analysis.--The Federal-aid Highways program
represents an important partnership between the Federal
Government and each State department of transportation. The
Federal role has primarily been to set standards, ensure
compatibility among State systems, provide capital assistance,
and oversee highway construction. State governments operate the
highway system and set local priorities for constructing and
repairing roads and bridges.
While remaining sensitive to the role of State governments
in setting priorities among highway projects, the Committee
believes that the Department of Transportation plays an
important role in ensuring that Federal resources are not spent
on wasteful projects. Benefit cost analysis is an important
economic tool that can help State and local governments target
their transportation funding to the most effective investments.
Using benefit cost analysis, a State or local government would
compare the monetary value of all benefits and costs that
accrue during the life of a project. This process forces the
government to evaluate the value of all of the project's
benefits, recognize the full cost of the project, and
acknowledge whether or not the benefits outweigh the costs.
The Committee is aware of FHWA's efforts to support State
and local governments in their use of benefit cost analysis.
FHWA offers technical assistance to State and local governments
that are already engaged in benefit cost analysis, and looks
for ways to improve the estimates and models used in the
analysis.
The Committee urges the Department to take a more active
role in advancing the use of benefit cost analysis. The
Committee recommends the Department encourage State and local
governments to evaluate project costs and benefits using an
appropriate analytical framework, either through strict benefit
cost analysis or through a less formal structure if a project
size does not warrant a more rigorous approach. The Department
should ensure that FHWA division offices reach out to State
departments of transportation in order to determine if the
State could more effectively utilize benefit cost analysis as
it sets its priorities.
The Committee also directs the Department to evaluate the
use of benefit cost analysis by State departments of
transportation, and to issue a report to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations no later than 180 days after
enactment on the extent to which State departments of
transportation use benefit cost analysis when making decisions
and setting priorities, the quality of such analysis,
challenges that State departments of transportation face when
trying to use benefit cost analysis, and strategies for
addressing those challenges.
Innovative Project Implementation.--The Committee
recognizes that State and local governments have benefited from
a regional approach to developing public private partnerships.
Resource programs can accelerate the delivery of essential
transportation projects and help meet the increasing backlog of
infrastructure needs by connecting public agencies with private
capital and by offering technical assistance. The Committee
therefore encourages the Department to use funds authorized
under section 503(c) of title 23, United States Code, for the
demonstration and evaluation of regional approaches to
innovative finance. In conducting its work, the Department
should take into account geographic diversity, recognize multi-
State or multi-jurisdictional partnerships, and give priority
consideration to approaches that ensure public interests are
protected by including measures such as accounting for life
cycle costs of building and maintaining infrastructure. The
Department also should coordinate its efforts with the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, and
the Army Corps of Engineers to identify ways in which State and
local governments require additional capacity to access private
capital.
Infrastructure Planning.--Severe weather and other natural
disasters can have serious impacts on transportation systems
and the communities that rely on them, disrupting highways and
public transportation systems, and slowing local economies to a
crawl. Rebuilding and resuming normal operations in the wake of
these events can be difficult and costly. To address this
issue, at the local level, many communities are beginning to
incorporate the impact of these events into the planning,
design, and construction of transportation services. Washington
State, for example, has used the results of a statewide
infrastructure vulnerability assessment in its corridor plans
and project-level environmental studies.
The Committee recognizes that taking into account severe
weather and other natural disasters in infrastructure planning
and building is a cost-effective and important step in ensuring
the longevity of our transportation system. It helps to protect
the critical corridors that businesses, workers, and families
rely on every day. But as standards continue to develop, some
states lack the technical expertise to incorporate
vulnerability assessments into their planning efforts.
Therefore, the Committee urges FHWA to define, and make
available to States, best practices for resiliency planning.
The Committee further urges FHWA to provide technical
assistance to states and planning organizations to help them
incorporate such considerations into the planning process. The
Committee provides this direction also to FTA, and encourages
both modal administrations to coordinate their efforts with
FRA.
Safety Performance Measures and Reporting Requirements.--On
March 11, 2014, FHWA proposed a new regulation to establish
safety performance measures for the Highway Safety Improvement
Program [HSIP], as required by section 1203 of the Moving Ahead
for Progress in the 21st Century Act [MAP-21]. FHWA's proposal
would establish measures for the number of fatalities, fatality
rate, number of serious injuries, and serious injury rate, as
required by MAP-21. However, recognizing the increase in
pedestrian and bicycle fatalities, the Secretary of
Transportation should establish separate safety performance
measures related to non-motorized traffic for the purpose of
carrying out HSIP requirements. FHWA should define these
performance measures specifically to evaluate the number of
fatalities and serious injuries for pedestrian and bicycle
crashes. The Committee notes that NHTSA already uses
performance measures for pedestrian fatalities in administering
its highway traffic safety grant program, and the Committee
also understands that NHTSA intends to establish performance
measures for bicycle fatalities when it administers its fiscal
year 2015 traffic safety grants. Finally, the statutory
deadline for completing the HSIP regulation has come and gone,
and the Committee directs FHWA to publish its final rule on
safety performance measures in a timely manner.
Statewide Planning in Alaska.--The Committee is concerned
that the State of Alaska has not adequately addressed the needs
and concerns of boroughs and local communities as part of the
statewide transportation planning process, and seeks to ensure
that FHWA meets the intent of the statewide improvement program
pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 135. Therefore FHWA shall work with the
State of Alaska to ensure all necessary coordination and
consultation occurs with areas outside of a metropolitan area
to address infrastructure development needs.
Advanced Composite Bridge Technologies.--The Committee
supports the Technology and Innovation Deployment Program's
efforts to improve the safety, efficiency, reliability, and
performance of our Nation's transportation infrastructure. It
also notes the growing need to accelerate the adoption of
proven, high-payoff, and innovative practices, technologies,
and materials that lead to faster construction and cost-
effective rehabilitation of efficient and safe bridges. The
Committee encourages the Department to use funds authorized
under 503(c) of title 23, United States Code, for the
demonstration and deployment of advanced composite materials in
bridge replacement and rehabilitation.
Environmental Reviews.--The Committee recognizes the
department's efforts to implement the administratively related
streamlining provisions included in the most recently passed
authorization law for surface transportation. The Committee
encourages the Department to continue its efforts to implement
these changes nationally, and recognizes the efforts made by
the administration to work cooperatively with other Federal
agencies and with State governments, including its work with
the State of Utah on its Mountain Accord approach for a
regional transportation, land use, natural resource and
economic solution.
State Apportionments.--The following table shows the
expected obligation limitation provided to each State under the
Committee's recommended funding level:

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY PROGRAM OBLIGATION LIMITATION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
2014 enacted 2015 estimate recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Formula Programs

Alabama...................................................... $666,523,393 $780,571,005 $666,523,393
Alaska....................................................... 431,280,533 503,737,124 431,280,533
Arizona...................................................... 658,807,679 763,580,755 658,807,679
Arkansas..................................................... 444,300,322 521,265,359 444,300,322
California................................................... 3,241,833,216 3,736,277,886 3,241,833,216
Colorado..................................................... 481,581,822 557,458,050 481,581,822
Connecticut.................................................. 442,788,723 513,222,354 442,788,723
Delaware..................................................... 149,010,187 173,122,046 149,010,187
District of Columbia......................................... 143,658,866 166,602,143 143,658,866
Florida...................................................... 1,704,023,915 1,990,332,185 1,704,023,915
Georgia...................................................... 1,162,185,252 1,350,474,482 1,162,185,252
Hawaii....................................................... 145,600,898 169,780,194 145,600,898
Idaho........................................................ 251,629,382 293,466,533 251,629,382
Illinois..................................................... 1,280,430,045 1,482,096,858 1,280,430,045
Indiana...................................................... 838,444,365 977,267,890 838,444,365
Iowa......................................................... 442,085,658 504,986,976 442,085,658
Kansas....................................................... 339,953,410 396,449,166 339,953,410
Kentucky..................................................... 597,649,211 697,488,318 597,649,211
Louisiana.................................................... 602,089,506 706,852,415 602,089,506
Maine........................................................ 162,507,557 189,146,434 162,507,557
Maryland..................................................... 529,861,416 612,146,732 529,861,416
Massachusetts................................................ 547,286,674 631,090,267 547,286,674
Michigan..................................................... 948,056,298 1,098,666,593 948,056,298
Minnesota.................................................... 573,824,109 668,705,616 573,824,109
Mississippi.................................................. 425,041,105 497,266,513 425,041,105
Missouri..................................................... 832,108,062 973,038,925 832,108,062
Montana...................................................... 360,802,930 421,335,582 360,802,930
Nebraska..................................................... 260,074,708 302,874,327 260,074,708
Nevada....................................................... 327,084,874 378,148,323 327,084,874
New Hampshire................................................ 148,752,581 172,557,220 148,752,581
New Jersey................................................... 899,681,983 1,037,768,218 899,681,983
New Mexico................................................... 322,855,350 377,281,166 322,855,350
New York..................................................... 1,512,702,959 1,743,270,125 1,512,702,959
North Carolina............................................... 938,667,262 1,089,261,829 938,667,262
North Dakota................................................. 218,401,631 254,759,902 218,401,631
Ohio......................................................... 1,180,794,980 1,371,742,972 1,180,794,980
Oklahoma..................................................... 570,449,410 665,898,629 570,449,410
Oregon....................................................... 439,640,806 513,039,905 439,640,806
Pennsylvania................................................. 1,477,160,518 1,713,669,874 1,477,160,518
Rhode Island................................................. 192,449,224 224,279,268 192,449,224
South Carolina............................................... 602,320,145 687,944,588 602,320,145
South Dakota................................................. 242,397,515 283,500,910 242,397,515
Tennessee.................................................... 726,319,740 849,508,126 726,319,740
Texas........................................................ 3,106,663,529 3,534,634,864 3,106,663,529
Utah......................................................... 305,432,396 348,794,060 305,432,396
Vermont...................................................... 178,694,706 207,906,478 178,694,706
Virginia..................................................... 895,690,252 1,043,107,631 895,690,252
Washington................................................... 596,788,979 694,660,799 596,788,979
West Virginia................................................ 384,231,972 448,931,875 384,231,972
Wisconsin.................................................... 677,036,603 788,339,246 677,036,603
Wyoming...................................................... 220,152,132 257,587,195 220,152,132
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................................... 34,827,808,789 40,365,895,931 34,827,808,789
--------------------------------------------------
Allocated programs........................................... 4,995,844,093 6,512,162,577 4,995,844,093
Penalties under sections 154 and 164 of title 23, United 432,347,118 445,189,492 432,347,118
States Code.................................................
--------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................. 40,256,000,000 47,323,248,000 40,256,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Program Descriptions.--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.
MAP-21, the current highway, highway safety, and transit
authorization law, made funding for Federal-aid Highways
available in the following categories of spending:
--National Highway Performance Program [NHPP].--This program
provides support for the condition and performance of
the national highway system [NHS], and for the
construction of new facilities on the NHS. Projects
funded through the NHPP must support progress toward
the achievement of national performance goals for
improving infrastructure condition, safety, mobility,
or freight movement on the national highway system.
Such projects must also support progress toward the
achievement of performance targets established in a
State's asset management plan, and must be consistent
with requirements for metropolitan and statewide
planning. Funding for this program also supports the
Transportation Alternatives program, and State planning
and research.
--Surface Transportation Program.--The Surface Transportation
Program provides flexible funding that may be used by
States and localities for projects that preserve and
improve the conditions and performance on any Federal-
aid highway; bridge and tunnel projects on any public
road; pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure; and
transit capital projects, including intercity bus
terminals. Funding for this program also supports the
Transportation Alternatives program, and State planning
and research. A portion of the program's funding is set
aside for improvements to off-system bridges.
--Highway Safety Improvement Program.--This program is
designed to achieve a significant reduction in traffic
fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads,
including roads on tribal lands and other public roads
that are not owned by a State government. An eligible
highway safety improvement project is any strategy,
activity or project on a public road that corrects or
improves a hazardous road location or feature, or
addresses a highway safety problem. Such projects must
be consistent with the State's strategic highway safety
plan, which must be based on analysis of crash data.
Funding for this program also supports the
Transportation Alternatives program, and State planning
and research. In addition, a set-aside from the STP
program funds the Railway-Highway Crossings Program,
which supports safety improvements to reduce the number
of fatalities, injuries, and crashes at public grade
crossings.
--Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program
[CMAQ].--The CMAQ program provides a flexible funding
source to State and local governments for
transportation projects and programs that help meet the
requirements of the Clean Air Act. Funding is available
to reduce congestion and improve air quality for areas
that do not meet the national ambient air quality
standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, or particulate
matter. Funding for this program also supports the
Transportation Alternatives program, and State planning
and research.
--Metropolitan Planning.--The metropolitan planning process
establishes a cooperative, continuous, and
comprehensive framework for making transportation
investment decisions in metropolitan areas. Program
oversight is a joint responsibility of the Federal
Highway Administration and the Federal Transit
Administration.
--Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act
Program [TIFIA].--This program provides Federal credit
assistance to eligible surface transportation projects,
including highway, transit, intercity passenger rail,
some types of freight rail, and intermodal freight
transfer facilities. TIFIA is designed to fill market
gaps and leverage substantial private co-investment by
providing projects with supplemental or subordinate
debt. The program may provide credit to States,
localities, or other public authorities, as well as
private entities undertaking projects sponsored by
public authorities. TIFIA offers direct loans, loan
guarantees and lines of credit.
--Construction of Ferry Boats and Ferry Terminal
Facilities.--The ferry program provides funding for the
construction of ferry boats and ferry terminal
facilities. Funds are distributed according to
statutory formula.
--Tribal Transportation Program.--The Tribal Transportation
Program is designed to provide access to basic
community services and to enhance the quality of life
in Indian country. Funding is distributed among tribes
based on a statutory formula.
--Federal Lands Transportation Program.--This program funds
projects that improve access within federally owned
lands, including national forests, national parks,
national wildlife refuges, and national recreation
areas. Each year, funds are provided to the National
Park Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
and funds are distributed on a competitive basis to the
U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and
the U.S. Corps of Engineers.
--Federal Lands Access Program.--This program provides funds
for projects on transportation facilities that are
located on or adjacent to federally owned lands, or
that provide access to those areas. Funds are
distributed by formula among States that have Federal
lands managed by the National Park Service, the U.S.
Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers.
--State Planning and Research.--This program provides funding
for States to conduct planning and research activities.
The funds are used to establish a cooperative,
continuous, and comprehensive framework for making
transportation investment decisions, and to carry out
transportation research activities through each of the
States. The program is funded with resources from the
National Highway Performance Program, the Surface
Transportation Program, and the Highway Safety
Improvement Program, and the Congestion Mitigation and
Air Quality Program.
--Transportation Alternatives.--This program provides funding
for a variety of alternative transportation projects,
including trails for pedestrians and bicyclists;
transportation systems that provide safe routes for
non-drivers, including children, older adults, and
people with disabilities; and environmental mitigation
projects.
--Territorial and Puerto Rico Highway Program.--This program
supports a highway program in the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, and it provides funding to assist the
governments of the U.S. territories with highway
investments and necessary inter-island connectors.
--Emergency Relief.--The Emergency Relief program provides
funds for emergency repairs and permanent repairs on
Federal-aid highways and roads on Federal lands that
the Secretary finds have suffered serious damage as a
result of natural disasters or catastrophic failure
from an external cause. This program receives an
appropriation of $100,000,000 in contract authority
each year from the Highway Trust Fund, and this funding
is exempt from the obligation limitation imposed on the
Federal-aid Highway Program. In addition to this
contract authority, the program receives such sums as
may be necessary from the general fund of the Treasury
to meet emergency needs.
--Research, Technology and Education.--The Federal Highway
Administration manages the following programs that
support research, technology development, and education
activities:
--The Highway Research and Development Program funds
strategic investments in research activities that
address current and emerging highway transportation
needs.
--The Technology and Innovation Deployment Program funds
efforts to accelerate the implementation and
delivery of new innovations and technologies that
result from highway research and development to
benefit all aspects of highway transportation.
--The Training and Education Program supports FHWA's
efforts to train the current and future
transportation workforce, share knowledge with
transportation professionals, and provide training
that addresses the full lifecycle of the highway
transportation system.
In addition to these programs, funding provided under the
Federal-aid Highways Program supports the Intelligent
Transportation Systems Program, University Transportation
Centers and the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. These
programs are administered by the Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Research and Technology. The Committee
recommendation would elevate RITA's responsibilities to the
Office of the Secretary, as requested by the administration.

LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2014.................................... $40,995,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................... 48,062,248,000
Committee recommendation................................ 40,995,000,000

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 $40,995,000,000. The recommended level is $7,067,248,000
less than the budget request and equal to the fiscal year 2014
enacted level. This level of liquidating authority is necessary
to pay outstanding obligations from various highway accounts
pursuant to this and prior appropriations acts.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

Section 120 distributes obligation authority among Federal-
aid Highway programs.
Section 121 continues a provision that credits funds
received by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics to the
Federal-aid highways account.
Section 122 provides requirements for any waiver of Buy
America requirements.
Section 123 requires congressional notification before the
Department provides credit assistance under the TIFIA program.
Section 124 makes contract authority available for FHWA's
administrative expenses.

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.
MCSIA, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users [SAFETEA-LU], and
the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act [MAP-21]
provide funding authorization for FMCSA's Motor Carrier Safety
Operations and Programs and Motor Carrier Safety Grants.
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.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total level of $592,300,000 for
obligations and liquidations from the Highway Trust Fund. This
level is $76,223,000 less than the request and $7,300,000 more
than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level.

MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY OPERATIONS AND PROGRAMS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Limitation, 2014........................................ $259,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015 (limitation)...................... 315,770,000
Committee recommendation................................ 271,000,000

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 FMCSA
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 $271,000,000 for FMCSA's Operations and
Programs. The recommendation is $12,000,000 more than the
fiscal year 2014 enacted level and $44,770,000 less than the
budget request. Of the total limitation on obligations,
$9,000,000 is for research and technology, $2,300,000 is for
commercial motor vehicle operator grants, and $34,545,000 is
for information management.
Compliance, Safety and Accountability Program [CSA].--In
1999, NTSB concluded that FMCSA's oversight of motor carrier
operators was ineffective because its safety fitness rating
methodology was insufficient. Furthermore, the agency relied on
a labor-intensive, comprehensive audit process that was only
capable of reaching 3 percent of the industry annually. The
NTSB recommended that FMCSA develop a more efficient method of
evaluating operator and driver performance into its oversight
and enforcement regime.
In response, FMCSA began to implement its Compliance,
Safety and Accountability Program [CSA] in 2004. The CSA
program represents a complete overhaul of FMCSA's systems and
investigation practices, and is designed to better target the
agency's resources at the riskiest carriers. The goal of CSA is
to use performance data to target interventions and help
carriers to come into compliance. The CSA program uses the new
Safety Measurement System [SMS] to identify motor carriers that
are at risk of causing a crash or pose a significant safety
hazard.
The Safety Fitness Determination [SFD] rulemaking is the
cornerstone of CSA. This rule will allow FMCSA to use a
combination of performance data, on-road safety information,
and investigations to determine whether a motor carrier is fit
to operate. It was initially proposed to be completed in 2009,
but the notice of proposed rulemaking is now targeted for
publication at the end of the calendar year, almost a year
later than the Department's plans called for a year ago. The
delays in moving forward on this rule are excessive. The
Committee has included bill language requiring the Secretary to
initiate a rulemaking no later than December 2014. This
rulemaking will be subject to great scrutiny, which is likely
to require a significant amount of time. Until the SFD
rulemaking is complete, FMCSA continues to rely on a rating and
enforcement system that fails to place sufficient emphasis on
both driver and vehicle qualifications, thereby compromising
safety on our Nation's highways.
The Committee strongly supports the agency's efforts to
improve its programs and remains focused on ensuring CSA
delivers the promised results. The Committee is troubled by
FMCSA's failure to meet critical milestones for implementing
this new system. Therefore, the Committee requests that GAO
continue to monitor the implementation of CSA and evaluate
FMCSA's ability to meet its designated milestones.
Electronic Logging Devices.--In 1977, NTSB issued its first
recommendation on the use of on-board data recording devices,
or electronic logging devices [ELDs], to provide an efficient
and reliable means of tracking the number of hours a commercial
motor vehicle operator drives. To this day, this recommendation
(H-07-41) remains open, and NTSB considers FMCSA's actions to
address this safety issue unacceptable.
MAP-21 (section 32301(b) of Public Law 112-141; 49 U.S.C.
31137) mandated that FMCSA issue a rule by October 2013
requiring all interstate motor carriers to be equipped with
ELDs to improve compliance and enforcement with hours of
service regulations. The agency was delayed in implementing the
rule by a legal challenge to an earlier regulatory action on
the limited use of ELD's for operators with persistent hours of
service violations. In March 2014, FMCSA finally issued a
proposed rule to comply with the mandates of MAP-21. The
proposed rule is expected to significantly reduce the paperwork
burden to comply with hours-of-service recordkeeping, reduce
crashes by fatigued drivers, and prevent approximately 20
fatalities and 434 injuries each year, according to FMCSA. The
comment period was recently extended through June 26, 2014. The
Committee supports the expanded use of ELDs and encourages
FMCSA to work aggressively to implement the ELD mandate. To
that end, the bill includes language to reinforce the
importance of addressing this regulatory action in a timely
manner and requires the rule to be finalized no later than
January 30, 2015.
High-Risk Carriers.--Since fiscal year 2008, the Committee
has required reports on the agency's ability to meet the
requirement to conduct compliance reviews on all motor carriers
identified as high-risk. Since the agency first began reporting
its performance to the Committee, compliance with this
requirement has improved significantly, from completing reviews
of 69 percent of high-risk carriers in fiscal year 2008 to 93
percent in the 2013 calendar year.
In December 2010, FMCSA deployed the new Carrier Safety
Measurement System [CSMS] as part of its CSA program. CSMS more
precisely identifies motor carriers that pose the highest
safety risk by quantifying the on-road safety performance of
carriers in seven Behavior Analysis and Safety Improvement
Categories [BASICs] when a serious violation has been
discovered. Under CSA, and consistent with section 4138 of
SAFETEA-LU, any motor carrier with certain BASIC alerts for 2
consecutive months is now labeled ``mandatory'' under CSMS.
Mandatory motor carriers are prioritized for an onsite
investigation if they have not undergone an investigation in
the last 24 months. Under FMCSA regulations, carriers
identified as mandatory must have a compliance review conducted
within 1 year.
FMCSA contends that the tracking and monitoring of high-
risk carriers under CSMS is a manually intensive process
involving a variety of data systems. Further, the monitoring of
high-risk carriers operating under consent decrees is even more
complex. Consent decrees allow high-risk motor carriers to
continue to provide service when they receive an unsatisfactory
rating by setting conditions and performance requirements on
their operations. Currently, the monitoring of consent decrees
is a completely manual process. Automating these systems as
much as possible would save time and resources, and would
provide a higher level of safety compliance review. The
Committee recommendation includes additional resources to
automate these investigation and compliance processes. The
Committee believes this will improve the agency's ability to
monitor those carriers that pose the most significant safety
risk to the public. The Committee directs FMCSA to provide a
plan to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations
within 60 days of enactment of this act on the information
technology [IT] investments required for automation. The IT
plan must define the total lifecycle and operating costs,
identify a timeline for deployment, including relevant
benchmarks to determine progress, and define performance
metrics the agency will use to determine the time and resource
savings resulting from automation.
The Committee is concerned that the FMCSA's failure to
investigate mandatory carriers in a timely fashion could lead
to unsafe carriers operating on our roadways. For example, DND
International, based in Naperville, Illinois, ranked in the
bottom 10 percent of carriers for unsafe driving and bottom 5
percent for hours-of-service violations, which finally led the
FMCSA in August of last year to assign an investigator to
conduct a ``focused investigation.'' FMCSA failed to conduct
this investigation in a timely fashion, and on January 27,
2014, a driver for DND International struck an Illinois State
Police cruiser and an Illinois Toll Authority vehicle, both
with activated emergency/warning lights, resulting in the death
of the Toll Authority worker and life-threatening injuries to
the police officer.
FMCSA found that at the time of the crash, the driver had
been on duty for more than 26 hours, with an opportunity for no
more than a 5\1/2\-hour break. After the accident occurred, the
Secretary and FMCSA found the company had an entirely
ineffective disciplinary process and showed reckless disregard
for hours-of-service rules. The investigators stated that the
company's failure to monitor its drivers' time on duty was ``a
key contributing factor'' in the wreck. FMCSA's CSA program
identified this carrier as high-risk, but its failure to
conduct an investigation in a timely manner allowed this
chronically unsafe operator to continue to provide services on
the Nation's highways, placing the public at risk.
The Committee directs the DOT Office of Inspector General
to conduct an audit of FMCSA's mandatory compliance review
process to ensure motor carriers flagged for investigation are
being investigated in a timely manner. The OIG should review
whether or not the type of investigations FMCSA conducts is
adequate enough to catch violations. The Committee is aware
that the DOT is conducting an inter-agency review of these
issues and the OIG is directed to review these findings during
its audit.
The Committee expects FMCSA to continue to prioritize these
carriers for inspection and directs the agency to provide the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations with an updated
report on its ability to meet its requirements to evaluate
mandatory carriers by April 2015 for the preceding fiscal year.
Specially Constructed Rail Service Vehicles.--The Committee
is concerned that FMCSA's Federal hours of service regulations,
found in 49 CFR subsection 395.3, may not take into account the
unique operating environment of specially trained drivers of
commercial motor vehicles specifically constructed to service,
inspect, maintain, and repair railroad track to support
railroad safety and operations. The Committee encourages the
FMCSA to collaborate with the rail service stakeholder
community to consider an exemption for these rail service
providers such that on-duty time could not include waiting time
at a rail site. Instead, waiting time could be recorded as
``off duty'' for purposes of subsection 395.8 and 395.15, and
waiting time could not be included in calculating the 14-hour
period in section 395.3(a)(2), the 60-hour period in section
395.3(b)(1), or the 70-hour period in section 395.3(b)(2). This
collaboration shall include providing technical assistance to
the rail service stakeholder community as it considers an
application for exemption from these specifics hours of service
regulations.

NATIONAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION OF OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Limitation, 2014........................................ $13,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015...................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 8,300,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The National Motor Carrier Safety program was established
to promote motor carrier safety and help States develop motor
carrier data systems.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations and
authority to liquidate an equal amount of contract
authorizations from existing unobligated balances of $8,300,000
for border and field facility improvements that are part of
FMCSA's Capital Investment Plan.

MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY GRANTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liquidation of
contract Limitation on
authorization obligations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2014.............. $313,000,000 $313,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015............. 352,753,000 352,753,000
Committee recommendation.......... 313,000,000 313,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 and
authority to liquidate an equal amount of contract
authorization of $313,000,000 for motor carrier safety grants.
The recommended limitation is equal to the fiscal year 2014
enacted level and $39,753,000 less than the budget request. The
Committee recommends a separate limitation on obligations for
each grant program funded under this account with the funding
allocation identified below. The obligation limitation listed
below for the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program [MCSAP]
includes $218,000,000 for High Priority grants, of which
$32,000,000 is for New Entrant grants.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor carrier safety assistance program [MCSAP]...... $218,000,000
Commercial driver's license program improvement 30,000,000
grants..............................................
Border enforcement grants............................ 32,000,000
Performance and registration information system 5,000,000
management grant program............................
Commercial vehicle information systems and networks 25,000,000
deployment program..................................
Safety data improvement grants....................... 1,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION--FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMNINSTRATION

Section 130 subjects the funds in this act to section 350
of Public Law 107-87 in order to ensure the safety of all
cross-border long haul operations conducted by Mexican-
domiciled commercial carriers.
Section 131 limits funding from being used to deny the
renewal of a hazardous material safety permit under certain
conditions.
Section 132 This provision allows States that issued
Commercial License Permits [CLPs] to individuals under age 18
prior to the May 9, 2011, rulemaking to continue to do so.
FMCSA established a minimum age of 18 for issuance of a CLP
without awareness of existing State rules and regulations at
that time. In many States, commercial truck driving programs
are offered through vocational training programs and the Job
Corps targeted at students between the ages of 16 and 18. These
programs help students prepare to drive commercial vehicles at
age 18 and on the interstates after age 21, which are the
minimum ages for Commercial Driver Licenses [CDLs] in all
States.
Section 133 temporarily suspends enforcement of the hours
of service regulation related to the restart provisions that
went into effect on July 1, 2013 and directs the Secretary to
conduct a study of the operational, safety, health and fatigue
aspects of the restart before and after July 1, 2013.

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; (5) the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for
Users [SAFETEA-LU]; and (6) Moving Ahead for Progress in the
21st Century Act [MAP-21].
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.
The most recent surface reauthorization, MAP-21,
consolidated NHTSA's grant programs into a new National
Priority Safety Program and set target spending rates for
grants to States for occupant protection, State traffic safety
information systems, impaired driving countermeasures,
distracted driving, motorcycle safety, State graduated driver
licensing, and in-vehicle alcohol detection device research.
The bill also mandates State performance-based highway safety
plans, and creates a new teenage traffic safety program, and
Council for Vehicle Electronics, Software, and Engineering
Expertise.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

Between 2005 and 2011, the Nation experienced a 26 percent
decrease in overall traffic fatalities, with 2011 marking the
lowest number of fatalities since 1949. With the recovery of
the economy and the return of more discretionary travel, the
number of fatalities rose to 33,561 in 2012, a 3.6 percent
increase over 2011. As the volume of freight and passenger
vehicles on our highways continues to grow, NHTSA and its State
partners must remain diligent to prevent further increases in
the number of fatalities. The Committee recommends $834,500,000
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 $16,500,000 less than the President's request and
$15,500,000 more than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level.
The following table summarizes Committee recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway trust
General fund fund Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation 2014.............................................. $134,000,000 $685,000,000 $819,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015........................................... .............. 851,000,000 851,000,000
Committee recommendation........................................ 134,500,000 700,000,000 834,500,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OPERATIONS AND RESEARCH

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway trust
General fund fund Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2014................................. $134,000,000 $123,500,000 $257,500,000
Budget estimate, 2015........................................... .............. 274,000,000 274,000,000
Committee recommendation........................................ 134,500,000 138,500,000 273,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 driving
prevention, young and older driver safety, and improved
accident investigation procedures.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee provides $273,000,000 for Operations and
Research, which includes funding for the National Driver
Register. This level of funding is $1,000,000 less than the
President's budget request and $15,500,000 more than the fiscal
year 2014 enacted level. Of the total amount recommended for
Operations and Research, $134,500,000 is derived from the
General Fund and $138,500,000 is derived from the Highway Trust
Fund, of which $5,000,000 is for the National Driver Register.
Additional resources are provided to improve the Office of
Defects Investigation's [ODI's] ability to identify vehicle
safety defects, expand vehicle crash worthiness testing,
conclude equipment compliance testing, conduct research and
testing for motorcoach safety regulatory activities, and
continue testing of emerging alternative fuel systems.
Office of Defects Investigation [ODI].--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 crash 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.
As a result of the General Motors recall of 2.5 million
vehicles for faulty ignition switches that have been linked to
at least 13 deaths, concerns have been raised about NHTSA's
ability to identify vehicle safety-related problems. NHTSA
contends that General Motors withheld critical information that
would have helped identify the defect and likely changed the
agency's approach to the issue. ODI's ability to find these
safety defects is heavily dependent upon automakers acting in
good faith to share defect information in a timely basis.
Equally important is the ability for the agency to aggressively
screen defect trends within the voluminous amounts of early
warning data it receives. The Committee recommendation includes
$10,200,000 to support the implementation and maintenance of
the Electronic Document and Records Management System [EDRMS]
Corporate Information Factory [CIF]. The CIF is an advanced
data mining and analytical tool that will allow ODI to provide
more transparency to its data and enable faster, more reliable
results for defect screeners and investigators.
New Car Assessment Program [NCAP].--The New Car Assessment
Program [NCAP] is an important component of NHTSA's continuing
effort to reduce fatalities and injuries. NHTSA tests vehicle
crash worthiness by evaluating passenger car crash performance
data on frontal impact, side impact and rollover resistance
tests to inform consumers about the relative safety of cars on
the market using a five star safety rating system.
Manufacturers respond to these tests by making more safety
improvements to their vehicles for customers and earn top
safety ratings. The Committee recommendation includes
$14,000,000 for the NCAP program, consistent with the budget
request. This level of funding will enable NHTSA to test 85
percent of the new model year fleet.
Vehicle Safety Compliance.--Vehicles and vehicle equipment
sold in the United States are required to meet Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standards [FMVSS]. The Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance conducts testing, inspection, analysis and
investigations to identify defective equipment and ensure that
the manufacturer issues a recall or provides a remedy for
noncompliance. The Committee recommendation includes $9,140,000
for FMVSS support consistent with the budget request. This
level of funding will enable NHTSA to complete equipment
compliance testing for child seats, initiate compliance testing
for motor coach occupant protection related to MAP-21 motor
coach safety mandates, and continue testing of emerging
alternative fuel systems.
Motorcoach Safety.--The Secretary is required to issue a
number of occupant protection regulations to improve motorcoach
roof strength and structural integrity, prevent ejections
through windows, require technology that will reduce the chance
of a rollover, and equip motor coaches with direct tire
pressure monitoring systems. These issues are included in the
Secretary's Motorcoach Safety Action Plan and MAP-21 requires
final rules to be issued in each of these areas by October 1,
2014. To date, the DOT has not issued proposed rules on any of
these important safety initiatives. The Committee directs the
Secretary to report to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations within 30 days of the date of enactment of this
act on the status of the regulations mandated under section
32703(b) and (c) of MAP-21.
Fire Safety.--Fire safety is a recurrent problem on
passenger-carrying vehicles of all kinds with 160 fires, on
average, reported each year. Section 32704 of MAP-21 requires
the Secretary to conduct research and testing on methods to
prevent and mitigate fires on motorcoaches and, based on that
research, determine what regulations are needed. The Committee
directs the Secretary to report to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations within 30 days of the date of
enactment of this act on the progress of this research.
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 [EISA] and the Clean Air Act.
The Committee recommends $7,900,000 for fiscal year 2015
for the CAFE program, as requested. Funding will be used to
support rulemakings for medium- and heavy-duty commercial
vehicles; propose fuel economy standards for heavy-duty truck
trailers; continue a retrospective analysis of past fuel
efficiency rulemakings to assess the accuracy of projects as
directed by GAO; and conduct research on fuel efficiency
improving technologies that will support the development of
fuel economy standards for model years 2022-2025.
The Committee recognizes the importance that plastics and
polymer-based composite materials play in reducing vehicle
weight. They provide vehicle manufacturers with innovative
tools to reduce fuel consumption and, by association, vehicle
emissions, including air toxics and greenhouse gasses. As
manufacturers plan for future fleets, composite materials offer
benefits for meeting new targets established under NHTSA's
recent vehicle fuel efficiency rules. At the same time, the
Committee recognizes that composite manufacturing is a new and
growing industry, providing highly skilled jobs in the
automotive industry. The Committee directs NHTSA to continue
advancing the state of the art of predictive engineering for
plastics and composites, while validating the safety
performance of plastics and polymer-based composites for the
automotive industry in fiscal year 2015. The program will help
facilitate a foundation of cooperation between DOT, the
Department of Energy, and industry stakeholders for the
development of safety-centered approaches for future light-
weight automotive design.
Emergency Communication Centers.--The Committee believes
that improved pre-hospital emergency response is vital to
reducing mortality on America's highways and interstates,
particularly in rural States where deaths per capita are
highest. Providing high-quality emergency response, including
the deployment of technology platforms that improve
communications and speed transmission of data, photo images and
real-time video to a remote trauma center may improve outcomes
and save lives. As such, the Committee directs NHTSA to consult
with the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of
Health and Human Services to provide a report within 180 days
of enactment to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations that identifies models of regional and statewide
medical communications centers, the mechanisms by which these
models could be integrated into existing emergency medical
services and trauma systems, and the potential ability of
medical communications centers to use evolving and innovative
digital technology to reduce traffic fatalities.
Child Hyperthermia Prevention.--The Committee commends
NHTSA for 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 continue a broad, coordinated national campaign along
the lines of the successful efforts more than a decade ago that
convinced 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 justified as there have been
more than 600 of these deaths in vehicles since 1998, an
average of 38 per year and rising. The Committee also
encourages the agency to work with State highway offices to use
their resources to heighten awareness.
National Roadside Survey.--NHTSA recently sponsored the
fifth National Roadside Survey [NRS] conducted since the
original survey in 1973. This national field survey of
nighttime weekend drivers seeks to estimate the prevalence of
alcohol and drugs in drivers on our Nation's roadways. The
survey involves stopping drivers at approximately 300 randomly
selected locations across the continental United States. While
participation in the survey is random, voluntary, and
compensated, civil libertarians have raised concerns about the
presence of uniformed officers at the survey sites as the
driving public may confuse survey sites with mandatory law
enforcement checkpoints. In addition, passive and active
collection of blood and saliva as part of the testing process
has raised privacy concerns. The Committee directs NHTSA to
provide a report to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations within 90 days of enactment that details the
survey methodology of the most recent NRS including what
characteristics distinguish NRS sites from mandatory law
enforcement checkpoints and what steps are taken to make clear
that either pulling over or participating in the survey are
both completely voluntary. The report should also describe what
steps are taken to protect the privacy of both participants and
drivers that come upon NRS sites. The report should further
contain metrics describing the percentage of drivers that are
pulled over that elect to continue with the survey. The report
should describe the number of States in which the survey was
conducted, and the process by which it notified members of
Congress prior to the survey that a survey would be conducted
in their State. Finally, the report should describe any
incidents where participation in the survey led to arrest of
the occupant(s) of the automobile. The Committee also directs
the Government Accountability Office to review and report on
the overall value of the NRS to researchers and other public
safety stakeholders, the differences between an NRS site and
typical law enforcement checkpoints, and the effectiveness of
the NRS survey methodology at protecting the privacy of the
driving public.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liquidation of
contract Limitation on
authorization obligations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2014.................. $561,500,000 $561,500,000
Budget estimate, 2015................. 577,000,000 577,000,000
Committee recommendation.............. 561,500,000 561,500,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The most recent surface authorization, MAP-21, reauthorized
occupant protection grants, State traffic safety information
grants, impaired driving countermeasures grants, motorcycle
safety grants, and consolidated them under a new National
Priority Safety Program (23 U.S.C. 405). The bill also created
three new grant programs within the National Priority Safety
Program: State graduated driver license grants, distracted
driving grants, and in-vehicle alcohol detection devise
research.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations and
authority to liquidate an equal amount of contract
authorization of $561,500,000 for the highway traffic safety
grant programs funded under this heading. The recommended
limitation is $15,500,000 less than the budget estimate and
equal to the fiscal year 2014 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 authorized funding for administrative expenses and for
each grant program is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway Safety Programs (section 402)................... $235,000,000
National Priority Safety Programs (section 405)......... 272,000,000
High Visibility Enforcement Program..................... 29,000,000
Administrative Expenses................................. 25,500,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Drunk Driving Prevention.--Since 2008, NHTSA has partnered
with leading automobile manufacturers in the Automotive
Coalition for Traffic Safety [ACTS] on an ambitious research
program to develop in-vehicle technology to prevent alcohol-
impaired driving that is publicly acceptable, unobtrusive for
drivers below the legal limit of .08 BAC, reliable, and
relatively inexpensive. The goal is to make such technologies
available for voluntary installation in production vehicles
within the next 5 years. ACTS is now operating under a second
5-year cooperative agreement. To date, progress has been
significant, including the identification of two competing
technological approaches. During fiscal year 2015, these
technologies will be installed in research vehicles for pilot
field testing. The Committee continues to strongly support this
promising research partnership, which has the potential to
prevent thousands of drunk driving deaths annually. The
Committee recommends $5,574,000 for ACTS to continue this
research, which is consistent with the budget request and
$134,000 more than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. The
Committee expects work will be accelerated during the coming
fiscal year on consumer acceptance and public policy issues
that are essential elements of the project and must be
addressed in concert with technology development and testing.

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. to pay for travel
and expenses for State management reviews and highway safety
staff core competency development training.
Section 141 exempts obligation authority, made available in
previous Public Laws from limitations on obligations for the
current year.
Section 142 prohibits the use of funds to implement 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, 2014.................................... $184,500,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................... 185,250,000
Committee recommendation................................ 191,250,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Safety and Operations account provides support for FRA
rail safety activities and all other administrative and
operating activities related to staff and programs.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $191,250,000 for Safety and
Operations for fiscal year 2015, which is $6,000,000 more than
the budget request and $6,750,000 more than the fiscal year
2014 enacted level. The bill specifies that $15,400,000 shall
remain available until expended to cover 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.
The Committee recommendation includes $3,750,000 to
annualize the safety and inspector staffing increases provided
in fiscal year 2014, and for 10 additional safety inspectors in
fiscal year 2015.
Automated Track Inspection Program.--The Automated Track
Inspection Program [ATIP] provides track geometry information,
as well as other track-related performance data, to assess
compliance with Federal Track Safety Standards. The data
collected under ATIP is used by FRA's railroad inspectors and
by railroads to ensure proper track maintenance and to assess
track safety trends within the industry. FRA is currently
operating only one ATIP car for inspections. The Committee
recommendation includes an increase of $3,000,000 to fund the
use of a second car to support the inspection of crude oil
routes--covering more than 14,000 miles nationwide. Funding
will also be used to expedite implementation of a remote
automated track inspection capability using unmanned systems to
increase inspection mileage while reducing costs.
Training and Outreach.--Class I railroads recently
committed to spending $5,000,000 to develop a specialized crude
by rail training program for local emergency responders at the
Transportation Technology Center [TTC] in Pueblo, Colorado.
This initiative will train an estimated 1,500 first responders.
While a helpful and well-intentioned program, many communities
and tribes lack the resources to meet the match requirements
and pay the overtime for staff engaged in training, as well as
the costs of the supplemental staff to cover their regular
duties in their absence. The Committee recommendation for the
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration [PHMSA]
includes $1,000,000 for hazardous materials emergency response
training to be made available in a Web-based or electronic
format. The Committee directs FRA to collaborate with PHMSA on
the development of this training curriculum and to incorporate
the training regime from TTC. This will ensure that communities
and tribes on or near rail lines transporting energy products
have access to this valuable emergency response training.

RAILROAD RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2014.................................... $35,250,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................... 35,100,000
Committee recommendation................................ 40,730,000

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 $40,730,000
for railroad research and development, which is $5,630,000 more
than the budget request and $5,480,000 more than the fiscal
year 2014 enacted level.
Short Line Railroad Safety Institute.--Short Line railroads
operate more than 50,000 miles of track, which is one-third of
the national railroad network. They are an important feeder
system for the larger Class I railroads, helping connect local
communities to the national railroad network. There are 550
short line railroads operating in the United States, 73 of
which currently handle some volume of crude oil. The safety
management system of short lines is extremely varied and many
companies lack the resources to conduct hazardous materials
safety training and other operational safety assessments. The
Committee supports FRA's efforts to create a Short Line
Railroad Safety Institute in partnership with short line and
regional railroads to build a stronger, sustainable safety
culture in this segment of the rail industry. The Committee
recommendation includes $2,000,000 for this initiative, which
will be used to perform safety compliance assessments and
training on short lines that transport crude oil. The Committee
believes this will be an important part of the larger safety
strategy to improve the safe transportation of crude oil and
other hazardous materials by rail.
Accident Analysis and Mitigation.--The Committee
recommendation includes $1,000,000 for FRA to conduct accident
risk analysis and mitigation research to examine how the safety
risks of transporting energy products changes from source to
destination. FRA will assess the likelihood and consequences of
accidents during pre-treatment, classification, loading,
transit, and unloading. The agency will also evaluate
mitigation strategies to reduce identified risks throughout the
supply chain, such as regulation and enforcement, more accurate
classification methods, alternative routing, reduced line
speeds, improved braking, improved tank car crashworthiness,
and better informed emergency responders. The research will
provide a clear understanding of the most cost-effective ways
of improving overall energy transportation safety.
Research and Development Activities.--The Committee
recommendation includes $2,480,000 for research and development
activities related to the safe transportation of energy
products. Specifically, FRA will supplement PHMSA's research on
the development of a Liquefied Natural Gas [LNG] bulk tank car
and locomotive tender designs by conducting full-scale impact
tests to assess performance, puncture resistance, and validate
computer simulations. FRA will also evaluate technologies
suitable for retrofitting tank cars to improve safety, conduct
an analysis of the costs and benefits of retrofits compared to
new tank cars, develop recommended practices for tank car
retrofitting, and, if warranted, identify inspection and
maintenances procedures for tank car retrofit options.

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, and railroads.
Credit assistance under the program may be used for
rehabilitating or developing rail equipment and facilities. No
Federal appropriation is required to implement the program,
because a non-Federal partner may contribute the subsidy amount
required by the Credit Reform Act of 1990 in the form of a
credit risk premium. The Committee maintains bill language
specifying that no new direct loans or loan guarantee
commitments may be made using Federal funds for the payment of
any credit premium amount during fiscal year 2015. The
Committee directs FRA to continue to provide a summary of loan
activity for the preceding fiscal years in its fiscal year 2016
budget justification. At a minimum, FRA should detail the
number of loans pending and issued, and the processing time for
these loans.

THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK)

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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 to their tracks for incremental cost.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

GRANTS TO THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION

Appropriations, 2014.................................... $1,390,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015\1\................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 1,390,000,000

\1\The President's budget would establish two new trust fund accounts
for Current Passenger Rail Service and the Rail Service Improvement
Program totaling $4,775,000,000, of which $2,450,000,000 would be
available to Amtrak under the new Current Passenger Rail Service Account
for both capital and operating expenses.

The Committee recommends $1,390,000,000 for the FRA to make
grants to Amtrak. This amount is equal to the fiscal year 2014
enacted level. The administration's budget request would shift
funding for Amtrak into a new $2,450,000,000 Current Passenger
Rail Service program that would be supported by a new dedicated
Rail Account of the Transportation Trust Fund.
Of the total amount recommended by the Committee, up to
$350,000,000 may be used for operating grants, up to
$149,000,000 may be used for debt service payments, and not
less than $50,000,000 shall be used to bring stations into
compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Of the
amounts available for capital, not less than $40,000,000 shall
be used for the Gateway Program. Furthermore, up to one-half of
1 percent of the total funding level is available for FRA to
conduct oversight of Amtrak's operating and capital
expenditures, and up to one-half of 1 percent of the total
funding level is available for the Northeast Corridor
Infrastructure and Operations Advisory Commission.
For operating grants, the Committee directs FRA to make a
timely disbursement of funds no more frequently than once per
quarter to maximize the Corporation's ability to efficiently
manage its cash flow. For capital grants, the Committee
recommends the continuation of an initial allocation of
$200,000,000 for a working capital fund, with the remaining
amounts to be made available on a reimbursable basis.
The Committee maintains requirements for Amtrak to submit a
business plan and 5-year Financial Plan for fiscal year 2015.
The Corporation shall continue to submit a budget request for
fiscal year 2016 to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations in similar format and substance to those
submitted by executive agencies of the Federal Government.
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.
In September 2011, DOT issued a final rule amending its ADA
regulations for level boarding at passenger rail stations. The
rule requires Amtrak to provide level entry boarding at
stations where the tracks are not shared with freight rail, but
allows Amtrak to provide alternative boarding mechanisms at
tracks shared with freight rail. Amtrak had to re-evaluate and
revise all plans, design specifications, engineering
requirements, and construction estimates and submit a new ADA
compliance plan.
Amtrak reports that the Corporation has some degree of ADA
responsibility at 390 stations. Amtrak has provided mobile
lifts at the 110 stations that have less than 7,500 riders
annually. The remaining 280 stations that have more than 7,500
passengers annually will need some type of set-back level
boarding solution. Many of the platforms in these stations are
owned by freight railroads and reconciling the requirements of
existing freight traffic with the needs of passengers is a
complex challenge. The Committee encourages Amtrak to use its
funds to address compliance requirements that are the
responsibility of other parties at the stations it serves where
the work involved is not more than 10 percent of the cost of
all ADA compliance work at that station, and where doing so
would expedite completion of its compliance efforts and be a
more efficient use of resources than compelling those parties
to act.
With the level of funding recommended by the Committee,
Amtrak intends to advance construction at 15 stations and to
finalize planning and design requirements for another 95
stations. By the end of the fiscal year 2015, Amtrak expects to
complete work in a total of 52 stations.
State Supported Routes.--The Committee notes that States
with intercity passenger rail service under 750 miles in length
have taken over the full cost of the service as required by
section 209 of the Passenger Rail Improvement and Investment
Act of 2008 [PRIIA]. That service has reached record ridership
levels and generates nearly half of all Amtrak ridership, and
30 percent of its revenue. The Committee directs Amtrak to
provide the required transparent, accurate cost information to
States, as well as the 5-year capital equipment investment
program agreed to in the PRIIA section 209 Cost Methodology
Policy. The cost information should be detailed and verifiable.
States must have confidence the costs they are being asked to
pay are commensurate with the State-supported routes for which
they are responsible.
Amtrak's Rolling Stock Acquisitions.--Acela service
provides nationally important mobility services in the Nation's
most densely traveled intercity corridor and accounts for over
70 percent of the net operating surplus of Amtrak's Northeast
Corridor operations. The equipment presently used to provide
Acela service is capacity constrained and past its mid-life use
for equipment in premium service. The Committee is aware of
Amtrak's interest in securing new high-speed trainsets that
will initially supplement and eventually replace the equipment
presently used to provide Acela service. The timely acquisition
of this equipment is a critical element of improving Amtrak's
financial performance and an important element of the future of
intercity passenger rail service. The Committee encourages
Amtrak to apply for a RRIF loan to finance this acquisition, as
it will offer more favorable financing terms and permit the
cost to be spread over the life of the equipment. The Committee
notes that the RRIF program has been underutilized up to now,
with the Department having the ability to make approximately
$34,000,000,000 in loans without further action by Congress.
Thus this particular loan would not limit in any significant
way the Secretary's ability to make other meritorious loans.
Food and Beverage Service.--Last year, Amtrak announced its
intent to eliminate food and beverage losses over 5 years. The
Committee is encouraged by this announcement and commends
Amtrak for addressing this aspect of its business. The
Committee notes that food and beverage service is important to
Amtrak passengers, especially those who use long distance
trains regularly. Not only do Amtrak's customers require the
service, but eliminating food and beverages from Amtrak's
operations would actually increase its operating losses due to
reduced ridership and ticket revenue.
While last year's announcement is encouraging, Amtrak has
yet to provide a specific plan to make its food and beverage
service profitable. Therefore, the Committee directs Amtrak to
report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations and
the FRA within 180 days of enactment of this act a detailed
explanation of the reforms Amtrak has already implemented to
reduce food and beverage losses since the corporation first
announced this initiative on October 3, 2013, and a
comprehensive plan outlining how it will meet its goal by
October 2018.

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 continues the conditions under which the
Secretary may approve operating grants to Amtrak.
Section 153 limits overtime payments to employees at Amtrak
to $35,000 per employee. However, Amtrak's president may waive
this restriction for specific employees for safety or
operational efficiency reasons. If the cap is waived, Amtrak
must notify the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations
within 30 days and specify the reason for such waiver.

Federal Transit Administration

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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 [FTA] are: to
help develop improved mass transportation systems and
practices; to support the inclusion of public transportation in
community and regional planning to support economic
development; to provide mobility for Americans who depend on
transit for transportation 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 agencies in financing such services and
systems.
A growing number of Americans depend on public transit to
get to work, school, medical appointments, and elsewhere. In
2013, they took 10.7 billion trips on public transportation,
the highest annual ridership level since 1956. While the
recession led to a decline in transit use in 2009 and 2010,
ridership has since recovered with an improving economy. Growth
is also driven by investments that communities and the Federal
Government have made to expand transit options. This is
especially true of rail transit, where ridership grew by more
than a third in the last decade as new rail lines opened in
almost two dozen cities, including Sacramento, Phoenix, Dallas
and Salt Lake City.
The most recent authorization for transit programs was
contained in the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century
[MAP-21], which will expire on September 30, 2014. MAP-21
expanded FTA's responsibilities for ensuring the safety of
public transit; providing financial support to transit systems
during emergencies, including natural disasters such as floods
and hurricanes; and supporting core capacity improvements in
existing fixed guideway systems. The Committee's
recommendations assume they will be further extended under
their current structure until the enactment of a full
reauthorization package.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

Under the Committee recommendations, a total program level
of $11,055,000,000 is provided for FTA programs in fiscal year
2015. The recommendation is $6,594,400,000 less than the budget
request and $309,357,000 above the fiscal year 2014 enacted
level.

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2014.................................... $105,933,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................... 114,400,000
Committee recommendation................................ 110,500,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Administrative expenses fund personnel, contract resources,
information technology, space management, travel, training, and
other administrative expenses necessary to carry out FTA's
mission to support, improve, and help ensure the safety of
public transportation systems.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total of $110,500,000 from the
General Fund for the agency's salaries and administrative
expenses. The recommended level of funding is $3,900,000 less
than the budget request and $4,567,000 above the fiscal year
2014 enacted level. This funding level will support new
responsibilities for safety oversight assigned to FTA in the
most recent authorization act, MAP-21, as well as cover the
costs of salaries and inflation.
The Committee has recognized for several years now that
FTA's staffing has not kept up with its increasing
responsibilities. Successive evaluations have concluded that
FTA requires additional staff to support a steadily growing
workload and improve its ability to perform project oversight,
contract administration, and technical assistance. The
Committee acknowledges MAP-21 added significant new burdens,
including standing up a new safety office. The recommendation
supports full staffing for the Office of Transit Safety and
Oversight, but due to funding constraints, does not include
additional resources to address staff shortfalls in other core
operations.
The Committee again notes the lack of information about the
additional resources requested in the Administrative Expenses
section of the congressional justification. Although FTA
provides this information upon request, the cost, location,
composition and other details that support the budget should be
included in the justification. The Committee directs FTA to
provide this information in its justification for any staff
increases it requests in future years. In addition, the
Committee directs FTA to provide information on the staffing
and funding requirements of each individual FTA office in its
fiscal year 2016 submission.
Transit Safety.--While public transit remains a remarkably
safe mode of transportation, accidents do still happen, such as
the derailment of a New York subway train in Queens last month,
injuring 19. Six weeks earlier, a Chicago Blue Line train
crashed at O'Hare Airport, injuring the operator and 32
passengers. To reduce the risk of such incidents, MAP-21 tasked
FTA with significant new responsibilities for ensuring the
safety of public transit, including establishing common-sense
standards for transit agencies and the State Safety Oversight
programs that oversee them, as well as transit vehicles. These
changes represent a new mission for the agency, one that
requires FTA to stand up and staff an entirely new office while
simultaneously producing the full range of regulations needed
to comprehensively address transit safety under the auspices of
the National Safety Program authorized in 49 U.S.C. 5329.
FTA has proceeded expeditiously since MAP-21's passage in
mid-2012. It recently published interim safety certification
training provisions, as well as a comprehensive advance notice
of public rulemaking [ANPRM] covering the required National
Safety Plan, Agency Safety Plan, and Safety Certification
Training Plan. The ANPRM also included Transit Asset
Management, a particular focus of the Committee since it
directed FTA to assess the condition of the Nation's rail
transit systems in 2008, and then in 2010, to assume a
leadership role in improving asset management in transit
agencies. NTSB has identified a probable relationship in some
transit accidents to equipment in poor or marginal condition,
demonstrating a link between the condition of equipment and
safety risks, not to mention reliability, maintenance costs,
and the quality of transit service.
In the coming year, FTA will continue to work closely with
State Safety Oversight organizations to support their efforts
to achieve compliance and certification. It expects to publish
the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the safety plans and
asset management, as well as its proposed adoption of the
Safety Management System [SMS] approach to developing the
National Safety Program. SMS takes a proactive approach to
managing safety that has been adopted by other agencies with
transportation safety missions, including the Federal Aviation
Administration and International Civil Aviation Organization.
To support these efforts, the Committee recommendation includes
funding for 21 additional FTE for the Safety Office, making it
possible to achieve the total planned complement of 49 staff.
Infrastructure Planning.--Severe weather and other natural
disasters can have serious impacts on transportation systems
and the communities that rely on them, disrupting highways and
public transportation systems, and slowing local economies to a
crawl. Rebuilding and resuming normal operations in the wake of
these events can be difficult and costly. To address this
issue, at the local level, many communities are beginning to
incorporate the impact of these events into the planning,
design, and construction of transportation services. Washington
State, for example, has used the results of a statewide
infrastructure vulnerability assessment in its corridor plans
and project-level environmental studies.
The Committee recognizes that taking into account severe
weather and other natural disasters in infrastructure planning
and building is a cost-effective and important step in ensuring
the longevity of our transportation system. It helps to protect
the critical corridors that businesses, workers, and families
rely on every day. But as standards continue to develop, some
States lack the technical expertise to incorporate
vulnerability assessments into their planning efforts.
Therefore, the Committee urges FTA to define, and make
available to States, best practices for resiliency planning.
The Committee further urges FTA to provide technical assistance
to States and planning organizations to help them incorporate
such considerations into the planning process. The Committee
provides this direction also to FHWA, and encourages both modal
administrations to coordinate their efforts with FRA.
Project Management Oversight [PMO] Activities.--The
Committee directs FTA to continue to submit to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations the quarterly PMO reports
for each project with a full funding grant agreement.
Full Funding Grant Agreements [FFGAs].--MAP-21 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, 30 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 2019; (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 starts 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 GRANTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORITY)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obligation
limitation
(trust fund)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2014.................................. $8,595,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................. 13,800,000,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 8,595,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Communities use Formula Grants funds for bus and railcar
purchases, facility repair and construction, maintenance, and
where eligible, planning and operating expenses. The Formula
Grants account includes funding for the following programs:
transit-oriented development; planning programs; urbanized area
formula grants; enhanced mobility for seniors and individuals
with disabilities; formula grants for rural areas; a bus
testing facility; a national transit institute; the national
transit database; state of good repairs grants; bus and bus
facilities formulas grants; and growing States and high-density
States formula grants. Set-asides from formula funds are
directed to a grant program for each State with rail systems
not regulated by the Federal Railroad Administration to meet
the requirements for a State Safety Oversight program. The
account also provides funding to support passenger ferry
services and public transportation on Indian reservations.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends limiting obligations in the
transit formula and bus grants account in fiscal year 2015 to
$8,595,000,000. The recommendation is the same as the
authorized level for fiscal year 2014 and a placeholder for a
level that will ultimately be authorized in the successor to
MAP-21.
The Committee recommends $9,500,000,000 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 grants:

DISTRIBUTION OF OBLIGATION LIMITATION AMONG MAJOR CATEGORIES OF FORMULA GRANTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2015
Formula grants (obligation -------------------------------------
limitation) Section number Fiscal year 2014 Administration Committee
proposal assumption
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transit Oriented Development..... 20005(b)............ $10,000,000 $10,234,449 $10,000,000
Planning Programs................ 5305................ 128,800,000 131,819,706 128,800,000
Urbanized Area Formula Grants.... 5307................ 4,458,650,000 4,563,182,692 4,458,650,000
Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and 5310................ 258,300,000 264,355,823 258,300,000
Individuals with Disabilities.
Formula Grants for Rural Areas... 5311................ 607,800,000 622,049,823 607,800,000
Bus Testing Facility............. 5318................ 3,000,000 3,070,335 3,000,000
National Transit Institute....... 5322(d)............. 5,000,000 5,117,225 5,000,000
National Transit Database........ 5335................ 3,850,000 3,940,263 3,850,000
State of Good Repair Grants...... 5337................ 2,165,900,000 5,719,000,000 2,165,900,000
Bus and Bus Facilities Formula 5339................ 427,800,000 1,939,000,000 427,800,000
Grants.
Growing States and High Density 5340................ 525,900,000 538,229,684 525,900,000
States Formula Grants.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total...................... .................... 8,595,000,000 13,800,000,000 8,595,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TRANSIT RESEARCH

------------------------------------------------------------------------
General fund
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2014.................................. $43,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................. 33,000,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 33,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation supports 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
innovative technologies and successful strategies to increase
ridership, improve personal mobility and access, increase
efficiency and safety, and demonstrate new technologies that
promote clean energy and improve air quality.
FTA may make grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and
other agreements for research, development, demonstration, and
deployment projects, and evaluation of technology of national
significance to public transportation. FTA provides transit
agencies with research results to help them be better equipped
to improve services and meet local transportation needs at the
lowest reasonable cost. FTA helps transit agencies employ new
service methods and technologies that improve their operations
and capital efficiencies, as well as improve transit safety and
emergency preparedness.
The current authorization, MAP-21, continues these
activities, while increasing the importance of FTA's role in
promoting the development and deployment of successful low or
no emission buses, technology the agency played an important
role in helping to develop and promote in recent years.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $33,000,000 for the transit
research. The recommendation is $10,000,000 below the fiscal
year 2014 enacted level, and equal to the request. Of the
total, $30,000,000 is for activities authorized under section
5312 of MAP-21. The Committee recommendation allocates the
balance of funds to the Transit Cooperative Research Program
authorized by 49 U.S.C. 5313.
FTA's research efforts have 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 helped lead efforts to
develop the first practical fuel cell buses in the world.
There is a compelling case that the need for Federal
support to help develop, test, and promote new transit-focused
technologies remains as great as ever. These efforts can
potentially help transit agencies reduce costs, and assist
communities in their efforts to ease congestion and improve air
quality. They also support U.S. economic competitiveness. To
support these goals, the Committee directed the Office of the
Inspector General [OIG] to provide a report recommending
additional steps the FTA could take to promote the deployment
of cost-effective low- and zero-emission buses. The report will
also identify promising technologies that could benefit the
industry by significantly reducing costs, curbing emissions, or
improving safety. The Committee looks forward to examining the
OIG's report when it is issued this summer.
Improving Rural Transit Access.--The Committee recognizes
the importance of ensuring safe, private transportation is made
available for seniors, especially in small and rural
communities where distance and low population density make
traditional mass transportation difficult. The efficiencies of
information management can bring together underutilized private
transportation capacity by combining ride share, car share,
volunteer transport, and private community transport. The
Committee encourages FTA to consider the use of suites of
software programs that leverage many kinds of unused private
transportation capacity to promote transportation for seniors
in small and rural communities.
Safety and Emergency Response Grants-- Following the
passage of MAP-21, in October 2013, FTA devoted $29,000,000 in
research funding to a grant competition for innovative safety,
resiliency, and all-hazards emergency response and recovery
research demonstration projects of national significance. FTA
received 72 proposals seeking $161,000,000 for projects to
demonstrate such innovations as advanced communication systems,
advanced train control and crash avoidance technologies, and
rail track worker safety and information systems. The agency
expects to announce its selections in July.

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND TRAINING

Appropriations, 2014.................................... $5,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................... 27,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,500,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

MAP-21 authorizes FTA to provide technical assistance to
the public transportation industry and to develop standards for
transit services, with an emphasis on improving access for all
individuals and transportation equity. It also authorizes FTA
to support public transportation workforce development,
training, and recruitment.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $5,500,000 for technical
assistance and training. The recommendation is $500,000 above
the fiscal year 2014 level, and $22,000,000 below the request.
Of the total, $5,000,000 is for activities authorized under
section 5314 of MAP-21. The Committee recommendation allocates
the balance of funds, $500,000, to the Human Resources and
Training activities authorized under 49 U.S.C. 5322. The
Committee is sympathetic to the Department's proposal to fund a
substantial workforce development program within FTA, but is
not in the position to make such a commitment while
discretionary spending remains constrained and the Capital
Investment Grants program continues to grow.

CAPITAL INVESTMENT GRANTS

Appropriations, 2014.................................... $1,942,938,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................... 2,500,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,161,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Under the Capital Investment Grants program, FTA provides
grants to fund the building of new fixed guideway systems or
extensions and improvements to existing fixed guideway systems.
Eligible services include light rail, rapid rail (heavy rail),
commuter rail, and bus rapid transit. The program has long
included funding for two categories of eligible projects
authorized under section 5309 of title 49 of the United States
Code: New Starts and Small Starts. New Starts are projects with
a Federal share of at least $75,000,000 and a total capital
cost of $250,000,000 or more. By comparison, Small Starts are
projects with a Federal match and total capital cost below
these thresholds. The most recent reauthorization, MAP-21,
added a third category of eligible projects: Core Capacity. The
latter are defined as projects that will increase capacity in
an existing fixed guideway corridor by at least 10 percent.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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.
The Committee recommends a level of $2,161,000,000 for
capital investment grants. This level fully funds all of the
projects included in Department's request that are currently
under construction or expected to be so during fiscal year
2015.

RECOMMENDED FISCAL YEAR 2015 FUNDING FOR CAPITAL INVESTMENT GRANTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2015
Project recommendations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals by Project Type:
Existing New Starts Full Funding Grant $1,510,137,944
Agreements.....................................
Recommended New Starts Projects................. 413,221,561
Recommended Core Capacity Funding............... 120,000,000
Recommended Small Starts Projects............... 151,702,662
Oversight Activities............................ 30,937,833
Less existing unallocated balances.............. (65,000,000)
-------------------
Grand total................................... 2,161,000,000
===================
Existing New Starts Full Funding Grant Agreements
With Remaining Funding Needs:
CA Los Angeles, Regional Connector Transit 100,000,000
Corridor.......................................
CA San Francisco--Third Street Light Rail- 150,000,000
Central Subway Project.........................
CA San Jose--Silicon Valley Berryessa Extension. 150,000,000
CA Los Angeles, Westside Subway Extension-- 100,000,000
Section 1......................................
CO Denver--RTD Eagle, Denver.................... 150,000,000
CT New BritainHartford Busway\1\................ 61,938,873
HI Honolulu--High Capacity Transit Corridor..... 250,000,000
MN St. Paul-Min., Central Corridor Light Rail 109,147,017
Transit Project\1\.............................
NC Charlotte, Blue Line Extension-Northeast 100,000,000
Corridor.......................................
NY New York--East Side Access\1\................ 47,222,960
OR Portland-Milwaukie LRT....................... 100,000,000
VA Northern Virginia-Dulles Wiehle Ave\1\....... 102,155,131
WA Seattle-University Link LRT Extension\1\..... 89,673,963
-------------------
Total Existing New Starts Full Funding Grant 1,510,137,944
Agreements...................................
===================
Recommended New Starts Projects:
FL Orlando, SunRail Phase II South\2\........... 63,221,561
MA Cambridge to Medford, Green Line Extension\2\ 100,000,000
MD Baltimore, Red Line\2\....................... 100,000,000
MD Maryland National Capital Purple Line\2\..... 100,000,000
TX Fort Worth, TEX Rail\2\...................... 50,000,000
-------------------
Total Recommended New Starts Projects......... 413,221,561
===================
Core Capacity Projects:
IL Chicago, Red and Purple Line Modernization 120,000,000
Project........................................
===================
Recommended Small Starts Projects:
Total Small Starts............................ 151,702,662
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Indicates completion of FTA commitment to the project.
\2\Indicates first time included as a funding recommendation in the
President's budget.

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION EMERGENCY RELIEF PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2014....................................................
Budget estimate, 2015................................... $25,000,000
Committee recommendation................................................

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program is a new
program established in MAP-21 to help States and public transit
systems cover the costs of protecting, repairing, and replacing
equipment and facilities that may suffer or have suffered
serious damage as a result of an emergency.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

Due to funding constraints, the Committee is unable to
include funding for the emergency relief program in fiscal year
2015.

GRANTS TO THE WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY

Appropriations, 2014.................................... $150,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................... 150,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 150,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation includes $150,000,000 for
grants to WMATA for capital and preventive maintenance
expenses, including pressing safety-related investments. These
grants are in addition to the funding local jurisdictions have
committed to providing to WMATA. The Committee remains
committed to supporting the refurbishment and modernization of
WMATA's infrastructure, and is encouraged by the initial
investment to replace many of the older, 1000-series rail cars
with domestically built 7000-series cars, with delivery
starting in 2015. WMATA expects to retire the last of the 1000-
series cars by early 2017. The Committee also notes increased
efforts to make the system safer, including: fixing the track
signal system and communications equipment, installing guarded
turnouts, buying equipment for wayside worker protection, and
installing rollback protection on cars not already outfitted
with this feature.
Metro's Financial Management.--In March 2014, an FTA audit
reported material weaknesses and significant deficiencies in
WMATA's internal controls. The audit found that WMATA did not
have adequate controls in place to ensure Federal expenditures
were properly incurred and charged to grants, or accurately
reported. It also concluded that WMATA did not have adequate
controls in place to ensure that goods and services were
procured in accordance with Federal regulations. In response to
these serious findings, FTA suspended WMATA's ability to
automatically draw down its Federal grants; until these
weaknesses are corrected, FTA will review and approve each
WMATA request for reimbursement.
The Committee is deeply troubled by the auditors' findings,
and expects WMATA to quickly eliminate the material weaknesses,
significant deficiencies, and minor control deficiencies before
it begins work on the fiscal year 2016 appropriations.
The Committee directs WMATA to provide the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations a report each quarter detailing
its progress in completing each of the auditors' 45
recommendations. The bill requires the Secretary to approve
grants provided under this heading to WMATA only after
certifying that significant progress has been made.
The bill also directs 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 requires 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, using the
National Transportation Safety Board's recommendations as a
guide.

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,
2019, 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,
2014 that remain available for expenditure to be transferred to
the most recent appropriation heading.
Section 163 provides an exemption from the charter bus
regulations for portions of the State of Washington.
Section 164 permits the Secretary to consider significant
private contributions when calculating the non-Federal share of
capital costs for New Starts projects.
Section 165 requires the Secretary to consider Small Starts
projects eligible when developing guidance implementing the
Program of Interrelated Projects.
Section 166 makes $20,000,000 in prior year bus and bus
facilities funds available for bus rapid transit projects
proposed in the Capital Investment Grants program.

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, 2014.................................... $31,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................... 31,500,000
Committee recommendation................................ 31,500,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund [HMTF] was established by
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-
662). Since 1987, the HMTF has supported the operations and
maintenance of commercial harbor projects maintained by the
Federal Government. Appropriations from the Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund and revenues from non-Federal sources finance the
operation and maintenance of the Seaway, for which SLSDC is
responsible.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $31,500,000 for the operations,
maintenance, and asset renewal of the Saint Lawrence Seaway.
This amount is equal to the budget request and $500,000 more
than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. The recommended level
includes $14,300,000 to continue the agency's Asset Renewal
Program [ARP].
The Seaway is entering its 56th year of operation, which
means that its infrastructure components are reaching the end
of their design life. The ARP is a significant 10-year, multi-
project strategy to address the long-term asset renewal needs
of the U.S. portions of the Saint Lawrence Seaway, with
attention to the two locks operated and maintained by the
United States (Snell and Eisenhower), the U.S. segment of the
Seaway International Bridge, maintenance dredging, operational
systems, facilities, and equipment.
SLSDC has made significant progress in executing the
projects identified in the ARP under limited construction
capacity since receiving initial appropriations in fiscal year
2009. The Committee encourages SLSDC to move ahead with major
ARP projects in fiscal year 2015, including the installation of
a new hands-free vessel vacuum mooring system, continued
upgrade of miter gate machinery at the Seaway locks, structural
rehabilitation of the miter gates, and the start of a 4-year
project to replace SLSDC's tugboats, Robinson Bay and
Performance. 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.

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, 2014.................................... $186,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................... 211,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 186,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Maritime Security Program [MSP] provides resources to
maintain a U.S.-flag merchant fleet crewed by U.S. citizens to
serve both the commercial and national security needs of the
United States. The program provides direct payments to U.S.-
flag ship operators engaged in U.S. foreign trade.
Participating operators are required to keep the vessels in
active commercial service and provide intermodal sealift
support to DOD in times of war or national emergency.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $186,000,000
for the MSP. This amount is $25,000,000 less than the budget
request and equal to the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. The
recommended appropriation provides sufficient funds to satisfy
the fully authorized payment level for fiscal year 2015.
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 2016 budget request.

OPERATIONS AND TRAINING

Appropriations, 2014.................................... $148,003,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................... 148,400,000
Committee recommendation................................ 149,900,000

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 $149,900,000
for Operations and Training at MARAD for fiscal year 2015 to be
distributed between agency operations, the United States
Merchant Marine Academy, and State maritime academies as
outlined in the chart below. This amount is $1,897,000 more
than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level and $1,500,000 more
than the budget request.

MARITIME ADMINISTRATION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
2015 Senate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Merchant Marine Academy............................ $80,090,000
Academy Operations.................................. 64,136,000
Capital Improvements................................ 12,000,000
Facilities Maintenance, Repair and Equipment........ 3,954,000
State Maritime Academies................................ 19,100,000
SMA Direct Payments................................. 4,200,000
Student Incentive Payments.......................... 2,400,000
Schoolship Maintenance and Repair................... 11,300,000
Fuel Assistance Payments............................ 1,200,000
MARAD Operations........................................ 50,710,000
---------------
TOTAL............................................. 149,900,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment at the 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 maritime
industry. The Committee is committed to ensuring the Academy's
midshipmen receive the highest quality education to prepare
them for a commission with the U.S. Naval Reserve or other
uniformed service upon graduation.
To that end, the Committee is very concerned about the
increasing rate of incidents of sexual assault and sexual
harassment at the Academy. The fiscal year 2009 Department of
Defense Authorization Act set specific requirements in statue
to address incidents of sexual harassment and sexual assault.
MARAD is required to conduct an annual assessment of the
effectiveness of the USMMA policies, training and procedures.
Every other year, MARAD is required to conduct a survey of
staff and midshipmen.
The USMMA survey of sexual harassment and sexual assault
from the 2009-2010 academic year revealed disturbing results
about conditions at the Academy. In response, the Secretary
announced a nine point action plan in November 2011, aimed at
fostering a climate that is intolerant of abuse, and focused on
improving student and faculty trust and confidence in senior
leadership.
Unfortunately, the succeeding survey for the 2011-2012
academic year revealed significant increases in the number of
incidents, with the estimated rate of sexual assault more than
doubling, and the estimated rate of sexual harassment
increasing by more than 500 percent. Almost as disturbing is
the fact that that none of these incidents were reported to
USMMA officials.
While the Committee recognizes that changes in the
methodology between the 2009-2010 and 2011-2012 surveys may
have affected the results, a dramatic increase in the number of
incidents is indisputable, even when taking into consideration
the potential margin of error and non-response bias. According
to survey analysts, the level of non-response bias stemming
from changing the survey from compulsory to voluntary
participation ``seems more likely to understate the rate of
unwanted sexual contact that overstate it.''
MARAD contends that many of Secretary's reforms were not
implemented prior to the second survey being conducted, and as
a result the impact of these reforms is not reflected. Based on
information the Department recently provided the Committee,
this appears to be the case, yet it is totally unacceptable.
According to the Department, many of the Secretary's
proposed corrective actions were not slated for implementation
until the second and third quarters of fiscal year 2012, 4 to
10 months after the Secretary's plan was announced, and well
into the next survey period. The Committee is deeply troubled
by the inexcusably slow implementation of reforms after the
deeply disturbing first survey.
The Committee's confidence in the Department's commitment
to confront abuse at the Academy has also been damaged by what
appears to be the delayed release of survey findings. The
survey results for the 2009-2010 academic year were not
submitted to Congress until November 2011--more than a year
after the survey was completed. Similarly, the survey results
for the 2011-2012 academic year were not submitted to Congress
until March 27, 2014--almost a year after that survey was
completed, and again well into the current survey year now
underway. Without a timely assessment of the survey results,
the Academy cannot effectively determine if any of the changes
to its policies or education and training programs are having a
positive effect.
It is imperative that senior leadership throughout the
Department make improving conditions at the Academy a top
priority. The survey for the 2013-2014 school year is now being
administered and should be finalized by November 2014. The
Committee directs the Secretary to provide the survey report to
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations no later than
January 12, 2015.
The DOT inspector general is currently auditing of the
implementation of the Secretary's nine point corrective action
plan. The Committee expects to have preliminary findings of the
audit this summer. This will provide useful information for
Committee oversight. It should also aid the new DOT Secretary,
who is equally committed to preventing these crimes from
occurring and fostering a climate of trust and confidence to
encourage the Academy's students to report them when they do.
An annual report and biannual survey will be issued by
MARAD in fiscal year 2015. The Committee directs the OIG to
assess this new information and evaluate the progress the
Academy has made to address corrective actions at the Academy.
The OIG shall report its findings and recommendations to the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations no later than May
2015.
United States Merchant Marine Academy Board of Visitors.--
The recommended level of funding includes sufficient resources
to support to the annual USMMA Board of Visitors meeting
required in 46 U.S.C. 51312. The Committee directs MARAD to
assign a designated Federal officer to assist the Board of
Visitors in the performance of its functions. The Committee
urges MARAD to seek additional support from the Department of
the Navy since the USMMA is the second leading commissioning
source for Naval Officers.
Evaluation of the Statutory Authorities of the United
States Merchant Marine Academy.--The Committee directs MARAD to
conduct a legal review of existing statutory authorities of the
USMMA and identify limitations that impede its ability to
operate effectively and efficiently. In conducting this review,
MARAD shall compare the statutory authorities of other service
academies and public universities where suitable, including the
acceptance of gifts and bequests, the legal and operational
relationship with alumni foundations, and the use of non-
appropriated fund instrumentalities. The Committee directs
MARAD to make recommendations where inconsistencies exist that
would improve Academy operations and financial controls, as
well as any other issues that the Superintendent or
Administrator find appropriate. MARAD shall report its
findings, conclusions and recommendations to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations, the Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science and Transportation and the House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure no later than April 3, 2015.
United States Merchant Marine Academy Capital Improvements
Plan [CIP].--The Committee once again directs the Administrator
to provide an annual report by March 31, 2015, on the current
status of the CIP. The report should include a list of all
projects that have received funding and all proposed projects
that the Academy intends to initiate within the next 5 years;
cost overruns and cost savings for each active project;
specific target dates for project completion; delays and the
cause of delays; schedule changes; up-to-date cost projections
for each project; and any other deviations from the previous
year's CIP.
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 2015 should be used to continue independent testing of
ballast water technologies to meet domestic and international
regulatory requirements, assist in the testing and deployment
of vessel air emissions reduction technology, and facilitate
the liquefied natural gas [LNG] propulsion systems for
increased energy efficiency at sea.

SHIP DISPOSAL

Appropriations, 2014.................................... $4,800,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................... 4,800,000
Committee Recommendation................................ 4,800,000

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]. MARAD contracts with
domestic shipbreaking companies to dismantle these vessels in
accordance with guidelines established by the Environmental
Protection Agency.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,800,000 for
MARAD's Ship Disposal program. This level of funding is equal
to the fiscal year 2014 enacted level and the budget request.
This level of funding, in addition to the anticipated carryover
from previous appropriations, is sufficient to meet the terms
and conditions of the Suisun Bay Reserve Fleet settlement and
continued activities related to NS Savannah. The total number
of obsolete ships not yet under contract and awaiting disposal
is down to 25. This is a historic low for the program.
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.

MARITIME GUARANTEED LOAN PROGRAM [TITLE XI]

Appropriations, 2014.................................... $38,500,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................... 3,100,000
Committee recommendation................................ 7,100,000

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 $7,100,000 for
the loan guarantee program, of which $3,100,000 shall be used
for administrative expenses of the maritime loan guarantee
program. This level of funding is $4,000,000 more than the
President's budget request and $31,400,000 less than the fiscal
year 2014 enacted level. The Committee recognizes the
importance that the title XI program provides for the
advancement of shipbuilding, aiding the U.S.-flag fleet, and
sustainment of jobs for this critical sector of our national
defense.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION

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

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

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

OPERATIONAL EXPENSES

(PIPELINE SAFETY FUND)

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2014.................................... $21,654,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................... 22,225,000
Committee recommendation................................ 22,225,000

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 $22,225,000 for this account of
which $1,500,000 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 $571,000 more than
the fiscal year 2014 enacted level.

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY

Appropriations, 2014.................................... $45,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015\1\................................ 46,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 52,000,000

\1\The budget request included a new user fee as offsetting collections
in the amount of $12,000,000, bringing the total request to $52,000,000.
CBO's re-estimate of the fee was $6,000,000, bringing the request level
down to $46,000,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

PHMSA oversees the safety of more than 6.1 million tons of
hazardous materials shipments daily in the United States, using
risk management principles and security threat assessments to
fully assess and reduce the risks inherent in hazardous
materials transportation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $52,000,000
for hazardous materials safety, of which $7,000,000 shall
remain available until September 30, 2017. The amount provided
is equal to the administration's budget request and $7,000,000
more than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. The increase in
funding is provided to accommodate classification research,
develop tank car design standards for liquefied natural gas,
and conduct emergency response training and outreach. The
Committee recommendation also includes $1,365,000 for
additional regulatory, acquisitions, and hazardous materials
safety inspection and enforcement staff.
Classification Research, Testing and Standard Operating
Procedures for Sample Collection.--The classification of
flammable liquids establishes the requirements for packaging,
hazard communications, operational controls, and safety and
security planning for the rest of the supply chain. Proper
classification ensures that emergency responders understand the
hazards of the product being shipped and how to respond should
there be an accident. The Committee recommendation includes
$2,400,000 for research activities related to the testing of
crude oil to determine the most appropriate test criteria,
sampling methods, and testing procedures for energy products.
This will help to identify any existing regulatory safety gaps
with respect to classification and the correct selection of
packing group.
Tank Car Design.--There is indisputable evidence that the
existing DOT-111 tank car design is an inadequate standard for
the transportation of hazardous flammable liquids like crude
oil and ethanol. The rail industry has taken meaningful,
voluntary steps to improve tank car design specifications for
the transportation of these commodities with the introduction
of new standards in October 2011. Additional safety measures
have been discussed to supplement these improvements after
recent incidents at Lac Megantic, Quebec; Casselton, North
Dakota; Aliceville, Alabama; and, Lynchburg, Virginia. PHMSA
began regulatory action on this issue in September 2013. It is
critical to establish a higher Federal regulatory standard for
the transportation of these energy commodities to ensure the
safety of communities and the environment. The Committee
directs the Secretary to finalize the tank car design
regulations no later than October 1, 2014. This is a long
overdue safety standard that demands immediate action.
Transportation of Liquefied Natural Gas.--Liquefied Natural
Gas [LNG] is another energy commodity experiencing increased
use as a fuel source for manufacturing and multiple modes of
transportation. Current regulations for the handling and
shipment of LNG are outdated and need to be reassessed. The
Committee recommendation includes $1,400,000 to research,
identify and establish a baseline bulk tank car and locomotive
tender design standard for LNG, consistent with the budget
request. PHMSA is directed to collaborate with FRA and the
American Association of Railroads Tank Car Committee on this
engineering analysis to inform future regulatory activity.
Comprehensive Oil Spill Response Plans.--An oil spill
response plan is intended to help the carrier identify and
deploy a response organization to contain and remediate an oil
release. The plans require carriers to identify a qualified
individual with full authority to implement removal actions;
ensure by contract or other means the availability of private
personnel and equipment to remove a worst-case discharge; and
describe training, equipment testing, drills and exercises.
The NTSB has found that PHMSA regulations for oil spill
response plans for the railroad industry are outdated and do
not take into consideration the risks posed by the shipment of
millions of barrels of oil per day in 120 tank car unit trains.
Current regulations for comprehensive oil spill response plans
are based on a single bulk packing unit of crude oil that
exceeds 42,000 gallons, well above the quantity of crude oil
that a single tank car can carry. This difference effectively
exempts the rail industry from common sense safety requirements
that other large shippers of crude oil--the maritime and
pipeline industries--must meet. The Committee agrees with
NTSB's concerns and directs PHMSA to re-evaluate whether the
bulk packaging threshold for crude oil shipments by rail that
would warrant the development of comprehensive oil spill
response plans by rail carriers.
User Fee Proposal.--In the fiscal year 2013-2015 budget
proposals, PHMSA proposed the creation of a user fee to reduce
the burden on the Federal taxpayer for financing special permit
and approvals activities. The Committee finds that the program
provides benefits to identifiable users above and beyond what
is provided normally to the public, and the establishment of a
user fee is fully justified under GAO guidelines and
authorities granted by 31 U.S.C. 9701. However, the Committee
believes that such a fee should be established through the
regulatory process or should be addressed through the
authorization process.
Small-Scale Natural Gas Liquefaction Facilities.--Concerns
have been raised about PHMSA's regulation of the siting of
small-scale liquefaction facilities that generate and package
LNG for use as a transportation fuel. These facilities are
regulated by title 49 Code of Federal Regulations part 193,
which was developed to address safety standards for LNG
facilities used in the transportation of gas by pipeline and
subject to the pipeline safety laws. The Committee believes
these regulations are outdated, excessively challenging, and do
not take into account the reduction in scale of these smaller
facilities that provide fuel to vehicles and vessels. To
address these concerns, PHMSA is directed to initiate a
rulemaking or alternative risk-based compliance regime that
incorporates more recent industry standards while preserving
appropriate protections for public safety.

PIPELINE SAFETY

(PIPELINE SAFETY FUND)

(OIL SPILL LIABILITY TRUST FUND)

(PIPELINE SAFETY DESIGN REVIEW FUND)

Appropriations, 2014.................................... $119,087,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................... 158,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 158,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Pipeline Safety [OPS] is designed to promote
the safe, reliable, and sound transportation of natural gas and
hazardous liquids through the Nation's 2.6 million miles of
privately owned and operated pipelines.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Pipeline Safety Office has the important responsibility
of ensuring the safety and integrity of the pipelines that run
through every community in our Nation. Efforts by Congress and
the OPS to invest in promising safety technologies, increase
civil penalties, and educate communities about the potential
risks of pipelines have resulted in a reduction in serious
pipeline incidents. It is essential that the agency continue to
make strides in protecting communities from pipeline failures
and incidents. To that end, the Committee recommends an
appropriation of $158,000,000 for the Office of Pipeline
Safety. The amount is $38,913,000 more than the fiscal year
2014 enacted level and equal to the budget request. Of the
funding provided, $19,500,000 shall be derived from the Oil
Spill Liability Trust Fund, $136,500,000 shall be derived from
the Pipeline Safety Fund, and $2,000,000 shall be derived from
the Pipeline Safety Design Review Fund.
This level of funding provides resources to hire additional
safety training instructors, State safety grant specialists,
and pipeline safety inspectors, as requested. The
recommendation includes an increase of $10,000,000 for the
State Pipeline Safety Grant Program and $12,310,000 for
research and development activities, consistent with the budget
request. Of the funds recommended for research and development,
a minimum of $1,500,000 shall be used to continue efforts to
develop inline inspection devices, known as smart pigs, that
are capable of inspecting older pipelines that currently cannot
be pigged, and up to $2,000,000 shall be used for the Pipeline
Safety Research Competitive Academic Agreement Program [CAAP]
to focus on near-term solutions to improve the safety and
reliability of the Nation's pipeline transportation system.
Integrity Management.--On August 25, 2011, nearly 3 years
ago, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
[PHMSA] within the Department of Transportation [DOT] put
forward an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking [ANPRM] to
determine if changes were needed to the regulations governing
the safety of gas transmission pipelines. Within title 49 Code
of Federal Regulations part 192, PHMSA was seeking information
to determine if integrity management [IM] standards should be
revised and strengthened to bring more pipeline mileage under
IM requirements to better assure the safety of pipeline
segments within high consequence areas [HCAs]. PHMSA was also
attempting to determine if non-IM requirements should be
strengthened or expanded to address other issues associated
with pipeline safety integrity. To date, the rule has never
been sent to the Office of Management and Budget [OMB] for
review and not been proposed. Whereas we understand the
importance of the rule, the Committee believes that PHMSA
should have received sufficient input in the past 33 months to
develop and propose a rule.
Maintaining and improving the safety of our Nation's
pipeline system and energy infrastructure are critically
important issues for our Nation's citizens. In addition to
improving safety, it is essential that policies are put in
place that enable investments which upgrade and modernize the
Nation's energy infrastructure. This is important to providing
our economy with abundant, low-cost, reliable supplies of
energy required to stimulate economic growth while achieving
energy and environmental objectives. In particular, the Nation
requires additional pipelines and related systems to meet
increased demand for natural gas, which is playing an
increasingly important role in meeting national energy
requirements.

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS GRANTS

(EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUND)

Appropriations, 2014.................................... $28,318,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................... 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. The recommendation provides PHMSA the authority to use
$4,974,000 in prior year carryover and recaptures to develop a
Web-based hazardous materials response training curriculum for
emergency responders, including response activities for crude
oil, ethanol and other flammable liquids by rail. The training
curriculum shall be developed in coordination with the FRA and
be consistent with National Fire Protection Association
standards. Of the total amounts available from prior years
carry over, a minimum of $3,500,000 shall be used to train
public sector emergency response personnel in communities on or
near rail lines that transport a significant volume of high-
risk energy commodities or toxic inhalation hazards.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
SAFETYADMINISTRATION

Section 180. This section would increase the administrative
costs for management of the Emergency Preparedness Grant
program from 2 percent to 4 percent. This authority will assist
PHMSA in addressing oversight, outreach and efficiency gaps
identified by the DOT Inspector General.
Section 181. The Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and
Job Creation Act 2011 (Public Law 112-90) established a new fee
for companies engaged in the design, permitting and
construction of new pipeline projects. This section clarifies
the use of the fee collections as an offset to discretionary
spending rather than as a mandatory receipt.

Office of Inspector General

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2014.................................... $85,605,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................... 86,223,000
Committee recommendation................................ 86,223,000

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 $86,223,000 for
activities of the Office of the Inspector General, which is
equal to the President's budget request and $618,000 more than
the fiscal year 2014 enacted level.
Audit Reports.--The Committee requests the Inspector
General 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 408 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 Inspector General
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, 2014.................. $31,000,000 $1,250,000
Budget estimate, 2015\1\.............. 31,500,000 1,250,000
Committee recommendation.............. 31,500,000 1,250,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\STB submitted a budget request independently proposing a total
appropriation of $34,441,000.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Surface Transportation Board [STB] was created on
January 1, 1996, by the Interstate Commerce Commission
Termination Act of 1995 [ICCTA] (Public Law 104-88). The Board
is a three-member, bipartisan, decisionally independent
adjudicatory body organizationally housed within DOT, and is
responsible for the regulation of the rail and pipeline
industries and certain nonlicensing regulation of motor
carriers and water carriers.
STB's rail oversight activities include rate
reasonableness, car service and interchange, mergers, line
acquisitions, line constructions, and abandonments. STB's
jurisdiction also includes certain oversight of the intercity
bus industry, pipeline carriers, intercity passenger train
service, rate regulation involving noncontiguous domestic water
transportation, household goods carriers, and collectively
determined motor carrier rates.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total appropriation of
$31,500,000. This funding level is equal to the budget request
and $500,000 more than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level.
Included in the recommendation is $1,250,000 in fees, which
will offset the appropriated funding.

General Provisions--Department of Transportation

Section 190 allows funds for maintenance and operation of
aircraft; motor vehicles; liability insurance; uniforms; or
allowances, as authorized by law.
Section 191 limits appropriations for services authorized
by 5 U.S.C. 3109 not to exceed the rate for an Executive Level
IV.
Section 192 prohibits funds in this act for salaries and
expenses of more than 110 political and Presidential appointees
in the Department of Transportation.
Section 193 prohibits recipients of funds made available in
the act from releasing personal information, including Social
Security numbers, medical and disability information, and
photographs, from a driver's license or motor vehicle record
without the express consent of the person to whom such
information pertains; and prohibits the Secretary of
Transportation from withholding funds provided in this act from
any grantee in noncompliance with this provision.
Section 194 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 195 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 196 allows rebates, refunds, incentive payments,
minor fees, and other funds received by the Department of
Transportation from travel management center, charge card
programs, subleasing of building space and miscellaneous
sources to be credited to appropriations of the Department of
Transportation.
Section 197 requires amounts from improper payments to a
third-party contractor that are lawfully recovered by the
Department of Transportation to be available to cover expenses
incurred in recovery of such payments.
Section 198 establishes requirements for reprogramming
actions by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
Section 199 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.
Section 199A prohibits funds appropriated in this act to
the modal administrations from being obligated for the Office
of the Secretary for costs related to assessments or
reimbursable agreements unless the obligations are for services
that provide a direct benefit to the applicable modal
administration.
Section 199B authorizes the Secretary to carry out a
program that establishes uniform standards for developing and
supporting agency transit pass and transit benefits authorized
under section 7905 of title 5, United States Code.

TITLE II

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

The Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] was
established by the Housing and Urban Development Act (Public
Law 89-174), effective November 9, 1965. This Department is the
principal Federal agency responsible for programs concerned
with the Nation's housing needs, fair housing opportunities,
and improving and developing the Nation's communities.
In carrying out the mission of serving the needs and
interests of the Nation's communities and of the people who
live and work in them, HUD administers mortgage and loan
insurance programs that help families become homeowners and
facilitate the construction of rental housing; rental and
homeownership subsidy programs for low-income families who
otherwise could not afford decent housing; programs to combat
discrimination in housing and affirmatively further fair
housing opportunities; programs aimed at ensuring an adequate
supply of mortgage credit; and programs that aid neighborhood
rehabilitation, community development, and the preservation of
our urban centers from blight and decay.
HUD administers programs to protect the homebuyer in the
marketplace, and fosters programs and research that stimulate
and guide the housing industry to provide not only housing, but
better communities and living environments.
As HUD works to fulfill its mission, the Committee urges
the Secretary to enhance efforts to provide decent, affordable
housing and to promote economic development for rural
Americans. When designing programs and making funding
decisions, the Secretary shall take into consideration the
unique conditions, challenges, and scale of rural areas.
The Committee notes that poverty is far too prevalent in
the United States. HUD should work with Congress and other
partners to implement policies and support proven anti-poverty
programs that reduce the existence of poverty and the suffering
associated with it. The Committee also encourages HUD to
increase interagency collaboration to ensure Federal resources
are strategically deployed in order to achieve the most
effective outcomes, while also reducing overlap and
duplication.
Reprogramming and Congressional Notification.--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. The Committee also directs HUD to
include a separate delineation of any reprogramming of funds
requiring approval be included in the operating plan required
by section 405 of this act. 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.

Management and Administration

EXECUTIVE OFFICES

Appropriations, 2014.................................... $14,500,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................... 15,234,000
Committee recommendation................................ 14,700,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Executive Offices account provides the salaries and
expenses funding to support the Department's senior leadership
and other key functions, including the immediate offices of the
Secretary, Deputy Secretary, Congressional and
Intergovernmental Relations, Public Affairs, Adjudicatory
Services, the Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives,
and the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $14,700,000
for this account, which is $200,000 more than the fiscal year
2014 enacted level and $534,000 less than the budget request.
The Secretary is directed to submit a spending plan to the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations that outlines how
budgetary resources will be distributed among the seven offices
funded under this heading.

Administrative Support Offices

Appropriations, 2014.................................... $506,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................... 530,783,000
Committee recommendation................................ 519,867,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Administrative Support Offices 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. This account funds the salaries and
expenses of the Office of General Counsel, the Office of the
Chief Financial Officer, the Office of the Chief Procurement
Officer, the Office of Departmental Equal Employment
Opportunity, the Office of Field Policy and Management, the
Office of Strategic Planning and Management, the Office of the
Chief Human Capital Officer, the Office of Administration, and
the Office of the Chief Information Officer.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $519,867,000
for this account, which is $13,867,000 more than the fiscal
year 2014 enacted level and $10,916,000 less than the budget
request.
The President's fiscal year 2015 budget proposes one amount
of funding for all offices under the heading of administrative
support offices, eliminating budget line items for each office.
The Committee created the existing funding structure to
increase the transparency of HUD's personnel funding. Over the
years, the Committee has modified the structure to make it more
effective. For example, in fiscal year 2012, the Committee
consolidated funding provided separately for personnel and non-
personnel funding into one allocation for each office, and in
fiscal year 2014 it created the Executive Offices account for
management offices with smaller funding needs. Moreover, the
Committee has worked with HUD to respond to reprogramming
requests necessary to address funding challenges that have
arisen during the fiscal year. Therefore, the Committee
recommendation rejects this latest proposal to modify the
structure. The Committee expects HUD to manage its resources as
provided and will continue to work with it to address
challenges that come up during the year.
Funds are made available as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of Chief Human Capital Officer................... $58,000,000
Office of Administration................................ 198,800,000
Office of Chief Financial Officer....................... 48,000,000
Office of Chief Procurement Officer..................... 16,330,000
Office of Field Policy and Management................... 51,135,000
Office of Departmental Equal Employment Opportunity..... 3,202,000
Office of General Counsel............................... 94,640,000
Office of Strategic Planning and Management............. 4,560,000
Office of the Chief Information Officer................. 45,200,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Office of the Chief Information Officer.--The Committee
recommendation includes $45,200,000 for this office, which is
$9,415,000 more than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. This
increase is associated with a budget realignment that is moving
funding for contractor support to this account from the
``Information Technology Fund'' account, since these costs are
more appropriately categorized as salaries and expenses than IT
funding.
Office of the Chief Financial Officer.--The recommendation
for the OCFO reflects reduced staffing as a result of the
shared services agreement with the Bureau of the Fiscal
Service's Administrative Resource Center. When accounting for
this change, funding is available to maintain the rest of its
workforce. The Committee remains focused on the staffing levels
in the Office of Budget, and directs HUD to move expeditiously
to address staffing needs there.
The Committee commends the work of the Appropriations Law
Division in the OCFO and encourages the Department to maximize
its use of this valuable resource. The Committee reminds the
Department of its intent that all appropriations law issues be
referred to and addressed by such division.
Procurement.--The Committee directs HUD to continue to
provide semi-annual updates to the House and Senate Committees
on Appropriations on how system and process changes made in the
Office of the Chief Procurement Officer [CPO] have impacted its
ability to execute contracts. These should include quantifiable
measures of progress, such as the time it takes to execute a
contract or reduced overtime, in comparison to previous fiscal
years and government standards. The Committee notes that CPO
has not submitted these reports in a timely manner and expects
it to be more responsive in the future.

Program Offices Salaries and Expenses

PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING

Appropriations, 2014.................................... $205,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................... 213,664,000
Committee recommendation................................ 205,525,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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 its 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 $205,525,000
for this account, which is $8,139,000 less than the budget
request and $525,000 more than the fiscal year 2014 enacted
level. The Committee recommendation supports existing
personnel, and will allow the agency to make critical hires as
a result of a reduction of $3,700,000 in non-personnel services
that was provided in fiscal year 2014 for a one-time contract.
The Committee directs HUD to continue to focus these resources
on strengthening its oversight functions, including oversight
of Moving-to-Work agencies. Within the funds provided, HUD is
directed to dedicate one FTE to the Office of Native American
Programs to work on coordinating and streamlining environmental
reviews required by various Federal departments for Native
American housing projects. In addition, the Committee directs
HUD to provide at least one additional FTE to work on the
Family Self-Sufficiency and ROSS programs. Finally, the funding
level includes additional resources requested for travel
associated with grantee oversight.
The Committee also urges HUD to look for ways to better
integrate offices within PIH. The Committee notes that various
offices within PIH share responsibility for overseeing public
housing agencies and the programs that they run. It is
imperative that these different facets of PIH improve
coordination to reduce the amount of information they request
from PHAs, look for ways to create efficiencies, and ensure
policies align across programs.
The Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000 to
continue inspection efforts funded in fiscal year 2014. This
includes efforts to move to a consistent inspection standard
across housing assistance programs, as well as oversight of
section 8 units.

COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2014.................................... $102,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................... 110,535,000
Committee recommendation................................ 103,300,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides salary and benefits funding for
Community Planning and Development [CPD] staff in headquarters
and in 43 field offices. CPD's mission is to support successful
urban, suburban and rural communities by promoting integrated
approaches to community and economic development. CPD programs
also assist in the expansion of opportunities for low- and
moderate-income individuals and families in moving towards home
ownership. The Assistant Secretary for CPD administers formula
and competitive grant programs, as well as guaranteed loan
programs, that help communities plan and finance their growth
and development. These programs also help communities increase
their capacity to govern and provide shelter and services for
homeless persons and other persons with special needs,
including person with HIV/AIDS.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $103,300,000
for the staffing within this office, which is $7,235,000 less
than the budget request and $1,300,000 more than the fiscal
year 2014 enacted level. The recommendation also includes
funding for the Office of Economic Resilience. The recommended
level of funding, which reflects savings in fiscal year 2015
due to the completion of a contract, will support additional
FTE focused on grant oversight and monitoring, as well as
additional support for the Section 108 loan program.

HOUSING

Appropriations, 2014.................................... $381,500,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................... 386,677,000
Committee recommendation................................ 386,677,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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 $386,677,000
for staffing in the Office of Housing, which is equal to the
budget request and $5,177,000 more than the fiscal year 2014
enacted level. The Committee has also directed that at least
$9,000,000 be dedicated to the Office of Risk and Regulatory
Affairs.
At the end of April 2013, HUD proposed to reorganize the
Office of Multifamily Housing. The plan is designed to
streamline operations, improve program delivery, and save
taxpayer funding. After examination of the proposal, the
Committee approved a modified plan that reorganizes offices at
headquarters and consolidates the production functions into 12
field offices. However, the plan maintains asset management
functions and associated staff in existing field offices. This
adjustment was made to ensure that HUD would maintain a
presence in communities near Federal assets. The Committee
recognizes that HUD still intends to continue to pursue a
broader consolidation. However, the Committee directs HUD not
to make any changes to the approved plan in fiscal year 2015.
Instead, HUD should monitor the implementation of the staff
changes in the field, as well as the process changes occurring
in all offices. Further, HUD is directed to report to the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 180 days of
enactment of this act on how the reorganization is proceeding,
any issues identified with the initial waves of the transition,
how such changes are affecting program oversight and delivery,
and any adjustments that HUD plans to make based on lessons
learned.

POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH

Appropriations, 2014.................................... $22,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................... 23,248,000
Committee recommendation................................ 22,300,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $22,300,000
for this account, which is $948,000 less than the budget
request and $300,000 more than the fiscal year 2014 enacted
level.
PD&R collects and distributes data on HUD programs, the
people HUD serves, and housing needs across the country. The
information it makes available and the analysis it provides to
the Department are essential to moving HUD to outcomes based
performance measures. The Committee also relies on the data and
research provided by PD&R to inform its work. The recommended
amount will ensure that PD&R can continue to play this
important role.

FAIR HOUSING AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

Appropriations, 2014.................................... $69,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................... 77,629,000
Committee recommendation................................ 69,700,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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 $69,700,000,
which is $7,929,000 less than the budget request and $700,000
more than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level.

OFFICE OF LEAD HAZARD CONTROL AND HEALTHY HOMES

Appropriations, 2014.................................... $7,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................... 7,879,000
Committee recommendation................................ 7,075,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides salary and benefits funding to
support the Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes
[OLHCHH] headquarters staff. OLHCHH 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 $7,075,000 for
this account, which is $804,000 less than the budget request
and $75,000 more than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level.

Public and Indian Housing

RENTAL ASSISTANCE DEMONSTRATION

Appropriations, 2014....................................................
Budget estimate, 2015................................... $10,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 10,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation includes $10,000,000 for the
Rental Assistance Demonstration, equal to the President's
budget request. No funding was provided for RAD in fiscal year
2014. In fiscal year 2012, the Committee began a demonstration
to test the success of converting public housing and other
assisted housing to section 8 vouchers or project-based section
8 contracts as a means of recapitalizing and preserving the
long-term viability of affordable housing.
The recommended funding level will allow HUD to convert
3,000 units of public housing in high-poverty neighborhoods
that would be unable to address their capital needs without an
increased subsidy. The Committee has included this funding
because it is committed to preserving desperately needed
affordable housing and believes RAD is a critical part of
accomplishing that goal.
In fiscal year 2012, the Committee set a cap of 60,000 on
the number of units that could participate in the
demonstration. At the time, it seemed sufficient to accommodate
PHA demand for the program. However, the interest has far
exceeded this level; at the end of December 2013, there were
applications covering over 175,000 units. While the
administration has requested lifting the cap entirely, the
Committee understands the interest in learning more about the
outcomes of the program before doing so. Therefore, the
Committee has included language that raises the cap to 185,000
units, which will provide all PHAs that applied before the cap
was reached an opportunity to participate in the program.
In addition to the conversion of public housing, the
Committee recommendation also includes language that will allow
single room occupancy [SRO], rent supplemental and rental
housing assistance payment projects to convert to section 8.
While no new projects are funded through these rental
assistance programs, HUD continues to administer existing
projects, all of which have different rules and requirements.
The Committee hopes that the gradual consolidation of these
projects into HUD's existing mainstream rental assistance
programs will create efficiencies and address GAO's concerns
about the number of rental assistance programs. In addition,
the Committee expects that by putting these projects on a more
modern and familiar housing platform, it will secure their
long-term affordability.
The Committee encourages housing authorities that
participate in the Rental Assistance Demonstration program to
grant current workers whose employment positions are eliminated
during conversion the right of first refusal for new employment
openings for which they are qualified.

TENANT-BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE

Appropriations, 2014\1\................................. $19,177,218,000
Budget estimate, 2015\1\................................ 20,045,000,000
Committee recommendation\1\............................. 19,562,160,000

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

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides funding for the section 8 tenant-
based (voucher) program. Section 8 tenant-based housing
assistance is one of the principle appropriations for Federal
housing assistance, serving approximately 2.2 million families.
The program also funds incremental vouchers for tenants who
live in properties where the owner 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 individuals families pay 30 percent of
their adjusted income for rent, and the Federal Government is
responsible for the remainder of the rent, up to the fair
market rent or some other payment standard. This account also
provides funding for administrative fees for public housing
authorities, mainstream vouchers, and Housing and Urban
Development Veterans Supportive Housing [HUD-VASH] programs.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of
$19,562,160,000 for fiscal year 2015, including $4,000,000,000
as an advance appropriation to be made available on October 1,
2014. This amount is $482,840,000 less than the budget request
and $384,942,000 more than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level.
The Committee recommends $17,719,000,000 for the renewal
costs of section 8 vouchers, which is $287,550,000 less than
the budget request and $353,473,000 more than the fiscal year
2014 enacted level.
The section 8 rental assistance program is a critical tool
that enables more than 2 million low-income individuals and
families to access safe, stable and affordable housing in the
private market.
In recognition of the section 8 program's central role in
ensuring housing for vulnerable Americans, the Committee
recommendation includes sufficient resources to ensure that no
current voucher holders are put at risk of losing their
housing. The recommended funding level reflects an inflation
adjustment that reduces voucher costs from the original budget
request. It also supports the first-time renewal of incremental
vouchers that were funded in prior years, including HUD-VASH
vouchers. The Committee will continue to monitor leasing data
to make sure residents are protected.
Last year, the Committee included several reform provisions
designed to reduce program costs or create efficiencies in
program delivery. While this is an important step in improving
the program, the Committee hopes that a broader section 8
reform bill will be enacted. A full reform bill is expected to
modernize other aspects of the program and expand the Moving to
Work [MTW] program, while increasing reporting by MTW agencies.
In the absence of a reform bill, the Committee expects HUD
to update regulations that don't require congressional action.
In recent years, PHAs have faced serious funding constraints,
and the Committee voiced concerns at HUD's budget hearing on
the burdensome requirements they must continue to meet. It is
therefore imperative that HUD work to ensure scarce
administrative dollars are directed toward requirements that
will ensure housing safety standards, protect residents, and
save taxpayer dollars. It is clear that some existing
regulations are creating burdens for PHAs with little benefit
to the oversight of the program. At the same time, HUD should
be requiring different information that would provide better
insight into its programs and improve its oversight. In fiscal
year 2014, the Committee required HUD to report on regulations
that need to be updated or new regulations that should be
promulgated. The report is expected in July, and the Committee
expects that this will be a comprehensive and thoughtful report
with recommendations upon which HUD and Congress can act.
Cash Management.--The Committee notes that the Office of
Inspector General's audit of HUD's fiscal year 2013 financial
statements identified a material weakness in PIH's cash
management process. Specifically, it found that the process
departs from GAAP and Treasury requirements. The Committee has
voiced concern with PIH's cash management practices before this
finding, particularly since it limits understanding of the true
funding needs in the voucher program.
The Committee notes that tenant-based assistance is not
fundamentally different from public housing or project-based
assistance, yet it is the only rental assistance program at the
Department that disburses funds without the housing authority
or project owner submitting a request for reimbursement.
The Committee stresses the importance of resolving this
audit finding swiftly and implementing a cash management
process that complies with GAAP and Treasury requirements, and
also provides greater transparency into voucher renewal needs.
Therefore, HUD is directed to submit a plan to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations within 30 days of enactment
of this act, identifying how the Department will implement new
cash management policies during fiscal year 2015 and require
housing authorities to draw down funds; a practice most housing
authorities already do through the public housing programs.
Finance and Governance.--PHAs are local entities managed by
housing boards and commissioners that provide oversight at the
local level. In examining the circumstances that result in
public housing authorities becoming troubled, problems with
finance and governance are often the root cause. The Committee
notes that PIH launched the PHA Recovery and Sustainability
model to focus resources and attention on improving troubled or
near-troubled PHAs, and specifically governance and financial
management. While the vast majority of housing authorities
operate their programs effectively, the Committee believes that
HUD should be providing this type of information and training
to all PHAs, not just those that are troubled or near troubled.
In fiscal year 2014, the Committee directed HUD to work
with its OIG to determine the critical skills that PHA boards
should have to effectively oversee PHA operations, as well as
the actions HUD will take to ensure that PHAs possess them. The
Committee understands this work is beginning in fiscal year
2014, and looks forward to the report HUD must submit in July
on its findings and how it will ensure PHA Boards have the
necessary skills to adequately perform their duties.
Set-Asides for Special Circumstances.--The Committee has
provided a set-aside of $75,000,000 to allow the Secretary to
adjust allocations to PHAs under certain circumstances.
Qualifying factors include: (1) 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) 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)
adjustments or costs associated with HUD-VASH vouchers; and (4)
possible termination of families as a result of insufficient
funding. 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 of
vouchers.
Pilot for Homeless Native Americans.--Since 2008, the
Committee has been providing funding for the joint HUD-Veterans
Affairs Supportive Housing Program [HUD-VASH] aimed at ending
veteran homelessness. The success of this effort can be seen in
the results of HUD's most recent Point-in-Time count in 2013,
which showed that homelessness among veterans has been reduced
by over 24 percent since 2010.
However, as a result of program rules, these vouchers are
not available to serve Native American veterans living on
tribal lands that are homeless or at-risk of homelessness.
While limited data has made assessing need difficult, in fiscal
year 2012, the VA conducted an analysis on the number of at-
risk veterans living in Indian Country. Its limited analysis
found that at least 2,047 veterans served by VA homeless
programs were likely living in these areas, which demonstrates
the need for supportive housing assistance. Moreover, tribes
are seeking access to HUD-VASH vouchers to assist their
veterans. While differences in programs and the limited
availability of housing in Indian Country makes adoption of the
existing HUD-VASH model challenging, the Committee wants to
understand how to effectively meet this need.
While the administration requested the flexibility to
provide vouchers to tribally designated housing entities for
use on reservations, the Committee is instead requiring HUD to
set aside a portion of HUD-VASH funding for a pilot designed to
provide housing and supportive services to veterans who are
homeless or at-risk of homelessness living on tribal
reservations or in Indian areas. The Committee directs HUD to
set aside a sufficient amount of funding to evaluate this model
and test it on reservations and Indian areas in different
locations.
The rental assistance and administrative costs associated
with this pilot will be run through the Indian Housing Block
Grant program to ensure funding is provided to appropriate
housing providers and that there is consistency in the
implementation of rental assistance and program rules for
selected providers. The Office of Native American Programs
[ONAP] should work with PIH's Voucher Office on effective ways
to apply the HUD-VASH model on tribal lands. The Voucher Office
and ONAP should work together with the Department of Veterans
Affairs on referrals to the program and to ensure services are
appropriately provided to participating veterans. Given the
unique housing challenges on reservations that will require
modifications to the existing HUD-VASH model, HUD should
consider using vouchers to facilitate the creation of new
housing. The Committee has also included funding to provide
culturally appropriate technical assistance to tribes
administering the housing-plus services model.
HUD-VASH Move-in Costs.--The Committee notes that move-in
costs can present a problem for homeless veterans trying to
secure housing as part of the HUD-VASH program. The Committee
recognizes this challenge and urges HUD to work with the VA, as
well as local and national organizations to identify resources
that can be used to assist homeless veterans with these
expenses.
Administrative Fees.--The Committee recommends
$1,555,000,000 for administrative fees, which is $150,000,000
less than the budget request and $55,000,000 more than the
fiscal year 2014 enacted level.
In fiscal year 2008, the Committee provided HUD with
funding to begin a study on the amount of administrative fees
necessary for PHAs to effectively manage their section 8
programs. The Committee received HUD's preliminary assessment,
and looks forward to the comprehensive study, which should
provide more reliable information on which to base policy
decisions.
Tenant Protection Vouchers.--The Committee recommendation
includes $130,000,000 for tenant protection vouchers. These
vouchers are provided to public housing residents whose
buildings have health or safety issues, or whose projects are
being demolished. However, the largest share of these vouchers
is provided to tenants living in properties with expiring HUD
assistance that may face rent increases if their owners opt out
of HUD programs. In these instances, the vouchers ensure
continued affordability of tenants' housing.
The Committee has included a new provision, as requested,
that will limit reissuance of tenant protection vouchers that
are provided to families temporarily displaced by demolition or
rehabilitation of affordable housing. The Committee wants to
ensure the protection of tenants and the preservation of
affordable housing, and these vouchers help meet that goal. At
the same time, these vouchers are not designed to increase the
amount of affordable housing. Therefore, in a case where a
voucher is substituting for a unit that is temporarily
unavailable, but will be replaced, the voucher should end when
the tenant using it either returns to the new or rehabilitated
unit, or, if they choose not to occupy it, when he or she exits
the program.
Section 811 Mainstream Vouchers.--The Committee recommends
$83,160,000 to continue the rental assistance and
administrative costs of this program. While this amount is
$25,290,000 below the President's request, it is sufficient to
maintain all existing vouchers. Due to the transition of the
program from the project-based rental assistance account to the
tenant-based rental assistance account, balances have
accumulated that have been carried forward from year to year.
The level of funding for fiscal year 2015 reflects the drawdown
of these carryover balances to sustain the program.

HOUSING CERTIFICATE FUND

(INCLUDES RESCISSIONS)

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee has not included a rescission from the
Housing Certificate Fund in fiscal year 2015, consistent with
the President's request. The Committee has included language
that will allow unobligated balances from specific accounts to
be used to renew or amend Project-Based Rental Assistance
contracts.

PUBLIC HOUSING CAPITAL FUND

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2014.................................... $1,875,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................... 1,925,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,900,000,000

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 $1,900,000,000
for the Public Housing Capital Fund, which is $25,000,000 less
than the budget request and $25,000,000 more than the fiscal
year 2014 enacted level.
Of the amount made available under this account,
$45,000,000 is for supportive services for residents of public
housing under the Resident Opportunity and Self-Sufficiency
[ROSS] program. The Committee also recommends up to $5,000,000
to support the ongoing financial and physical assessment
activities performed by the Real Estate Assessment Center
[REAC] and $3,000,000 for the cost of administrative and
judicial receiverships.
Flexibility To Meet Pressing Needs.--The Committee notes
that the President's budget proposed providing public housing
authorities with full flexibility to move funds between their
operating and capital funds. The Committee shares the goal of
providing PHAs with the flexibility to meet their highest
priority needs, and giving PHAs the tools to manage their
portfolios more effectively. At the same time, the Committee is
concerned that the administration's proposal lacks sufficient
transparency into how Federal funds will be spent.
In an effort to achieve an appropriate balance between
flexibility and accountability, the Committee has included
alternative provisions designed to provide PHAs with mechanisms
to better meet their capital and operations needs. The first
provision provides PHAs with the authority to transfer up to 20
percent of their operating funds to their capital fund. This
provides PHAs with not only the ability to reinvest operational
savings in their properties, but also creates an incentive for
them to do so. In addition, language is included for fiscal
year 2015 that allows PHAs to transfer up to 30 percent of
their capital funds to their operating fund.
A second provision permits housing authorities to establish
and maintain replacement reserves. Establishing and maintaining
replacement or capital reserves is common practice in real
estate, and in fact, they are required for projects in HUD
multifamily programs. However, the existing obligation
deadlines for public housing capital funds prevent the
establishment of such reserves. This limits the ability of PHAs
to save for planned capital projects necessary to maintain
housing in good condition.
The Committee expects the Department to move quickly to set
up the rules and requirements around the capital reserves so
that PHAs can utilize this new tool to address the significant
backlog of capital needs and better plan for future capital
requirements. This should include how HUD will ensure that
funds are being saved for and spent on needed capital projects.
Safety and Security in Public Housing.--In October 2013,
HUD published a new capital fund rule, which included more
detail on eligible uses of funding, and stated that certain
ongoing safety and security costs are an ineligible use of
capital funds. This change was not included in the proposed
rule, and as a result, there was no opportunity for public
comment on it. The Committee is concerned that the rule change
will leave some public housing authorities unable to continue
existing security functions that are necessary to protect
public housing and ensure the safety of residents. The
Committee has provided additional flexibility to PHAs by
increasing the amount they can transfer from their public
housing capital to operating fund to help address this concern,
but has also provided HUD with the authority to waive the
transfer limit in order to ensure that these important safety
activities can continue. In addition, the Committee directs HUD
to do an analysis of the impact of this change on the ability
of housing authorities to ensure safety in their housing.
Further, the Committee directs HUD to submit a letter report to
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on these
findings within 120 days of enactment of this act, including
any recommendations to address problems it identifies.
In addition, the Committee directs at least $6,000,000 of
the $23,000,000 recommended for emergency capital needs be for
safety and security measures necessary to address crime and
drug-related activity in public housing. The Committee has
included this specific set-aside because there are PHAs facing
safety and security issues that rely on these funds to protect
their tenants. The Committee notes that the demand for these
funds continues to grow while the amount that HUD is awarding
to PHAs is decreasing. The recommended level of funding
represents an increase of $3,000,000 over the fiscal year 2014
level to ensure that funding for needs associated with natural
disasters as well as safety and security can be met within the
appropriated level of funding, and urges HUD to award funds to
PHAs as quickly as possible.
Physical Needs Assessment.--The Committee notes the
importance of being able to assess the physical quality of the
public housing stock and to plan for regular maintenance,
upkeep, and replacement. This information is critical to
ensuring that limited Federal funding is targeted to
effectively meet those needs, and every PHA should be able to
identify the physical needs of their inventory. In an attempt
to apply a degree of uniformity across PHAs, the department has
developed a Physical Need Assessment [PNA] tool and issued a
proposed rule governing its use. The Committee appreciates this
well-intentioned effort. However, numerous concerns have been
raised surrounding the metrics it seeks to measure and how, or
if, all the collected data will be used to provide effective
program oversight. Additional concerns have been raised that
multiple offices within HUD are seeking to collect overlapping
data using different collection methods, failing to coordinate
their efforts within the department and adding unnecessarily to
PHAs' administrative burdens. Concerns have also been raised
about the ability of PHAs to easily convert their existing PNAs
into the format directed by the department. Many public housing
agencies already conduct physical needs assessments, yet some
will incur additional costs to input this information into
HUD's new system. In its report to the Committee, HUD
acknowledged that the costs associated with the PNA could be a
burden for PHAs that lack the flexibility to absorb this
initiative, and that small PHAs in particular will have a
greater burden because they were not previously required to
perform a PNA.
Given the multiple concerns, the Committee directs the
department to continue to evaluate the PNA proposed rule and to
expand on its 2014 report to the Committees, which shall be
transmitted to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations by March 2, 2015. This report should at a
minimum: assess how the specific aspects of the PNA tool
compare to PNAs utilized by HUD's Office of Multi-Family
Housing, and by unassisted housing managed by PHAs; review if
all data sought by the proposed PNA are necessary or if
simplification of the tool makes sense from an oversight and
management perspective; reflect a department-wide effort to
identify similar data collection requirements on PHAs to ensure
no duplication or overlapping of requirements; and determine if
the objectives of the PNA can be achieved by alternative means
such as, but not limited to, collection as part of HUD's Line
of Credit Control System, or the acceptance of multiple
formats.
ROSS Program Oversight.--In August 2013, GAO issued a
report on a variety of HUD self-sufficiency programs, including
the ROSS program. The report recommended that HUD develop and
implement a strategy to analyze ROSS participation and outcome
data. HUD disagreed with the recommendation, citing various
challenges to doing such analysis, including the variety of
services that are funded through the program. The Committee
agrees with GAO that analysis of program outcomes is critical
to assessing the effectiveness of programs, and directs HUD to
develop a strategy for collecting and analyzing such data in a
way that is appropriate for the design of the program. The
Committee directs HUD to report to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations on how HUD is responding to GAO's
recommendations on oversight of the Family Self-Sufficiency
program within 90 days of enactment of this act. This report
should include a strategy for how it will improve its analysis
of ROSS program outcomes.
Jobs-Plus.--The Committee has included up to $15,000,000 to
continue the Jobs-Plus Initiative. Like last year, the
Secretary also has authority to set aside a portion of ROSS
funding for the services component of this initiative. Jobs-
Plus is based on a demonstration the Department began in 1998
that combined employment-related services and activities,
financial incentives to work, and community support. The data
showed that, on average, compared to other public housing
residents, those in the program earned an additional $1,300 per
year from 2000-2006. The Committee supports HUD's efforts to
assist public housing residents in finding employment and
achieving greater economic self-sufficiency.
The Committee understands that HUD is working with other
Federal and local partners to design a program that reflects
changes in public housing since the time of the demonstration,
and incorporates lessons learned from similar initiatives
undertaken by housing authorities in recent years. The
Committee encourages HUD to continue to collaborate with
partners, but also expects that HUD will complete the program
design this fall and be able to award funding to PHAs quickly
in fiscal year 2015.
Literacy Programs.--The Committee notes the importance of
education and financial literacy in helping families improve
life skills and increase their economic opportunities. An
evaluation of the Family Self-Sufficiency [FSS] Program
conducted by HUD found that families that exited the program
before graduation had less education than program graduates.
Increasing educational and financial literacy services for
public housing residents offers an opportunity to increase the
success of participants in FSS and other employment programs.
The Committee encourages HUD to work with national community-
based literacy organizations to identify models that
successfully incorporate adult literacy programs into HUD
sponsored housing initiatives. Successful models should link
these programs to job readiness and post secondary transition
initiatives, which will help adults with low literacy skills
become more financially literate and gain the skills necessary
to make informed decisions about the use and management of
money. HUD should develop and share best practices with PHAs
and other housing providers to expand services to adult
learners.

PUBLIC HOUSING OPERATING FUND

Appropriations, 2014.................................... $4,400,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................... 4,600,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 4,475,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides funding for the payment of operating
subsidies to approximately 3,100 public housing authorities
(except Indian housing authorities) with a total of
approximately 1.2 million units under management in order to
augment rent payments by residents in order to provide
sufficient revenues to meet reasonable operating costs.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,475,000,000
for the public housing operating fund, which is $125,000,000
less than the budget request and $75,000,000 more than the
fiscal year 2014 enacted level.
The Committee has included provisions providing PHAs with
increased flexibility to move funds between their capital and
operating funds, as well as giving them the ability to
establish capital reserves. The Committee notes that many PHAs
have taken steps to achieve operational savings by improving
energy efficiency or otherwise reducing expenses. The Committee
wants to reward such efforts by providing PHAs with the ability
to reinvest such savings in their properties.
In addition to providing flexibility with its funding, the
Committee also recognizes that PHAs face administrative and
regulatory burdens. As part of the fiscal year 2014
appropriations bill, the Department was directed to report to
the Committee on regulations that need to be updated and
streamlined. While the Committee anticipates the report's
delivery later this year, it reiterates support for regulatory
and administrative relief that result in cost savings, while
still maintaining effective and meaningful oversight.

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS

Appropriations, 2014.................................... $90,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................... 120,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 90,000,000

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 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
include public housing authorities, tribes, 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 undertake comprehensive local planning
with input from residents and the community. A strong emphasis
is placed on local community planning for school and
educational improvements, including early childhood
initiatives.
The Department also places a strong emphasis on
coordination with other Federal agencies, notably the
Departments of Education, Labor, Transportation, Health and
Human Services, and Justice, to leverage additional resources.
Where possible, the program is coordinated with the Department
of Education's Promise Neighborhoods Initiative.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $90,000,000
for the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative. This amount is equal
to the fiscal year 2014 enacted level and $30,000,000 less than
the budget request. 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. However, the Committee
notes that the work to replace distressed public housing is far
from complete. Therefore, the Committee has included language
that stipulates that not less than $55,000,000 of the funding
provided shall be awarded to projects where public housing
authorities are the lead applicant. The Committee has also
included the authority to recapture funding remaining from
completed projects. As a result, there will be an estimated
$5,300,000 in additional resources available for the program.
Choice Neighborhoods is part of a broader Administration
initiative, Promise Zones, which is focused on investing in
designated high poverty neighborhoods. Under the proposal, HUD
investments will be coordinated with resources from other
agencies, such as the Departments of Education and Justice, and
targeted to select neighborhoods to increase their impact. The
Committee supports this initiative and its focus on distressed
neighborhoods. At the same time, the goal of Choice
Neighborhoods is to replace distressed housing as a way to
improve communities and the lives of residents. Therefore, HUD
should not limit applicants to a narrowly defined set of
neighborhoods since it may prevent the replacement of eligible
and worthy public or assisted housing projects that are outside
such designated neighborhoods from competing for funding.
Inherent in the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative is the
understanding that community transformation requires more than
replacing housing. The creation of vibrant, sustainable
communities also requires greater access to transportation,
jobs and services that will increase opportunities for
community residents. However, HUD funding cannot support all of
these activities. The Committee has been encouraged by the
ability of Choice Neighborhood grantees to leverage significant
resources with their grant awards. Grantees have leveraged over
$2,000,000,000 in other public and private resources with the
$231,000,000 in Choice Neighborhoods funding they have received
to date. Grantees have begun replacing affordable housing and
making other community improvements, and when projects are
complete, needed affordable housing units will be created or
preserved.
The Committee continues to emphasize the importance of
integrating services for residents into Choice Neighborhood
projects, which will help to ensure that the goal of improving
the lives of residents can be met. In addition, the Committee
urges HUD to identify successful partnership strategies that
can not only be utilized by future Choice Neighborhood
grantees, but can also serve as models for traditional public
housing and HUD-assisted housing program providers that want to
improve services for their residents.

FAMILY SELF-SUFFICIENCY

Appropriations, 2014.................................... $75,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................... 75,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 75,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Family Self-Sufficiency [FSS] program provides funding
to help Housing Choice Voucher, project-based section 8, and
Public Housing residents achieve self-sufficiency and economic
independence. The FSS program is designed to provide service
coordination through community partnerships that link residents
with employment assistance, job training, child care,
transportation, financial literacy, and other supportive
services. The funding will be allocated through one competition
to eligible Public Housing Authorities [PHAs] to support
service coordinators who will serve both public housing and
vouchers residents.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $75,000,000
for the Family Self-Sufficiency program in fiscal year 2015, an
amount equal to both the fiscal year 2014 enacted level and the
President's request.
The Committee strongly supports the FSS program, which
helps provide public housing and section 8 residents with the
tools to improve their lives and achieve self-sufficiency. The
Committee also supports the idea of expanding FSS to residents
receiving project-based rental assistance. At the same time,
the Committee recognizes that expanding the number of entities
eligible for service coordinator funding without increasing the
resources available for the program could jeopardize existing
FSS programs. Therefore, the Committee is allowing PBRA
residents to participate in the program and save increased
earnings in an escrow account, but it is not allowing PBRA
project owners to compete for service coordinator funding. The
Committee is aware of organizations that may be willing to
partner with project owners to provide or coordinate services
for PBRA residents, and hopes that HUD will work to identify
and facilitate such partnership opportunities.
As HUD works to streamline and expand the program, the
Committee also expects HUD to identify best practices in the
field that are successfully improving outcomes for residents.
The Committee encourages HUD to consider best practices for how
to increase participation, improve alignment between eligible
uses of funding and milestones, and incorporate financial
education into the program design.
FSS and Youth.--The Family Self-Sufficiency [FSS] program
provides participants with case management, as well as the
ability to save increased earnings, so that residents can
increase self-sufficiency. The Committee wants to test the
effectiveness of pairing the FSS program with existing Family
Unification Program [FUP] vouchers for youth. FUP vouchers are
available to families in the child welfare system, including
youth aging out of foster care that are at risk of
homelessness. The vouchers provide homeless youth with the
housing stability they need to improve their lives through
education or job training; goals that align with those of the
FSS program.
Unfortunately, current program rules make the FUP and FSS
programs incompatible; for example the programs have different
time requirements. By providing the Secretary with the
flexibility to modify the FUP program for youth, the Committee
hopes that it will increase opportunities to offer youth the
support they need to achieve self-sufficiency. The Committee
permits all PHAs with both FUP and FSS programs to participate,
so long as PHAs can demonstrate partnerships with public child
welfare agencies, the capacity to serve youth, success with
serving existing FSS participants, and partnerships with other
youth-serving organizations. The Secretary is directed to
monitor the program and report on lessons learned from it.
Program Data Collection and Analysis.--In August 2013, GAO
released a report titled, Rental Housing Assistance: HUD Data
on Self-Sufficiency Programs Should Be Improved. While the
report noted positive outcomes identified with the FSS program,
it also found that HUD lacked quality data with which to
monitor and analyze the program. The Committee agrees with
GAO's recommendations that HUD needs to provide clear guidance
to FSS grantees on what data should be reported, which HUD
should monitor to ensure that it is accurate and complete.
Accurate data are critical to evaluate the program's
effectiveness and recommend best practices to improve outcomes
for participants. The Committee directs HUD to report on how it
is satisfying the recommendations of GAO's report within 90
days of enactment of this act. This report should include
timelines for issuing guidance and the processes it will put in
place to monitor data.

NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANT

Appropriations, 2014.................................... $650,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................... 650,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 650,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account funds the Native American Housing Block Grant
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 to help address the housing needs within their
communities. Under this block grant, Indian tribes 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 Grant Program, of which
$2,000,000 is set aside for a credit subsidy to support a loan
level not to exceed $16,530,000 for the Title VI Loan Guarantee
Program. The recommended level of funding is equal to the
amount provided in fiscal year 2014 and consistent with the
budget request.
The Native American Housing Block Grant Program is a vital
resource for tribal governments to address the dire housing
conditions in Indian Country. Access to affordable housing
remains in a critical state for many tribes across the country.
Native Americans are twice as likely to live in poverty
compared to the rest of the Nation. As a result, the housing
challenges on tribal lands are daunting. According to the U.S.
Census American Community Survey for 2006-2010, 8.1 percent of
homes on American Indian reservations and off-reservation trust
land are overcrowded, compared to 3.1 percent of households
nationwide. The number of households on reservation lands with
severe housing costs that spend more than 50 percent of their
income on housing has risen 46 percent over the past decade.
The subcommittee staff have conducted site visits to
several tribes to better understand the challenges to
developing and maintaining affordable housing in Indian
Country. The conditions found there were disturbing and the
magnitude of the need overwhelming. Many tribally designated
housing entities lack access to financing and credit to develop
new housing due to the difficulty of financing when trust lands
are involved. Most development projects take 3 years or longer
to complete due to a lack of financial resources, issues
related to land and permitting approvals, and the lack of
infrastructure in many of these sparse, remote locations.
In 2012, the Committee directed GAO to conduct an analysis
of these and other challenges associated with the development
of affordable housing in Indian Country. GAO found that tribes
face multiple internal and external challenges in carrying out
affordable housing activities. Remote locations and a lack of
basic infrastructure significantly increase the cost of
development. Tribes also face challenges with differing
environmental review requirements when scare resources are
leveraged from a variety of Federal agencies. The Committee
agrees with GAO that substantial efficiencies and cost-savings
can be achieved to facilitate infrastructure development by
creating a coordinated project environmental review process.
Therefore, the Committee directs HUD to collaborate with the
Council on Environmental Quality and affected Federal agencies,
including the Department of the Interior, Agriculture,
Commerce, Energy, Health and Human Services, Treasury and the
Environmental Protection Agency, to develop a coordinated
environmental review process to simplify tribal housing
development and its related infrastructure needs. The agencies
shall conduct consultation with tribes and tribally designated
housing entities and report their conclusions, recommendations
and any statutory changes that may be necessary to facilitate
this process to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations by May 1, 2015.
Technical Assistance.--Limited capacity hinders the ability
of many tribes to effectively address their housing needs. The
Committee recommends $4,000,000 for technical assistance
through a national organization representing Native American
housing interests as authorized under NAHASDA (25 U.S.C. 4212),
and up to $2,000,000 for inspections of Indian housing units,
contract expertise, training, technical assistance, oversight,
and management.
The Committee expects HUD to use the technical assistance
funding provided to a national tribal organization 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 will reflect the unique needs and culture of Native
Americans.

NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANT

Appropriations, 2014.................................... $10,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................... 13,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 10,000,000

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 $10,000,000
for the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant Program, which is
equal to the fiscal year 2014 enacted level and $3,000,000 less
than the budget request. Of the amount provided, $300,000 may
be for training and technical assistance activities, including
up to $100,000 for related travel for Hawaii-based HUD
employees.

INDIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation on
Program account guaranteed
loans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2014.................. $6,000,000 $1,818,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015................. 8,000,000 1,200,000,000
Committee recommendation.............. 6,000,000 714,290,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
HUD continues to be the largest single source of financing for
housing in tribal communities. This program makes it possible
to promote sustainable reservation communities by providing
access to financing for higher income Native Americans to
achieve homeownership within their Native communities. As
required by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, this account
includes the subsidy costs associated with the loan guarantees
authorized under this program.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $6,000,000 in
program subsidies to support a loan level of $714,290,000. This
subsidy amount is equal to the fiscal year 2014 enacted subsidy
level and $2,000,000 less than the budget request.

NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation on
Program account guaranteed
loans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2014.................. $100,000 $16,130,000
Budget estimate, 2015................. ............... ...............
Committee recommendation.............. 100,000 16,130,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 $100,000 in
program subsidies to support a loan level of $16,130,000 which
is equal to the subsidy and loan levels provided in fiscal year
2014.

Community Planning and Development

HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS [HOPWA]

Appropriations, 2014.................................... $330,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................... 332,000,000
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.
Since 1990, by statute, 90 percent of formula-appropriated
funds are distributed to qualifying States and metropolitan
areas on the basis of the number of AIDS cases and incidence of
AIDS reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
by March 31 of the year preceding the fiscal year. The
remaining 10 percent of funds are awarded through a national
competition, with priority given to the renewal of funding for
expiring agreements consistent with appropriations act
requirements.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $330,000,000
for the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS [HOPWA]
program. This level of funding is $2,000,000 less than the
President's budget request and equal to the fiscal year 2014
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
HIV/AIDS.
Legislative Reauthorization Proposal.--The Committee
recognizes that the HOPWA statute requires an update to the
formula funding to target limited resources to communities most
impacted by HIV. The proposal to expand short-term homeless
prevention services could provide valuable flexibility to
grantees to stabilize vulnerable, extremely low-income
individuals and households. The Committee encourages HUD to
engage with stakeholders on the benefits of a new
reauthorization proposal that updates the program. HUD should
work with the respective House and Senate authorization
committees to enact these and other much needed reforms to the
program.

community development fund

Appropriations, 2014.................................... $3,100,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................... 2,870,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,090,000,000

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 for insular areas and Indian
CDBG.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,090,000,000
for the Community Development Fund in fiscal year 2015. This
level is $220,000,000 more than the budget request and
$10,000,000 less than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level.
The Committee has provided $3,020,000,000 for Community
Development Block Grants. The recommended amount is
$220,000,000 more than the budget request and $10,000,000 less
than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. CDBG funding provides
States and entitlement communities 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 flexibility associated with CDBG enables State and
local governments to tailor solutions to effectively meet the
unique needs of their communities. The investments made through
CDBG help support infrastructure, small businesses, housing and
services important to strong communities. The impact of these
investments reverberates through communities, leveraging
additional sources of funding and creating thousands of jobs.
To ensure the program remains flexible, but also
accountable and transparent, the Committee continues a
provision in bill language first added in fiscal year 2014 that
prohibits any community from selling its CDBG award to another
community. In addition, the Committee has added a new
requirement that any funding provided to a for-profit entity
for an economic development project funded under this bill
undergo appropriate underwriting. The Committee has included
these provisions to address concerns raised about how program
dollars have been used and mitigate risks associated with it.
The Committee includes $70,000,000 for grants to Indian
tribes for essential economic and community development
activities which is equal to the budget request and the fiscal
year 2014 enacted level.
Mold Remediation and Prevention.--The Committee includes
$10,000,000 to fund grants for mold remediation and prevention
in Native American housing. This level is equal to the fiscal
year 2014 enacted level. The funding will be awarded to
grantees through a single national competition to ensure that
grants are awarded to tribes with greatest need.
In administering this funding and working to address mold
in Native American housing, the Committee expects the Office of
Native American Programs to work with the Office of Lead Hazard
Control and Healthy Homes to ensure Native American communities
have the information and assistance they need to effectively
address this serious issue.
The Committee wants to monitor the success of these funds
in addressing the mold problem. Therefore, the Committee
directs HUD to report on the number of units remediated and any
other pertinent information. This information should be
provided to the Committee as part of annual congressional
justifications or upon request.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LOAN GUARANTEES PROGRAM ACCOUNT

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation on
Program account guaranteed
loans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2014.................. $3,000,000 $150,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015................. ............... 500,000,000
Committee recommendation.............. ............... 500,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation includes the President's
proposal to make this a fee-based program, and provides no
appropriation. However, the fee-based structure recommended by
the Committee will support a loan level guarantee of
$500,000,000 for the section 108 loan guarantees account for
fiscal year 2015. This guaranteed loan level is $350,000,000
more than the fiscal year 2014 level and equal to the
President's request.
This program enables CDBG recipients to use their CDBG
dollars to leverage financing for economic development
projects, community facilities, and housing rehabilitation
programs. Communities are allowed to borrow up to five times
their most recent CDBG allocation.
For several years, the administration has been proposing to
make this a fee-based program. In fiscal year 2014, the
Committee accepted this proposal, but since HUD had not begun
the rulemaking process, it provided both a subsidy and the
authority to raise fees so that HUD could transition the
program to the new funding structure without disrupting it. The
Committee expected HUD to move quickly to commence the
rulemaking process and clearly communicate program costs and
requirements to communities, yet more than halfway through the
fiscal year, the rulemaking process has not begun and
communities are left wondering how the program will operate.
The Committee expects HUD to ensure that a financing structure
is in place by the beginning of the fiscal year to ensure that
this important program remains available to communities. In
addition, HUD must provide communities with information and any
technical assistance they may need to successfully utilize the
program.

HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2014.................................... $1,000,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................... 950,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 950,000,000

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 $950,000,000
for the HOME Investment Partnerships Program. This amount is
$50,000,000 less than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. The
amount is the same as the budget request, but the budget also
proposes to fund a $10,000,000 Self-Help and Assisted
Homeownership Program [SHOP] program out of this account, which
the Committee has rejected.
The bill includes several provisions to improve the program
that were requested in the budget, including allowing statewide
nonprofits to be designated as Community Housing Development
Organizations. This is expected to help States that are less
populous, and as a result, have more organizations that serve
the entire State. The Committee recommendation also includes a
provision that will create an exception to the 30-day eviction
notice in instances where a tenant poses a threat. Similar
exceptions are included in other housing assistance programs.

SELF-HELP AND ASSISTED HOMEOWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2014.................................... $50,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015\1\................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 50,000,000

\1\The budget request shifts funding for SHOP activities to the HOME
program and creates a new $20,000,000 Capacity Building program for the
section 4 activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $50,000,000 for the Self-Help and
Assisted Homeownership Program, which is equal to the fiscal
year 2014 enacted level. The budget request would shift a
portion of the funding for these activities to the HOME
program, and transition the section 4 program into a new
Capacity Building program. The Committee recommendation
includes $10,000,000 for SHOP, as authorized under section 11
of the Housing Opportunity Extension Act of 1996; $35,000,000
for capacity building as authorized by section 4 of the HUD
Demonstration Act of 1993; and $5,000,000 to carry out capacity
building activities in rural communities. The Committee notes
that funding for technical assistance is being provided under
the Transformation Initiative and directs funds available for
section 4 to be used solely for capacity building activities.
Energy Star.--The Committee is concerned that the Energy
Star requirements in the SHOP Notice of Funding Availability
[NOFA] while well-intentioned may increase costs in a time that
limited resources should be targeted to producing homes that
comply with local building and safety codes. The Department is
directed to submit a report to the House and Senate Committees
on Appropriations within 120 days of enactment of this act that
evaluates: (1) if the Energy Star requirement in this program's
NOFA are consistent with Energy Star requirements across HUD
programs; and (2) if this requirement is a barrier to
participation, especially in rural areas, considering factors
such as the cost of certifications, access to Home Energy
Raters or certified HVAC contractors, or the mortgage now
exceeding USDA's Area Loan Limits.

HOMELESS ASSISTANCE GRANTS

Appropriations, 2014.................................... $2,105,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................... 2,406,400,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,145,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,145,000,000
for Homeless Assistance Grants in fiscal year 2015. This amount
is $261,400,000 less than the President's request, and
$40,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level.
As part of the Committee recommendation, at least
$1,848,000,000 will support the Continuum of Care Program,
including the renewal of existing projects, and the Rural
Housing Stability Assistance Program. Based on the renewal
burden, HUD may also support planning and other activities
authorized by the HEARTH Act. The recommendation also includes
at least $250,000,000 for the emergency solutions grants
program [ESG].
Given the current fiscal constraints, the Committee is not
able to provide the funding requested for new permanent
supportive housing. However, the Committee remains committed to
supporting the goals outlined in the Federal Strategic Plan to
Prevent and End Homelessness, including the goal to end chronic
homelessness. The Committee supports HUD's efforts to leverage
existing housing resources, such as section 8 vouchers, to
serve the homeless. The Committee also supports replacing
existing, underperforming projects with new permanent
supportive housing projects. Therefore, if funds remain
available in this account after meeting renewal demands and
funding ESG, HUD may use it for new projects, provided that
such projects are targeted to areas with the greatest need, as
measured by homeless data.
Youth Homelessness.--The Committee is concerned about the
number of youth experiencing homelessness. HUD has provided
guidance to communities about how to better count homeless
youth as part of the point-in-time count, and stressed the
importance of serving youth as part of the annual Continuum of
Care competition. There is still more to be done. The Committee
expects HUD to ensure that communities have youth-appropriate
housing, through technical assistance and dissemination of best
practices. In addition, HUD should do more to emphasize the
importance of youth-appropriate housing as part of the annual
Continuum of Care competition.
Housing for Domestic Violence Survivors.--The Committee
knows that many individuals experiencing homelessness are also
survivors of domestic violence. Ensuring that they have a safe
place to live is a critical role of the homeless system. The
Committee is aware that as continuums eliminate or replace
underperforming homeless projects, housing serving those
impacted by domestic violence may be lost. The Committee
supports the efforts of communities to ensure homeless projects
being funded demonstrate positive housing outcomes for those
they serve. At the same time, it is critical to ensure that the
unique housing needs of survivors of domestic violence are met.
The Committee urges HUD to work with communities to help ensure
they have appropriate housing available for domestic violence
survivors. This may include replacing an underperforming
project specific to survivors of domestic violence with a
project that serves the same purpose, but with better results.
Annual Homeless Assessment Report.--AHAR 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]. AHAR includes HMIS data, information provided by
Continuums of Care, and a count of sheltered and unsheltered
persons from one night in January of each year. The Committee
is encouraged that Federal agencies are sharing homeless data
and working towards using HMIS as a platform for gathering
information in other Federal programs. Having consistent
national data will allow the Federal Government to better
understand the needs of the homeless and better align Federal
services to meet these needs. To support continued data
collection and AHAR, the Committee has included $7,000,000 for
data analysis and technical assistance.
The Committee requests that HUD submit the AHAR report by
August 29, 2015. 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 2016 budget justification.
This should include estimated costs of renewing permanent
supportive housing.

Housing Programs

PROJECT-BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE

Appropriations, 2014\1\................................. $9,916,628,000
Budget estimate, 2015\1\................................ 9,746,000,000
Committee recommendation\1\............................. 9,746,000,000

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

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The section 8 project-based rental assistance [PBRA]
program supports an estimated 17,400 contracts with private
owners of multifamily housing. Through this program, HUD and
private sector partners support the preservation of safe,
stable and sanitary housing for more than 1.2 million low-
income Americans. Without PBRA, many affordable housing
projects would convert to market rates with large rent
increases that current tenants would be unable to afford.
The Committee recommends a total appropriation of
$9,746,000,000 for the annual renewal of project-based
contracts, of which up to $210,000,000 is for the cost of
contract administrators. The recommended level of funding is
$170,628,000 less than the amount provided in fiscal year 2014
and is equal to the budget request.
The Committee reluctantly concurs with the administration's
proposal to shift the payment of contracts to a calendar year
basis. This funding cycle is consistent with the practices for
the tenant-based rental assistance and public housing programs.
However, it is a departure from the long-standing practice that
all project-based contracts should receive a full 12 months of
financing from the contract renewal date to maintain investor
confidence and support for the program. The Committee
recognizes that this strategy temporarily defers the need for
large budgetary increases to fiscal year 2016. Unfortunately,
due to the budget constraints for fiscal year 2015, the
Committee accepts this approach as the best option for
preserving HUD's housing assistance programs. While the Office
of Multifamily Housing is implementing many cost-savings
measures, the revenue that such steps are expected to generate
in the next fiscal year will be minimal compared to PBRA's
funding requirements. The Committee urges the Department to
explore other opportunities to reduce program costs, while
encouraging the Department to manage the funding provided to
ensure an uninterrupted flow of funds to support this critical
housing resource.
Performance-Based Contract Administrators.--Performance-
based contract administrators [PBCAs] are typically public
housing authorities or State housing finance agencies. They are
responsible for conducting on-site management reviews of
assisted properties; adjusting contract rents; and reviewing,
processing, and paying monthly vouchers submitted by owners.
The Committee notes that PBCAs are integral to the Department's
efforts to be more effective and efficient in the oversight and
monitoring of this program. The Committee is also aware of
ongoing litigation that will affect the future of these
entities and will continue to monitor developments. The
Committee believes that fair and open competition is the best
way to ensure that the taxpayer receives the greatest benefit
for the costs incurred. The Department is directed to ensure
that the PBCA selection process be, to the greatest extent
legally permissible, full, open, and fair.
Oversight of Property Owners.--The Committee places a
priority on providing access to safe, sanitary, and affordable
housing to those most in need. If owners fail to maintain their
properties in accordance with HUD standards, they should be
held accountable. While there is a tension between holding
property owners responsible and ensuring tenants don't lose
their housing, HUD has tools at its disposal to hold owners
accountable without putting tenants at risk.
HUD has recently taken important steps to increase its
oversight of multifamily properties. It launched the Sustaining
Our Investments Initiative, which is designed to ensure
consistent guidance to all project owners and to provide
clarity on how non-compliance will be addressed. To date, HUD
has completed a risk rating assessment for all PBRA properties
and is assigning Project Managers to address performance
problems at troubled assets. HUD also uses inspections by the
Real Estate Assessment Center [REAC] to identify physical and
financial issues. Properties with physical inspection scores
below 30 are referred to the Departmental Enforcement Center
[DEC] for further intervention. DEC may pursue civil penalties
or other enforcement measures. Since fiscal year 2009, there
has been a 15 percent decrease in the number of properties
receiving REAC scores lower than 30. This indicates that HUD's
oversight initiatives are reducing the number of troubled
properties in this important affordable housing program.
To ensure continued attention to this issue, the Committee
recommendation includes a general provision that requires HUD
to take specific steps to ensure that physical deficiencies in
properties are quickly addressed, and requires the Secretary to
take explicit actions if the owner fails to maintain them.
These actions include imposing civil money penalties, working
to secure a different owner for the property, or transferring
the section 8 contract to another the property. The Committee
wants to preserve critical project-based section 8 contracts,
and believes this goal can be achieved while holding property
owners accountable for their actions.
The Committee expects HUD to continue to move quickly to
identify problem properties and owners and find an appropriate
remedy. The Committee directs HUD to provide semi-annual
reports to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on
the number of projects that receive multiple exigent health and
safety violations or physical inspection scores below 30. HUD
shall also identify the actions taken to address safety
concerns, including the frequency with which civil money
penalties are imposed, contracts are transferred to another
property, or ownership is transferred. The Committee expects
that with increased enforcement the number of troubled
properties will continue to be reduced.

HOUSING FOR THE ELDERLY

Appropriations, 2014.................................... $383,500,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................... 440,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 420,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account funds housing for the elderly under section
202 of the Housing Act of 1959. 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. Tenants
living in section 202 supportive housing units can access a
variety of community-based services to keep living
independently in the community and age in place.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The section 202 program provides nearly 400,000 federally
assisted, privately owned affordable housing units for the
elderly. The Committee recommends an appropriation of
$420,000,000 for the section 202 program. This level is
$36,500,000 more than the level provided in fiscal year 2014
and $20,000,000 less than the budget request. The Committee
recommendation includes $350,000,000 to fully fund all annual
project-rental assistance contract renewals and amendments, and
$70,000,000 for service coordinators and the continuation of
existing congregate service grants. Due to very tight budget
constraints, no funds are provided to supplement the fiscal
year 2014 investment in an elderly project rental assistance
demonstration. The combination of resources from fiscal year
2014 appropriations, residual receipts, collections, and other
unobligated balances are sufficient to administer a long-term
demonstration of how housing plus supportive services can delay
the need for more costly assisted living or nursing home care.

HOUSING FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

Appropriations, 2014.................................... $126,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................... 160,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 135,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides funding for housing for the persons
with disabilities under section 811 of the Cranston-Gonzales
National Affordable Housing Act of 1990. Traditionally, the
section 811 program provided capital grants to eligible
entities for the acquisition, rehabilitation, or construction
of housing for persons with disabilities, as well as rental
assistance to support operational costs. Since fiscal year
2012, HUD has transitioned to expanding capacity by providing
project rental assistance to State housing financing agencies
or other appropriate entities that act in partnership with
State health and human service agencies to provide supportive
services as authorized by the Frank Melville Supportive Housing
Investment Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-374).

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $135,000,000
for the section 811 program. This level is $25,000,000 less
than the budget request and is $9,000,000 more than the fiscal
year 2014 enacted level. This level of funding supports all
PRAC renewals and amendments. Should HUD identify any residual
receipts, or recaptures of other unobligated balances in the
account, the Secretary shall direct such resources to
supplement the recent demonstration competition for project
rental assistance to State housing finance agencies.

HOUSING COUNSELING ASSISTANCE

Appropriations, 2014.................................... $45,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................... 60,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 49,000,000

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 post-purchase education, personal financial management,
reverse mortgage product education, foreclosure prevention,
mitigation, and rental counseling.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $49,000,000
for the Housing Counseling Assistance program, which is
$11,000,000 less than the budget request and $4,000,000 more
than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. The funds provided
will help individuals and families across the country make
better-informed housing decisions. Specifically, it will
support additional competitive counseling grants and training
activities. In addition, the administrative contract support
funding includes increased resources for financial audits and
technical assistance, as well as support for the Homeowners
Armed With Knowledge program.
The Committee has included language requiring HUD to
obligate counseling grants within 180 days of enactment of this
act. The Committee has extended the award deadline from 120 to
180 days to provide sufficient time for counseling agencies to
respond to HUD's funding notice, while also ensuring grantees
receive funding in a timely manner. The bill also includes
language permitting HUD to publish multiyear NOFAs, contingent
on annual appropriations, which should result in administrative
savings for HUD and grantees. Other HUD programs, such as the
Fair Housing Initiatives Program and Housing for the Elderly,
have similar multiyear authority.

RENTAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE

Appropriations, 2014.................................... $21,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................... 28,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 28,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $28,000,000
for HUD-assisted, State-aided, noninsured rental housing
projects, consistent with the budget request. This amount is
$7,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level and
equal to the budget request. The Committee notes that language
is included in the bill that will allow the conversion of these
projects to section 8, at no additional cost. The Committee
hopes that the conversion of these projects, through the Rental
Assistance Demonstration, will lead to the eventual elimination
of these outdated programs.

PAYMENT TO MANUFACTURED HOUSING FEES TRUST FUND

Appropriations, 2014.................................... $7,530,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................... 10,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 10,000,000

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 $10,000,000 to support the
manufactured housing standards programs, of which the full
amount of $10,000,000 is expected to be derived from fees
collected and deposited in the Manufactured Housing Fees Trust
Fund account. No direct appropriation is provided. The total
amount recommended is equal to the budget request and
$2,470,000 more than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level.
The Committee continues language allowing the Department to
collect fees from program participants for the dispute
resolution and installment programs mandated by the
Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000. These fees are to
be deposited into the Trust Fund and may be used to support the
manufactured housing standards programs subject to the overall
cap placed on the account. The Committee expects the Department
to move forward with this authority.
The Committee notes that carryover in the program, along
with HUD's proposed rule to raise label fees, will allow HUD to
continue its current activities. However, the Committee
recognizes that manufactured housing production has declined
substantially since peak industry production in 1998, and
continues to decline 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.
It is the Committee's understanding that HUD is defining
some recreational vehicles [RVs] as ``manufactured homes.'' RVs
play an important role in providing transportation and
temporary living quarters for travel, recreation and camping.
The RV industry supports more than 12,000 businesses with
combined annual revenues of more than $37,500,000,000. The
Committee is concerned that advances in RV technology may
require HUD to update its definition of what constitutes a
recreational vehicle. The Committee encourages HUD to review
its definition of what constitutes a recreational vehicle and
consider updating the definition through an open, transparent
and inclusive process. Manufactured housing plays an important
role in providing housing to low- and moderate-income families.
The Committee believes that any RV definition update should be
construed in such a way that it does not negatively impact the
manufactured housing industry.

Federal Housing Administration

mutual mortgage insurance program account

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation on Limitation on Administrative
direct loans guaranteed loans contract expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2014................................ $20,000,000 $400,000,000,000 $127,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015............................... 20,000,000 400,000,000,000 170,000,000
Committee recommendation............................ 20,000,000 400,000,000,000 145,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GENERAL AND SPECIAL RISK PROGRAM ACCOUNT

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation on Limitation on
direct loans guaranteed loans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2014............ $20,000,000 $30,000,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015........... 20,000,000 30,000,000,000
Committee recommendation........ 20,000,000 30,000,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

program description

The Federal Housing Administration [FHA] fund covers the
mortgage and loan insurance activity of HUD mortgage/loan
insurance programs. These include the mutual mortgage insurance
[MMI] fund, cooperative management housing insurance [CMHI]
fund, general insurance [GI] fund, and the special risk
insurance [SRI] fund. For presentation and accounting control
purposes, these are divided into two sets of accounts based on
shared characteristics. The unsubsidized insurance programs of
the mutual mortgage insurance fund and the cooperative
management housing insurance fund constitute one set; and the
general risk insurance and special risk insurance funds 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 $20,000,000, and $145,000,000 for administrative
contract expenses.
For the GI/SRI account, the Committee recommends
$30,000,000,000 as a limitation on guaranteed loans and a
limitation on direct loans of $20,000,000.
The bill also includes a rescission of $10,000,000
previously provided to support programs with positive credit
subsidies; those programs are no longer issuing new
commitments, so the funding is not needed.
Following the housing crisis, FHA's role in the housing
market expanded considerably, as it played the countercyclical
role for which it was designed. While FHA played a critical
role in ensuring a functioning housing finance market during
the crisis, its expanded role came with additional risk. As a
result of its increased role in the market, as well as poor
quality loans in its portfolio that were insured under laxer
requirements, FHA suffered significant losses. This ultimately
resulted in FHA seeking $1,700,000,000 from Treasury at the end
of fiscal year 2013 to cover expected losses--the first time
FHA needed to draw on taxpayer funding in its history.
Beginning in 2009, this administration implemented policies
to tighten lending standards and increase premiums. These
changes have improved the quality of its loans and increased
the solvency of the MMI Fund. As a result of the increased fees
and improvements in its loss mitigation strategies, the MMI
Fund is not expected to require any additional funding from
Treasury, and it is projected to reach the 2 percent capital
requirement in 2016, a year earlier than projected in the 2012
actuarial review. While the Committee is pleased that the
condition of the fund is improving, it expects HUD to remain
focused on the fund's financial health.
Administrative Fee.--The Committee has provided the
authority for HUD to charge a fee, as requested, to help offset
FHA's administrative costs, for which the Committee has
provided $145,000,000. The increased resources will allow HUD
to enhance its oversight and further mitigate risk to the MMI
Fund. Of the amount provided, the Committee has included
$8,000,000, as requested, for improvements to risk modeling and
analytics. In addition, funding is included to increase quality
control reviews, consistent with recommendations from HUD's
Office of Inspector General. Since the level recommended is
lower than the request, the Committee directs HUD to submit a
detailed plan for how it will allocate the funding provided
within 30 days of enactment of this act.
The Committee supports the goal of improving FHA's quality
control efforts and has included resources to do so; however,
it also recognizes that FHA needs to provide clear and
consistent guidance to lenders so that they can better assess
risk associated with the mortgages they originate. In May, HUD
issued a ``Blueprint for Access'', which includes several steps
intended to provide industry with additional clarity, as well
as target completion dates for each item. The Committee
stresses the importance of meeting the stated deadlines and
working with industry to ensure that its guidance and oversight
are fair and transparent.
HAWK.--The President's budget included a new initiative
called Homeowners Armed With Knowledge [HAWK]. The goal of the
program is to increase access to credit for borrowers,
especially first-time homeowners, who are currently locked out
of the market due to tight lending standards. By providing
incentives for homebuyers to obtain housing counseling, which
has a track record of reducing the risk of default, FHA expects
lenders will be more willing to make loans to these borrowers.
In May, HUD announced further details of the proposal and asked
for public comments on how the program and its incentives
should be structured. The Committee is hopeful that HAWK can
provide a way to responsibly expand homeownership
opportunities. While the Committee supports the initiative, a
separate appropriation is not included for it. Instead, HUD
should use existing resources to implement the program.
HECM.--During the fiscal year 2014 budget process, problems
with the design of the HECM program were cited as a significant
source of losses to the MMI Fund. In response to concerns about
the program's cost, Congress passed the Reverse Mortgage
Stabilization Act of 2013. With the authority provided in the
law, HUD has moved to improve the program by requiring
borrowers taking high draws to use those funds to pay off debt
obligations and requiring a financial assessment of all HECM
mortgagors before the loan closes. The Committee expects that
these changes will help ensure that the program remains
available for seniors, while reducing the risks associated with
it.
Eminent Domain.--The Committee is aware of several local
governments exploring the idea of partnering with private
investors and using eminent domain authority to take title to
certain mortgages--not the underlying real property--and pay
the mortgage holders ``fair market value.'' The Government and
investors would then write down the loan principal so that
distressed homeowners could lower their monthly payments and
begin to rebuild equity in their homes. With the principal
reduced the borrower would likely then be able to refinance
into an FHA loan, which could then be securitized by Government
National Mortgage Association. Although this concept is still
in its infancy and no jurisdiction has yet implemented such a
proposal, the Committee will continue to monitor developments
in this area, and expects FHA to keep the Committee informed of
any policies it will propose if such a program is implemented.
REO Properties.--The Committee directs the Department to
submit a report within 180 days of enactment of this act to the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on the costs and
timeframes involved when the Secretary takes title to real
property following a foreclosure. This report should identify
actions that the FHA is taking to reduce such costs or
timeframes, and how the availability of title insurance
coverage for satisfied liens which are not released in the
public record would affect those costs and timeframes.
Multifamily Housing.--The Committee notes that in April
2013, HUD began the Multifamily Housing Transformation
Initiative. In addition to modifying its field structure, the
initiative focuses on process improvements by expanding its
``Breaking Ground'' and ``Sustaining our Investments''
initiatives to all offices. These programs are designed to
streamline the application process and quantify portfolio risk,
which should improve efficiency and allow HUD to better target
its resources on risky assets. The Committee understands that
implementing significant staffing and process changes may
impact program delivery, as staff adjust to new roles and a new
way of doing their work. HUD must minimize any disruptions in
processing and oversight of loans by clearly communicating to
both staff and industry the changes that will occur and
adjustments that will be necessary as a result of them.

Government National Mortgage Association

GUARANTEES OF MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM ACCOUNT

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation on
personnel,
Limitation on compensation and
guaranteed loans administrative
expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2014............ $500,000,000,000 $19,500,000
Budget estimate, 2015........... 500,000,000,000 28,000,000
Committee recommendation........ 500,000,000,000 24,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation on new commitments on
mortgage-backed securities of $500,000,000,000. This level is
the same as the budget request and the fiscal year 2014 enacted
level. The bill allows Ginnie Mae to use $24,000,000 for
salaries and expenses. This is $4,500,000 more than the fiscal
year 2014 enacted level and $4,000,000 less than the
President's request.
Since the near collapse of the private mortgage market,
homeowners have relied on Federal programs, such as FHA, to
purchase or refinance homes. Given that Ginnie Mae serves as a
secondary market for FHA, its market share has also grown. For
Ginnie Mae, a more important barometer of its workload than
volume is the number of issuers participating in the program,
which has increased by 30 percent since 2008. While all new
issuers require scrutiny, even more staff time is required for
non-depository entities, such as private equity and hedge fund
participants, which are increasing in number. To respond to the
greater workload and risk associated with the growing number of
issuers, the Committee has increased funding for Ginnie Mae
salaries and expenses. The recommended level of funding will
support additional FTE in the Office of Issuer and Portfolio
Management and the Office of Enterprise Data and Technology.
These resources will increase Ginnie Mae's capacity to
effectively oversee its issuers, including the more complex
non-depository ones.

Policy Development and Research

RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

Appropriations, 2014.................................... $46,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................... 50,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 46,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Title V of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970,
as amended, directs the Secretary of the Department of Housing
and Urban Development to undertake programs of research,
evaluation, and reports relating to the Department's mission
and programs. These functions are carried out internally and
through grants and contracts with industry, nonprofit research
organizations, educational institutions, and through agreements
with State and local governments and other Federal agencies.
The research programs seek ways to improve the efficiency,
effectiveness, and equity of HUD programs and to identify
methods to achieve cost reductions. Additionally, this
appropriation is used to support HUD evaluation and monitoring
activities and to conduct housing surveys.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $46,000,000
for research, technology, and community development activities
in fiscal year 2015. This level is equal to the fiscal year
2014 enacted level and $4,000,000 less than the budget request.
The Committee recommendation will continue to support
market surveys, such as the American Housing Survey, that are
integral to HUD's ability to understand its own programs and
also help enhance public and private entities' knowledge of
housing conditions in the U.S.
The Committee also continues language that allows HUD to
enter into cooperative agreements, which allows the Office of
Policy Development and Research to partner with other Federal
agencies, researchers, or foundations on research that will
inform HUD's understanding of its programs and the people who
rely on them. This structure reduces duplicative research by
leveraging existing projects to meet the needs of different
stakeholders. The Committee encourages HUD to continue to
maximize this authority.

Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity

FAIR HOUSING ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2014\1\................................. $66,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................... 71,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 66,000,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.

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 $66,000,000
for the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity [OFHEO].
This amount is $5,000,000 less than the budget request and
equal to the 2014 enacted level. Of the amounts provided,
$23,300,000 is for FHAP; $1,800,000 is for the National Fair
Housing Training Academy; and $40,600,000 is for FHIP. The bill
also includes $300,000 for the creation, promotion, and
dissemination of translated materials that support the
assistance of persons with limited English proficiency.
The Committee supports the efforts of HUD and its local
partners to prevent and combat housing discrimination. It is
clear from HUD's fiscal year 2010 Annual Report on Fair Housing
that Americans continue to experience housing discrimination,
most often based on disability and race. The funding provided
through the FHAP and FHIP programs helps HUD and local agencies
investigate and work to resolve potential fair housing
violations.
Of the recommended amount, at least $29,775,000 is provided
to maintain the current level of private enforcement initiative
grants. The level of funding provided for FHAP is consistent
with the President's budget and reflects a reduction in
compliant processing due to fewer FHAP grantees, as well as the
elimination of funding for the Biennial Policy Conference.
Section 3 Compliance.--The Committee supports HUD's effort
to ensure that recipients of HUD funding are fulfilling their
obligations under section 3 of the 1968 Housing Act to provide
training, contract, and employment opportunities to low- and
moderate-income people living in the area. The Committee is
aware that some HUD grantees are finding it difficult to
quickly resolve compliance issues, despite the fact that the
core requirements of section 3 are being met. The Committee is
also concerned that OFHEO does not have clearly stated guidance
on all issues of noncompliance with section 3, and as a result,
how to resolve such findings. In resolving issues of
noncompliance with grantees, specifically grantees that meet
numeric goals requirements, the Committee expects the
Department to consider resolutions that will achieve the
national objective, and are consistent with section 3
objectives.
Housing for Individuals with Disabilities.--The Committee
is concerned about the lack of accessible housing options
available for individuals with physical disabilities. This
issue affects both low income individuals with disabilities who
want to live in the community with their peers rather than in
congregate housing, and middle class individuals with
disabilities who wish to either rent or purchase a home. The
Committee directs HUD to work with the United States Access
Board and interested disability advocates to consider
financial, regulatory, and legislative options to help ensure
that individuals with disabilities have a fair opportunity to
rent or own accessible housing in their communities. HUD, in
consultation with the Access Board, shall report to the House
and Senate Committee on Appropriations on recommended options
or areas for further study within 180 days of enactment of this
act.

Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes

Appropriations, 2014.................................... $110,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................... 120,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 110,000,000

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. The Healthy Homes
Program, authorized under sections 501 and 502 of the Housing
and Urban Development Act of 1970 (12 U.S.C. 1701z-1 and 1701z-
2), provides grants to remediate housing hazards that have been
scientifically shown to negatively impact occupant health and
safety.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $110,000,000
for lead-based paint hazard reduction and abatement activities
for fiscal year 2015, of which $15,000,000 is for the Healthy
Homes Initiative. Of this amount, the Committee recommends an
appropriation of $45,000,000 for 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. This amount is $10,000,000 less than the
President's budget request and equal to the amount available in
fiscal year 2014.

Information Technology Fund

Appropriations, 2014.................................... $250,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................... 272,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 250,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Information Technology Fund finances the information
technology [IT] systems that support departmental programs and
operations, including FHA Mortgage Insurance, housing
assistance and grant programs, as well as core financial and
general operations.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $250,000,000
for the Information Technology Fund for fiscal year 2015, which
is $22,000,000 less than the budget request and equal to the
fiscal year 2014 enacted level.
The Committee has been very supportive of HUD's efforts to
modernize its IT systems, which are critical to effectively
overseeing its programs. For years, HUD has been hampered by
outdated IT systems that aren't integrated, which limit its
ability to manage and oversee grantees. In addition, HUD's
efforts to work around system limitations to collect
information for oversight purposes often results in increased
work for grantees who have to input information into multiple
systems. The Committee recognizes HUD's effort to better
integrate systems, but there is still more work to be done, and
IT system integration should remain a top priority for the
Department.
The Committee recognizes that development of more
sophisticated systems may come with higher costs associated
with the additional capabilities HUD is getting. At the same
time, HUD must also achieve savings by eliminating legacy
systems and old servers. The Committee directs HUD to be more
diligent in identifying and achieving savings by retiring old
systems and shutting off redundant and inefficient servers. To
that end, the Committee directs HUD to submit a plan within 120
days of enactment of this act that identifies savings it will
achieve by retiring legacy systems and shutting off old
servers. This should include target dates for taking such
actions and expected savings from doing so. In addition, the
Committee urges HUD to continue to look for savings when it
renews contracts to reduce the ongoing costs of operating and
maintaining its IT systems.
The Committee is also concerned about the development of IT
systems outside of the Information Technology Fund. The
Committee understands that limited resources may prompt HUD
offices to develop solutions with their own resources. The
Committee expects that, at a minimum, OCIO will monitor and
oversee the development of any such solutions. Of particular
concern is the Real Estate Assessment Center, which
continuously develops new ``tools'' with limited, if any,
coordination with the OCIO. If systems continue to be developed
outside of the normal process, integration with larger systems
will likely be more difficult and costly in the future. The
Committee directs the OCIO to monitor the development of new
system solutions by every office in HUD to make sure they
conform to HUD's enterprise architecture, and will be
compatible with systems under development.
GAO Oversight.--Since 2010, the Committee has required HUD
to submit an expenditure plan outlining its IT modernization
projects before it could spend a portion of its IT funding. The
plans were reviewed by GAO to determine if they satisfied the
statutory requirements. Based on reports and briefings from GAO
over the past few years, the Committee recognizes the progress
HUD has made in its IT modernization planning efforts, and the
focus must now be on its implementation of the plans and
execution of the projects. Therefore, the Committee has
modified the contents of the plan HUD is required to submit to
the Committee and GAO to provide: (1) details regarding HUD's
portfolio of IT investments; and (2) the status of the
Department's efforts in applying IT management controls. This
plan may also include additional information regarding the
extent to which IT management controls have been applied to the
projects associated with each IT investment in the Department's
portfolio. The Committee emphasizes the importance of pursuing
a strategic approach as HUD continues to improve its IT
management. To this end, in order to monitor the Department's
progress, the Committee instructed GAO in 2012 to conduct
several reviews. In 2013, GAO completed a review of the
Department's IT project management practices. The Committee
reaffirms its direction to GAO to also evaluate HUD's
institutionalization of governance and cost estimating
practices. In particular, the Committee remains interested in
any cost savings or operational efficiencies that have resulted
(or may result) from the Department's improvement efforts.
CORE Financial Systems.--The Committee notes that following
challenges with HUD's Integrated Financial Management
Improvement Project [HIFMIP], HUD has undertaken an initiative
to enter into a shared services contract with the Bureau of
Public Debt's Administrative Resource Center for its financial
systems. The Committee is closely following this project
because it is focused on ensuring that HUD has a sound
financial system. The Committee expects HUD to provide the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations with quarterly
updates on this project. The Committee also urges HUD to
continue to consult with the OIG as this project moves forward.

Office of Inspector General

Appropriations, 2014.................................... $125,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................... 129,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 129,000,000

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 $129,000,000
for the Office of Inspector General [OIG]. The amount of
funding is $4,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2014 enacted
level and equal to the President's request.
The Committee notes that the congressional justification
lacked sufficient details around proposed increases, and
expects the fiscal year 2016 congressional justification to
clearly justify any proposed increases or decreases.
The Committee directs HUD's Office of Inspector General to
report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on
ways in which HUD could improve its oversight of public housing
authorities. This report should include: a summary of areas of
risk the OIG has encountered in previous reviews of PHAs; if
reforms the Department is implementing will address those areas
of risk; if the Department is appropriately targeting its
technical assistance funding; and the effectiveness of its
finance and governance training.
The Committee supports the OIG's efforts to improve its
information technology capacity, but the congressional
justification does not provide sufficient detail on how these
resources will be used and what additional capacity they will
provide to the OIG. Therefore, the Committee directs the OIG to
submit to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations,
within 30 days of enactment of this act, a spending plan
detailing its intended information technology acquisitions in
fiscal year 2015. The Committee further directs the OIG to
submit a report to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations within 90 days of enactment of this act
identifying the OIG's current information technology structure,
systems and baseline costs, as well as its information
technology strategy for fiscal year 2015 and future fiscal
years. The report should identify planned acquisition of
software and systems, associated costs, and the additional
capacity the systems will provide.

Transformation Initiative

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2014.................................... $40,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015\1\................................ 80,000,000
Committee recommendation\1\............................. 40,000,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\This amount is by transfer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Transformation Initiative is the Department's effort to
improve and streamline the systems and operations at HUD.
Managed by the Office of Strategic Planning and Management,
this initiative has three elements: (1) research, evaluation,
and program metrics; (2) program demonstrations; and (3)
technical assistance and capacity building. Funding to support
these activities is provided by transfer from other HUD
programs.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee includes up to $40,000,000 for the
Transformation Initiative [TI], which will be funded through
transfers of up to 0.5 percent from HUD programs, as requested.
The budget proposed $80,000,000 for this activity. In fiscal
year 2014, $40,000,000 was provided as a direct appropriation.
In fiscal year 2010, the administration launched TI to
improve the operations and capacity of HUD. TI funds research
and demonstrations to better equip HUD to address the Nation's
housing needs. In addition to improving HUD's own operations,
TI also includes funding to improve the capacity and
performance of its grantees through technical assistance [TA].
The Committee believes that the funding provided will help HUD
develop evidence-based policies and improve program outcomes.
Within the amount requested, at least $25,000,000 is for
technical assistance [TA] across HUD programs. Of the amount
for TA, at least $3,000,000 is to support training for public
housing agencies on finance and governance. At least $500,000
is also included for culturally appropriate technical
assistance to support implementation of the housing plus
services model on reservations in Indian areas as part of the
HUD-VASH pilot.
TI also includes funding for research and demonstrations to
help improve program understanding and service delivery. Of the
amount provided, the recommendation supports $2,000,000 to
continue the pre-purchase counseling demonstration; $650,000 to
continue the rent reform demonstration; and $1,000,000 to
continue the Small Area Market Rent Demonstration. In addition,
the Committee supports adding funding for the following new
projects: HUD-HHS data matching, accelerated post-disaster
community recovery; an evaluation of the HUD-VASH pilot on
Native American reservations; building technology research; and
outreach and technical assistance around new Violence Against
Women Act requirements. HUD can determine how to allocate the
remaining funding between TA and the other research and
demonstration projects it requested, and should include this
information in its operating plan.
The recommendation does not include funding for the Natural
Experiments Grant Program or Demonstration and Related Small
Grants.
Fulfilling New VAWA Requirements.--In March 2013, the
Violence Against Women Act of 2013 [VAWA] was enacted. Among
the important housing related provisions included in the law
are the expansion of core VAWA protections to additional
Federal housing programs and the requirement that Federal
housing assistance providers develop emergency transfer plans
for survivors of domestic violence. These plans will help
prepare housing providers to effectively assist tenants that
are facing safety threats and need to move quickly. The
Committee understands that HUD expects to issue a proposed rule
on how to meet this requirement this summer.
As a result of the circumstances facing those impacted by
domestic violence, it is important that housing providers have
an understanding of their particular needs so they can develop
appropriate policies and responses to their situations.
Coordination between service providers for survivors of
domestic violence and housing systems is essential to
developing sound policies and effectively meeting the housing
needs of those men and women trying to escape abusive
environments and for domestic violence survivors.
To help support HUD's work to ensure that housing providers
are fulfilling their responsibilities under VAWA, and to
improve coordination between domestic violence support and
housing systems, the Committee is providing $1,000,000 for
activities related to VAWA implementation. Funding is provided
to help identify and evaluate effective emergency transfer
plans, in order to develop and disseminate best practices to
providers. Funding is also available to facilitate coordination
between housing and domestic violence service providers and
systems. In addition, resources are available to educate
housing providers on how to assist those impacted by domestic
violence. The Committee directs HUD to work with the Department
of Justice's Office of Violence Against Women, as well as the
Department of Health and Human Service's Administration for
Children and Families to improve Federal coordination. HUD
should also coordinate with these Federal partners on the
formulation of best practices and education of housing
providers.
Accelerated Post-Disaster Community Recovery.--The
Community Development Block Grant is an important resource for
communities trying to rebuild after disasters. While the
Committee recognizes the benefit of CDBG in disaster recovery,
it is also aware that many communities experience delays in
deploying the funding they receive because they must develop
new programs, or significantly increase the scale of existing
ones, to meet disaster related needs. In addition to designing
programs, communities must also put systems in place to ensure
funding is appropriately used and does not duplicate other
Federal programs.
Since Hurricane Katrina, HUD has learned a great deal about
how to successfully address needs arising from disasters,
including programs that communities commonly use to facilitate
long-term recovery, as well as how to effectively partner with
other Federal agencies. HUD can use its experience to not only
help communities think about programs that are well-suited to
their recovery needs, but also how to set up these programs
more quickly.
The Committee is including $2,000,000 for HUD to do a
demonstration on accelerated post-disaster community recovery.
Under the demonstration, HUD will do research into best
practices based on the experience of previous CDBG disaster
grant recipients. Based on this research, it will develop model
programs and forms for communities to use in establishing their
own programs. The demonstration should also include the
development of IT infrastructure that would allow for data
sharing across HUD programs and with other agencies. To
maximize the effectiveness of the demonstration, the Committee
directs HUD to work with those Federal agencies that are often
involved in disaster recovery, such as the Federal Emergency
Management Agency and Small Business Administration. The
Committee expects that with a menu of programs ready to
implement, communities will be better equipped for disaster
recovery and able to provide relief to those impacted by
disasters more quickly.

General Provisions--Department of Housing and Urban Development

The Committee recommends administrative provisions. A brief
description follows.
Sec. 201. This section promotes the refinancing of certain
housing bonds.
Sec. 202. This section clarifies a limitation on the use of
funds under the Fair Housing Act.
Sec. 203. This section extends sections 203 and 209 of the
Fiscal Year 2012 Appropriations Act that clarifies the
allocation of HOPWA funding for fiscal year 2006 and beyond.
Sec. 204. This section requires HUD to award funds on a
competitive basis unless otherwise provided.
Sec. 205. This section allows funds to be used to reimburse
GSEs and other Federal entities for various administrative
expenses.
Sec. 206. This section limits HUD spending to amounts set
out in the budget justification.
Sec. 207. This section clarifies expenditure authority for
entities subject to the Government Corporation Control Act.
Sec. 208. This section requires quarterly reports on all
uncommitted, unobligated and excess funds associated with HUD
programs.
Sec. 209. This section requires HUD to submit the
congressional justification in the same account and subaccount
structure.
Sec. 210. 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 2015.
Instead, the public housing agencies in these States are
required to establish advisory boards that include public
housing tenants and section 8 recipients.
Sec. 211. This section exempts GNMA from certain
requirements of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990.
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 reforms certain section 8 rent
calculations as related to athletic scholarships.
Sec. 214. This section provides allocation requirements for
Native Alaskans under the Native American Indian Housing Block
Grant program.
Sec. 215. This section eliminates a cap on Home Equity
Conversion Mortgages for fiscal year 2015.
Sec. 216. This section requires HUD to maintain section 8
assistance on HUD-held or owned multifamily housing.
Sec. 217. This section clarifies the use of the 108 loan
guaranteed program for nonentitlement communities.
Sec. 218. This section allows public housing authorities
with less than 400 units to be exempt from management
requirements in the operating fund rule.
Sec. 219. 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. 220. This section requires allotment holders to meet
certain criteria of the CFO.
Sec. 221. This section requires the Secretary to report
annually on the status of all project-based section 8 housing.
Sec. 222. The section modifies the NOFA process to include
the Internet.
Sec. 223. This section limits attorney fees.
Sec. 224. This section establishes reprogramming and
reallocation requirements within HUD's salaries and expenses
accounts.
Sec. 225. This section allows the Disaster Housing
Assistance Programs to be considered HUD programs for the
purpose of income verification and matching.
Sec. 226. This section requires HUD to take certain actions
against owners receiving rental subsidies that do not maintain
safe properties.
Sec. 227. This section places limits on PHA compensation.
Sec. 228. This section extends the HOPE VI program until
September 30, 2015.
Sec. 229. This section allows the Secretary to transfer
funding from salaries and expenses accounts to the
``Information Technology Fund'' to support technology
improvements.
Sec. 230. This section prohibits funds from being used for
the doctoral dissertation research grant program.
Sec. 231. This section modifies the Rental Assistance
Demonstration included in the fiscal year 2012 bill.
Sec. 232. This section requires the Secretary to provide
the Committee with advance notification before discretionary
awards are made.
Sec. 233. This section extends section 579 of the
Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of
1997 through October 1, 2018.
Sec. 234. This section allows PHAs to establish replacement
reserves to address capital needs.
Sec. 235. This section increases the flexibility of public
housing authorities to transfer funds between their capital and
operating funds.
Sec. 236. This section makes changes to the HOME Investment
Partnerships program.
Sec. 237. This section allows the Secretary to conduct a
demonstration to test a performance-based model program that
facilitates financing of energy and water conservation
improvements in assisted multifamily housing to reduce utility
costs.
Sec. 238. This section makes modifications to SHOP to
reflect current uses of the funding and limit the amount that
can be used for administrative expenses.
Sec. 239. This section requires lenders that provide loans
under the Native American Loan program to consider loan
modifications and meet standards for servicing loans in default
before the payment of a claim by HUD.
Sec. 240. This section permits HUD to charge a fee on FHA
mortgages to be used to cover administrative costs.
Sec. 241. This section permits HUD to publish Fair Market
Rents online.
Sec. 242. This section rescinds balances from various HUD
programs that are no longer funded.
Sec. 243. This section clarifies that the HAWK program
shall be funded within amounts appropriated.
Sec. 244. This section allows for multi-year housing
counseling grants, subject to appropriations.
Sec. 245. This section amends section 526 of the National
Housing Act to permits exceptions for alternative water systems
that meet requirements of State and local building codes that
ensure health and safety standards.
Sec. 246. This section allows the Secretary to make
assistance available from the CDBG Sanctions Fund to States for
use by a non-entitlement area that had a major disaster
declared in 2014.

TITLE III

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Access Board

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2014.................................... $7,448,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................... 7,548,000
Committee recommendation................................ 7,548,000

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,
ensuring accessibility to a wide range of Federal agencies,
including national parks, post offices, social security
offices, and prisons. In addition, the Board provides training
and technical assistance on the guidelines and standards it
develops to Government agencies, public and private
organizations, individuals and businesses on the removal of
accessibility barriers.
In 2002, the Access Board was given additional
responsibilities under the Help America Vote Act. The Board
serves on the Board of Advisors and the Technical Guidelines
Development Committee, which helps the Election Assistance
Commission develop voluntary guidelines and guidance for voting
systems, including accessibility for people with disabilities.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $7,548,000 for the operations of
the Access Board. This level of funding is $100,000 more than
the 2014 enacted level and equal to the President's fiscal year
2015 request.

Federal Maritime Commission

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2014.................................... $24,669,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................... 25,660,000
Committee recommendation................................ 25,660,000

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 of 1920 (41 Stat. 998); the Foreign Shipping
Practices Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-418); and Public Law 89-
777.
FMC's mission is to foster a fair, efficient, and reliable
international ocean transportation system and to protect the
public from unfair and deceptive practices. To accomplish this
mission, FMC regulates the international waterborne commerce of
the United States. In addition, FMC has responsibility for
licensing and bonding ocean transportation intermediaries and
assuring that vessel owners or operators establish financial
responsibility to pay judgments for death or injury to
passengers, or nonperformance of a cruise, on voyages from U.S.
ports.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $25,660,000 for the salaries and
expenses of the FMC for fiscal year 2015. This amount is equal
to the President's fiscal year 2015 budget request and $991,000
more than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. The request for
additional funding and collection of user fees up to $300,000
for necessary and authorized agency expenses to support an
additional four full-time equivalent employees and to invest in
mission-critical technologies is approved. Any user fees
collected should be directed towards updating outdated
information technology infrastructure, specifically hardware
and software needs.
The Committee commends FMC's efforts to promote access to
foreign markets for American exports and efficient supply
chains for the importation of goods for domestic production and
consumption, pursuits that support economic growth and job
creation. The Committee also supports FMC's continued efforts
to protect consumers from potentially unlawful, unfair, or
deceptive ocean transportation practices related to the
movement of household goods or personal property in
international oceanborne trade.

National Railroad Passenger Corporation

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2014.................................... $23,449,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................... 24,449,000
Committee recommendation................................ 23,449,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $23,449,000 for the Amtrak Office
of Inspector General [OIG]. This funding level is $1,000,000
less than the budget request and equal to the fiscal year 2014
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
implement an appropriate separation of duties, financial
systems and hiring practices since fiscal year 2010. At that
time, the Committee raised concerns with the lack of a fully
independent and effective Amtrak OIG. The Committee changed the
way the agency was funded to a direct appropriation. The
Committee also required the Council of Inspectors General on
Integrity and Efficiency [CIGIE] to review the OIG's policies
and practices that were developed to achieve operational
independence from Amtrak. The 2011 CIGIE study made 41
recommendations to improve management, communications,
investigative practices and operations. A subsequent fiscal
year 2013 CIGIE peer review determined that the system of audit
quality controls conformed to applicable professional standards
and made no further recommendations. CIGIE also concluded that
the OIG's system of internal safeguards and management
procedures for investigations met CIGIE quality standards and
Attorneys General Guidelines. Therefore, the OIG is no longer
required to report semi-annually on its progress in addressing
CIGIE recommendations since they have all been fully satisfied
and implemented.

National Transportation Safety Board

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2014.................................... $103,027,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................... 103,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 103,981,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $103,981,000 for the National
Transportation Safety Board, which is $981,000 more than the
budget request and $954,000 more than the fiscal year 2014
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.
These additional resources are necessary to protect the
NTSB's workforce. Under the administration's budget request,
the NTSB would lose a total of five FTE--one from its railroad,
pipeline and hazardous materials investigations office; one
from its research and engineering office, and three from its
aviation safety office. NTSB, however, must maintain a highly
skilled workforce to investigate accidents, determine their
probable causes, and extract important lessons so that future
accidents may be prevented. No other agency or organization in
the United States does the work of the NTSB, acting as an
honest broker and offering unbiased analysis and safety
recommendations.

Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation

PAYMENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT CORPORATION

Appropriations, 2014.................................... $204,100,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................... 182,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 186,600,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $186,600,000
for NeighborWorks for fiscal year 2015. This amount is
$4,600,000 more than the budget request and $17,500,000 less
than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. The Committee has
included $136,600,000 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 NeighborWorks to provide a status report on
this initiative in its fiscal year 2016 budget justification.
Housing Counseling Assistance.--The Committee has included
$50,000,000, as requested, to continue the National Foreclosure
Mitigation Counseling Program [NFMC] initiated by Congress in
fiscal year 2008. NFMC is not a permanent program, and the
reduced funding level reflects improvements in the housing
market. According to Black Knight Mortgage Monitor's report on
the mortgage market from March 2014, delinquencies are at the
lowest level since 2007 and foreclosures are at the lowest
level since 2008. While the overall market is improving,
certain markets are still experiencing high rates of
foreclosure and delinquency, justifying continued funding of
this program. Since NFMC funds are allocated based on loan
performance data, the fiscal year 2015 awards should be
targeted to areas that continue to face high levels of
foreclosure.
Mortgage Rescue Scams.--Since 2009, NeighborWorks 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. NeighborWorks is working with other partners, such as
the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission to stop
rescue scams. The Committee expects NeighborWorks to continue
working with its partners to address this important issue.
Rural Areas.--The Committee continues to support
Neighborworks' efforts to build capacity in rural areas. The
Committee urges the Corporation to continue these efforts.

United States Interagency Council on Homelessness

OPERATING EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2014.................................... $3,500,000
Budget estimate, 2015................................... 3,530,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,530,000

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, including
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 $3,530,000 for
the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness [USICH].
This amount is equal to the budget request and $30,000 more
than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level.
USICH supports Federal collaboration and implementation of
the Federal strategic plan to prevent and end homelessness. The
Council's work on such issues as establishing common
definitions of homelessness across programs and consolidating
Federal data is helping to breakdown silos and increase Federal
collaboration. Its work was recognized by GAO in its February
2012 report on ways to reduce duplication, overlap, and
fragmentation in the Federal Government. The Committee
recommendation extends USICH's authorization so it can continue
its important work.
The Committee is aware that individuals who are homeless or
in unstable housing situations are often living with multiple
chronic conditions. The link between homelessness and long-term
physical and behavioral health conditions is well documented.
The Committee has recognized the cost-savings that can be
achieved by using evidence-based practices, and has been
supportive of such efforts, including through the HUD-VASH
program and other permanent supportive housing through HUD's
homeless assistance grants program. However, the Committee
believes that more can be done to emphasize evidence-based
practices in serving other populations. The Committee directs
the USICH to continue to work to improve coordination between
HUD, HHS and other Federal agencies, and to help communities
use the Homeless Management Information System and other data
to target affordable housing and homeless resources to high-
need, high-cost families and individuals. The Committee further
encourages HUD to work with HHS and other Federal agencies to
identify homeless individuals who have high utilization rates
for emergency and other public services, and share strategies
for combining affordable housing with health and social support
services to improve both housing and health outcomes for these
individuals.
Homeless Youth.--One of the goals of the Federal Strategic
Plan is to prevent and end homelessness among youth by 2020.
The plan identifies four core targeted outcomes for youth
experiencing homelessness--stable housing, permanent
connections, education and employment, and social/emotional
well-being. These outcomes appropriately identify the multiple
needs of youth experiencing homelessness and underscore the
importance of comprehensive solutions. To be successful, it
will be critical to coordinate Federal services and programs
and ensure that they are focused on these outcomes.
The Committee notes that USICH has a working group on
ending youth homelessness and has made improving data on youth
homelessness and building capacity for service delivery
priorities. The Committee supports these efforts and urges
USICH to continue to facilitate data coordination and ensure
the homeless services are youth appropriate.
The Committee also directs USICH to undertake a review of
Federal programs that can help prevent and end youth
homelessness. This review should identify barriers to effective
coordination, as well as ways to ensure that Federal programs
serving homeless youth are designed to achieve the outcomes
identified in the Federal strategic plan. The Committee
requests that USICH deliver this report to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations within 120 days of enactment of
this act.

TITLE IV

GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS ACT

Section 401 prohibits pay and other expenses for non-
Federal parties in regulatory or adjudicatory proceedings
funded in this act.
Section 402 prohibits obligations beyond the current fiscal
year and prohibits transfers of funds unless expressly so
provided herein.
Section 403 limits expenditures for consulting service
through procurement contracts where such expenditures are a
matter of public record and available for public inspection.
Section 404 prohibits the use of funds for employee
training unless such training bears directly upon the
performance of official duties.
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 prohibits the use of funds for eminent domain
unless such taking is employed for public use.
Section 408 requires departments and agencies under this
act to report information regarding all sole-source contracts.
Section 409 prohibits funds in this act to be transferred
without express authority.
Section 410 protects employment rights of Federal employees
who return to their civilian jobs after assignment with the
Armed Forces.
Section 411 prohibits the use of funds for activities not
in compliance with the Buy American Act.
Section 412 prohibits funding for any person or entity
convicted of violating the Buy American Act.
Section 413 prohibits funds for first-class airline
accommodation in contravention of section 301-10.122 and 301-
10.123 of title 41 CFR.
Section 414 prohibits providing funds in this act or any
prior act to the group ACORN or any of its affiliates,
subsidiaries, or allied organizations.
Section 415 restricts funds in this act from being used to
enter into contracts with corporations that have recently been
convicted of a felony criminal violation.
Section 416 restricts funds in this act from being used to
enter into contracts with corporations that have outstanding
unpaid Federal tax liabilities for which all judicial or
administrative remedies have been exhausted.
Section 417 is a sense of Congress that Congress should not
authorize spending cuts that would increase domestic poverty.
Section 418 requires all agencies and departments funded in
this act to report their vehicle fleet inventory and associated
costs to Congress at the end of fiscal year 2015.
Section 419 prohibits the use of any funds provided in this
act for the painting of portraits of officers or employees of
the Federal Government, including heads of Executive branch
agencies, the military, independent agencies, and wholly owned
Government corporations.
Section 420 requires agencies funded in this act to report
to their inspector general on the costs and other details of
conferences held during fiscal year 2015.
Section 421 restricts the number of employees agencies
funded in this act may send to international conferences.
Section 422 requires reports submitted by agencies funded
in this act to be posted on the public agency Web site 30 days
after its receipt by the Committee.
Section 423 requires a detailed, annual report on any
advertising expenditure made by any agency funded in this act.
Section 424 prohibits using funds provided in this act to
award bonuses to contractors on certain projects.
Section 425 prohibits funds provided in this act from being
used for premium travel by an agency that has not reported to
GSA on premium travel during fiscal year 2014.
Section 426 requires a report detailing efforts to address
duplication identified by GAO's annual report on duplication.
Section 427 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 428 requires agencies and departments funded in
this act to respond to GAO recommendations in a timely manner.

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 2015:

Title I--Department of Transportation

National Infrastructure Investments
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Federal Transit Administration
National Railroad Passenger Corporation

Title II--Department of Housing and Urban Development

Rental Assistance:
Rental Assistance Demonstration
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 Grant
Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant
Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund
Native Hawaiian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund
Housing Opportunities for Persons with Aids
Community Development Fund:
Community Development Block Grants
Integrated Planning and Investment Grants
HOME Program:
HOME Investment Partnership
Self Help and Assisted Homeownership Opportunity:
Capacity Building
Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program
National Housing Development Corporation
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
Healthy Homes Program
Salaries and Expenses

Title III--Related Agencies

National Transportation Safety Board
Amtrak Office of Inspector General

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

Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on June 5, 2014,
the Committee ordered favorably reported an original bill
making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation,
and Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2015, and for other purposes,
provided, that the bill be subject to amendment and that the
bill be consistent with the subcommittee allocation, by a
recorded vote of 29-1, a quorum being present. The vote was as
follows:
Yeas Nays
Chairwoman Mikulski Mr. Johanns
Mr. Leahy
Mr. Harkin
Mrs. Murray
Mrs. Feinstein
Mr. Durbin
Mr. Johnson
Ms. Landrieu
Mr. Reed
Mr. Pryor
Mr. Tester
Mr. Udall
Mrs. Shaheen
Mr. Merkley
Mr. Begich
Mr. Coons
Mr. Shelby
Mr. Cochran
Mr. McConnell
Mr. Alexander
Ms. Collins
Ms. Murkowski
Mr. Graham
Mr. Kirk
Mr. Coats
Mr. Blunt
Mr. Moran
Mr. Hoeven
Mr. Boozman

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

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

TITLE 12--BANKS AND BANKING

Chapter 13--National Housing

Subchapter II--Mortgage Insurance

Sec. 1701x. Assistance with respect to housing for low- and moderate-
income families

(a) Authorization to provide information, advice, and technical
assistance; scope of assistance; authorization of
appropriations

* * * * * * *

(i) Accountability for recipients of covered assistance

(1) Tracking of funds

* * * * * * *

(3) Covered assistance

For purposes of this subsection, the term ``covered
assistance'' means any grant or other financial
assistance provided under this section.
(j) Financial assistance.--For purposes of this section,
the Secretary may enter into multiyear agreements as is
appropriate, subject to the availability of annual
appropriations.

* * * * * * *

Sec. 1708. Federal Housing Administration operations

(a) Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund

* * * * * * *

(h) Use of name

The Secretary shall, by regulation, require each mortgagee
approved by the Secretary for participation in the FHA mortgage
insurance programs of the Secretary--
(1) to use the business name of the mortgagee that
is registered with the Secretary in connection with
such approval in all advertisements and promotional
materials, as such terms are defined by the Secretary,
relating to the business of such mortgagee in such
mortgage insurance programs; and
(2) to maintain copies of all such advertisements
and promotional materials, in such form and for such
period as the Secretary requires.
(i) Administration.--Notwithstanding any provision of law,
and in addition to any other fees charged in connection with
the provision of insurance under this title, in each fiscal
year the Secretary may charge and collect a fee not to exceed 4
basis points of the original principal balance of mortgages
originated by the mortgagee that were insured under this title
during the previous fiscal year. Such fee collected from each
mortgagee shall be used as offsetting collections for part of
the administrative contract expenses funding and any necessary
salaries and expenses funding provided under the Mutual
Mortgage Insurance Program Account under this title. The
Secretary may establish the amount of such fee through
regulations, notice, Mortgagee Letter, or other administrative
issuance.

* * * * * * *

Sec. 1715z-13a. Loan guarantees for Indian housing

(a) Authority

* * * * * * *

(h) Payment under guarantee

(1) Lender options

(A) In general

* * * * * * *

(B) Requirements

Before any payment under a guarantee is
made under subparagraph (A), the holder of the
guarantee shall exhaust all reasonable
possibilities of collection. Exhausting all
reasonable possibilities of collection by the
holder of the guarantee shall include a good
faith consideration of loan modification as
well as meeting standards for servicing loans
in default, as determined by the Secretary.
Upon payment, in whole or in part, to the
holder, the note or judgment evidencing the
debt shall be assigned to the United States and
the holder shall have no further claim against
the borrower or the United States. The
Secretary shall then take such action to
collect as the Secretary determines
appropriate.

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER V--MISCELLANEOUS

Sec. 1735f-4. Minimum property standards

(a) * * *
(b) The Secretary may require that each property, other
than a manufactured home, subject to a mortgage insured under
this chapter shall, with respect to health and safety, comply
with one of the nationally recognized model building codes, or
with a State or local building code based on one of the
nationally recognized model building codes or their equivalent.
The Secretary shall be responsible for determining the
comparability of the State and local codes to such model codes
and for selecting for compliance purposes an appropriate
nationally recognized model building code where no such model
code has been duly adopted or where the Secretary determines
the adopted code is not comparable.
(c) The Secretary may establish an exception to any minimum
property standard established under this section in order to
address alternative water systems, including cisterns, which
meet requirements of State and local building codes that ensure
health and safety standards.
------

TITLE 42--THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE

Chapter 8--Low-Income Housing

Subchapter I--General Program of Assisted Housing

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) Publication of fair market rentals.--Not less than
annually:
(i) The Secretary shall publish a notice in the
Federal Register that proposed fair market rentals for
an area have been published on the site of the
Department on the Internet and in any other manner
specified by the Secretary. Such notice shall describe
proposed material changes in the methodology for
estimating fair market rentals and shall provide
reasonable time for public comment.
(ii) The Secretary shall publish a notice in the
Federal Register that final fair market rentals have
been published on the site of the Department on the
internet and in any other manner specified by the
Secretary. Such notice shall include the final
decisions regarding proposed substantial methodological
changes for estimating fair market rentals and
responses to public comments.

* * * * * * *

``[SECS. 571 to 578. Repealed. Pub. L. 105-65, title V,
Sec. 579(a)(2), as added by Pub. L. 107-116, title VI,
Sec. 621(1), Jan. 10, 2002, 115 Stat. 2226.]
``SEC. 579. TERMINATION.
``(a) Repeals.--
``(1) Mark-to-market program.--Subtitle A (except
for section 524) is repealed effective [October 1,
2015] October 1, 2018.
``(2) OMHAR.--Subtitle D (except for this section)
is repealed effective October 1, 2004.
``(b) Exception.--Notwithstanding the repeal under
subsection (a), the provisions of subtitle A (as in effect
immediately before such repeal) shall apply with respect to
projects and programs for which binding commitments have been
entered into under this Act before [October 1, 2015] October 1,
2018.

* * * * * * *

Sec. 1437g. Public housing Capital and Operating Funds

(a) Merger into Capital Fund

* * * * * * *

(g) Limitations on use of funds

(1)(A) Flexibility for Capital Fund amounts

Of any amounts appropriated for fiscal year 2000 or
any fiscal year thereafter that are allocated for
fiscal year 2000 or any fiscal year thereafter from the
Capital Fund for any public housing agency, the agency
may use not more than 20 percent for activities that
are eligible under subsection (e) of this section for
assistance with amounts from the Operating Fund, but
only if the public housing agency plan for the agency
provides for such use; and
(B) Flexibility for operating fund amounts.--Of any
amounts appropriated for fiscal year 2015 or any fiscal
year thereafter that are allocated for fiscal year 2015
or any fiscal year thereafter from the Operating Fund
for any public housing agency, the agency may use not
more than 20 percent for activities that are eligible
under subsection (d) for assistance with amounts from
the Capital Fund, but only if the public housing plan
for the agency provides for such use.

* * * * * * *

(j) Penalty for slow expenditure of capital funds

(1) Obligation of amounts

* * * * * * *

(6) Right of recapture

Any obligation entered into by a public housing
agency shall be subject to the right of the Secretary
to recapture the obligated amounts for violation by the
public housing agency of the requirements of this
subsection.
(7) Treatment of replacement reserve.--The
requirements of this subsection shall not apply to
funds held in replacement reserves established in
subsection (9)(n).

* * * * * * *

(m) Treatment of public housing
(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(4) Effective date
This subsection shall apply to fiscal year 1999 and
each fiscal year thereafter.
(n) Establishment of Replacement Reserves.--
(1) In general.--Public Housing authorities shall
be permitted to establish a Replacement Reserve to fund
any of the capital activities listed in subparagraph
(d)(1).
(2) Source and amount of funds for replacement
reserve.--At any time, a public housing authority may
deposit funds from that agency's Capital Fund into a
Replacement Reserve subject to the following:
(A) At the discretion of the Secretary,
PHAs may be allowed to transfer and hold in a
Replacement Reserve, funds originating from
additional sources.
(B) No minimum transfer of funds to a
Replacement Reserve shall be required.
(C) At any time, a public housing authority
may not hold in a Replacement Reserve more than
the amount the public housing authority has
determined necessary to satisfy the anticipated
capital needs of properties in its portfolio
assisted under 42 U.S.C. 1437g as outlined in
its Capital Fund 5 Year Action Plan, or a
comparable plan, as determined by the
Secretary.
(D) The Secretary may establish by
regulation a maximum replacement reserve level
or levels that are below amounts determined
under subparagraph (C), which may be based upon
the size of the portfolio assisted under 42
U.S.C. 1437g or other factors.
(3) In first establishing a replacement reserve,
the Secretary may allow public housing agencies to
transfer more than 20 percent of its operating funds
into its replacement reserve.
(4) Expenditure.--Funds in a Replacement Reserve
may be used for purposes authorized by subparagraph
(d)(1) and contained in its Capital Fund 5 Year Action
Plan.
(5) Management and report.--The Secretary shall
establish appropriate accounting and reporting
requirements to ensure that public housing agencies are
spending funding on eligible projects and that funding
in the reserve is connected to capital needs.

* * * * * * *

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

(a) Purposes

* * * * * * *

(m) Funding

(1) Authorization of appropriations

There are authorized to be appropriated for grants
under this section $574,000,000 for [fiscal year 2014.]
fiscal year 2015.

* * * * * * *

(o) Sunset

No assistance may be provided under this section after
[September 30, 2014.] September 30, 2015.

* * * * * * *

Chapter 69--Community Development

Sec. 5308. Guarantee and commitment to guarantee loans for acquisition
of property

(a) Authority of Secretary; issuance of obligations by eligible
public entities or designated public agencies;
form, denomination, maturity, and conditions of
notes or other obligations; percentage allocation
requirements

The Secretary is authorized, upon such terms and conditions
as the Secretary may prescribe, to guarantee and make
commitments to guarantee, only to such extent or in such
amounts as provided in appropriation Acts, the notes or other
obligations issued by eligible public entities, States on
behalf of non-entitlement communities, or by public agencies
designated by such eligible public entities, for the purposes
of financing (1) acquisition of real property or the
rehabilitation of real property owned by the eligible public
entity (including such related expenses as the Secretary may
permit by regulation); (2) housing rehabilitation; (3) economic
development activities permitted under paragraphs (14), (15),
and (17) of section 5305(a) of this title; (4) construction of
housing by nonprofit organizations for homeownership under
section 1437o(d)\1\ of this title or title VI of the Housing
and Community Development Act of 1987; (5) the acquisition,
construction, reconstruction, or installation of public
facilities (except for buildings for the general conduct of
government); or (6) in the case of colonias (as such term is
defined in section 916 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National
Affordable Housing Act), public works and site or other
improvements. A guarantee under this section may be used to
assist a grantee in obtaining financing only if the grantee has
made efforts to obtain such financing without the use of such
guarantee and cannot complete such financing consistent with
the timely execution of the program plans without such
guarantee. Notes or other obligations guaranteed pursuant to
this section shall be in such form and denominations, have such
maturities, and be subject to such conditions as may be
prescribed by regulations issued by the Secretary. The
Secretary may not deny a guarantee under this section on the
basis of the proposed repayment period for the note or other
obligation, unless the period is more than 20 years or the
Secretary determines that the period causes the guarantee to
constitute an unacceptable financial risk. Notwithstanding any
other provision of law and subject only to the absence of
qualified applicants or proposed activities and to the
authority provided in this section, to the extent approved or
provided in appropriation Acts, the Secretary shall enter into
commitments to guarantee notes and obligations under this
section with an aggregate principal amount of $2,000,000,000
for fiscal year 1993 and $2,000,000,000 for fiscal year 1994.
Of the amount approved in any appropriation Act for guarantees
under this section in any fiscal year, the Secretary shall
allocate 70 percent for guarantees for metropolitan cities,
urban counties, and Indian tribes and 30 percent for guarantees
for units of general local government in nonentitlement areas.
The Secretary may waive the percentage requirements of the
preceding sentence in any fiscal year only to the extent that
there is an absence of qualified applicants or proposed
activities from metropolitan cities, urban counties, and Indian
tribes or units of general local government in nonentitlement
areas.

* * * * * * *

[(k) Outstanding obligations; limitation; monitoring use of
guarantees under this section

[(1) The total amount of outstanding obligations guaranteed
on a cumulative basis by the Secretary pursuant to subsection
(a) of this section shall not at any time exceed $4,500,000,000
or such higher amount as may be authorized to be appropriated
for sections 5306 and 5307 of this title for any fiscal year.
[(2) The Secretary shall monitor the use of guarantees
under this section by eligible public entities. If the
Secretary finds that 50 percent of the aggregate guarantee
authority has been committed, the Secretary may--
[(A) impose limitations on the amount of guarantees
any one entity may receive in any fiscal year of
$35,000,000 for units of general local government
receiving grants under section 5306(b) of this title
and $7,000,000 for units of general local government
receiving grants under section 5306(d) of this title;
or
[(B) request the enactment of legislation
increasing the aggregate limitation on guarantees under
this section.]
(k) The Secretary shall monitor the use by eligible public
entities and States of commitment amounts authorized in
appropriation Acts for any fiscal year. If the Secretary finds
that 50 percent of the annual commitment amount has been
committed, the Secretary may impose a limitation on the amount
of guarantees any one entity may receive in any fiscal year of
$35,000,000 for units of general local government receiving
grants under section 106(b) or States receiving grants under
section 106(d) and $7,000,000 for units of general local
government receiving grants under section 106(d); or request
the enactment of legislation increasing the annual commitment
authority for guarantees under this section.

* * * * * * *

[(m) Limitation on imposition of fee or charge

No fee or charge may be imposed by the Secretary or any
other Federal agency on or with respect to a guarantee made by
the Secretary under this section after February 5, 1988.]
(m) Distribution of Funds to Local Governments in Non-
entitlement Areas.--Any State receiving a guarantee or
commitment on behalf of non-entitlement areas shall distribute
all funds that are subject to such guarantee to the units of
general local government in non-entitlement areas that received
the commitment.

* * * * * * *

Chapter 119--Homeless Assistance

Subchapter II--United States Interagency Council on Homelessness

Sec. 11314. Director and staff

(a) Director

The Council shall appoint an Executive Director, who shall
be compensated at a rate not to exceed the rate of basic pay
payable for [level V] level IV of the Executive Schedule under
section 5316 of title 5. The Council shall appoint an Executive
Director at the first meeting of the Council held under section
11312(c) of this title.

* * * * * * *

[Sec. 11319. Termination

The Council shall cease to exist, and the requirements of
this subchapter shall terminate, on October 1, 2016\1\]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\So in original. Probably should be followed by a period.

* * * * * * *

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chapter 130--National Affordable Housing

Subchapter I--General Provisions and Policies

Sec. 12704. Definitions

As used in this subchapter and in subchapter II of this
chapter:
(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(6) The term ``community housing development
organization'' means a nonprofit organization as
defined in paragraph (5), that--
(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

(D) has a history of serving the local
community or communities within which housing
to be assisted under this Act is to be located.
In the case of an organization funded by the State under
title II of this Act, the organization may serve all counties
within the State.

* * * * * * *

Subchapter II--Investment In Affordable Housing

Sec. 12755. Tenant and participant protections

(a) Lease

* * * * * * *

(b) Termination of tenancy

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

* * * * * * *

Sec. 12805. Sweat equity model program

Assistance for Self-Help Housing Providers

Pub. L. 104-120, Sec. 11, Mar. 28, 1996, 110 Stat. 841, as amended
by Pub. L. 105-276, title V, Sec. 599E(a), Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat.
2663; Pub. L. 106-569, title II, Sec. 202, Dec. 27, 2000, 114 Stat.
2951; Pub. L. 108-285, Sec. 2, Aug. 2, 2004, 118 Stat. 917, provided
that:
``(a) Grant Authority.--* * *
``(b) Goals and Accountability.* * *
``(1) assistance provided under this section is
used to facilitate and encourage innovative
homeownership opportunities through the provision of
self-help housing, under which the homeowner
contributes a significant amount of sweat equity toward
the construction of the new dwellings or the
rehabilitation of existing dwellings;
``(2) assistance provided under this section for
land acquisition and infrastructure development results
in the development of not less than 4,000 new or
rehabilitated dwellings;

* * * * * * *

``(d) Use.--
``(1) Purpose.--Amounts from grants made under this
section, including any recaptured amounts, shall be
used only for eligible expenses in connection with
developing new decent, safe, and sanitary nonluxury
dwellings or rehabilitating existing dwellings to make
them decent, safe and sanitary in the United States for
families and persons who otherwise would be unable to
afford to purchase a dwelling.
``(2) Eligible expenses.* * *
``(A) Land acquisition.* * *
``(B) Infrastructure improvement.--
Installing, extending, constructing,
rehabilitating, or otherwise improving
utilities and other infrastructure.
``(C) Planning, administration, and
management.--Planning, administration, and
management of grant programs and activities,
provided that such expenses do not exceed 20
percent of any grant made under this section.
``(i) Grant Agreement.--A grant under this section shall be
made only pursuant to a grant agreement entered into by the
Secretary and the organization or consortia receiving the
grant, which shall--
``(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

``(5) provide that the Secretary shall recapture
any grant amounts provided to the organization or
consortia that are not used within [24] 36 months after
such amounts are first disbursed to the organization or
consortia, [except that such period shall be 36 months
in the case of grant amounts from amounts made
available for fiscal year 1996 to carry out this
section, and in the case of a [sic] grant amounts
provided to a local affiliate of the organization or
consortia that is developing five or more dwellings in
connection with such grant amounts]; and

* * * * * * *

``(j) Fulfillment of Grant Agreement.--
``(1) Redistribution of funds._If the Secretary
determines that an organization or consortia awarded a
grant under this section has not, within [24] 36 months
after grant amounts are first made available to the
organization or consortia [(or, in the case of grant
amounts from amounts made available for fiscal year
1996 to carry out this section and grant amounts
provided to a local affiliate of the organization or
consortia that is developing five or more dwellings in
connection with such grant amounts, within 36 months)],
substantially fulfilled the obligations under the grant
agreement, including development of the appropriate
number of dwellings under the agreement, the Secretary
shall use any such undisbursed amounts remaining from
such grant for other grants in accordance with this
section.
``(2) Deadline for completion and conveyance.--The
Secretary shall establish a deadline (which may be
extended for good cause as determined by the Secretary)
by which time all units that have been assisted with
grant funds under this section must be completed and
conveyed.

* * * * * * *

[``(q) Regulations.--The Secretary shall issue any final
regulations necessary to carry out this section not later than
30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act [Mar. 28,
1996]. The regulations shall take effect upon issuance and may
not exceed, in length, 5 full pages in the Federal Register.'']
------

TITLE 49--TRANSPORTATION

Chapter 51--Transportation of Hazardous Material

Sec. 5116. Planning and training grants, monitoring, and review

(a) Planning Grants.--* * *

* * * * * * *

(i) Annual Registration Fee Account and Its Uses.--* * *

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(4) to pay administrative costs of carrying out
this section and sections 5108(g)(2) and 5115 of this
title, except that not more than [2 percent] 4 percent
of the amounts made available from the account in a
fiscal year may be used to pay those costs.
------

Chapter 471--Airport Development

Subchapter I--Airport Improvement

Sec. 47109. United States Government's share of project costs

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(2) Limitation.--The Government's share of
allowable project costs determined under this
subsection shall not exceed the lesser of 93.75 percent
or the highest percentage Government share applicable
to any project in any State under subsection (b),
except that at a non-hub airport located in a State as
set forth in paragraph (1) of this subsection that is
within 15 miles of another State as set forth in
paragraph (1) of this subsection, the Government's
share shall be an average of the Government share
applicable to any project in each of the States.

* * * * * * *

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.
------

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

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

TITLE II

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Rental Assistance Demonstration

To conduct a demonstration designed to preserve and improve
public housing and certain other multifamily housing through
the voluntary conversion of properties with assistance under
section 9 of the United States Housing Act of 1937,
(hereinafter, ``the Act''), or the moderate rehabilitation
program under section 8(e)(2) of the Act ([except for funds
allocated under such section for single room occupancy
dwellings as authorized by title IV of the McKinney-Vento
Homeless Assistance Act)], to properties with assistance under
a project-based subsidy contract under section 8 of the Act,
which shall be eligible for renewal under section 524 of the
Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of
1997, or assistance under section 8(o)(13) of the Act, the
Secretary may transfer amounts provided through contracts under
section 8(e)(2) of the Act or under the headings ``Public
Housing Capital Fund'' and ``Public Housing Operating Fund'' to
the headings ``Tenant-Based Rental Assistance'' or ``Project-
Based Rental Assistance'': Provided, That the initial long-
term contract under which converted assistance is made
available may allow for rental adjustments only by an operating
cost factor established by the Secretary, and shall be subject
to the availability of appropriations for each year of such
term: Provided further, That project applications may be
received under this demonstration until September 30, [2015]
2018: Provided further, That any increase in cost for
``Tenant-Based Rental Assistance'' or ``Project-Based Rental
Assistance'' associated with such conversion in excess of
amounts made available under this heading shall be equal to
amounts transferred from ``Public Housing Capital Fund'' and
``Public Housing Operating Fund'' or other account from which
it was transferred: Provided further, That not more than
[60,000185,000 units currently receiving assistance under
section 9 or section 8(e)(2) of the Act shall be converted
under the authority provided under this heading: Provided
further, That tenants of such properties with assistance
converted from assistance under section 9 shall, at a minimum,
maintain the same rights under such conversion as those
provided under sections 6 and 9 of the Act: Provided further,
That the Secretary shall select properties from applications
for conversion as part of this demonstration through a
competitive process: Provided further, That in establishing
criteria for such competition, the Secretary shall seek to
demonstrate the feasibility of this conversion model to
recapitalize and operate public housing properties (1) in
different markets and geographic areas, (2) within portfolios
managed by public housing agencies of varying sizes, and (3) by
leveraging other sources of funding to recapitalize properties:
Provided further, That the Secretary shall provide an
opportunity for public comment on draft eligibility and
selection criteria and procedures that will apply to the
selection of properties that will participate in the
demonstration: Provided further, That the Secretary shall
provide an opportunity for comment from residents of properties
to be proposed for participation in the demonstration to the
owners or public housing agencies responsible for such
properties: Provided further, That the Secretary may waive or
specify alternative requirements for (except for requirements
related to fair housing, nondiscrimination, labor standards,
and the environment) any provision of section 8(o)(13) or any
provision that governs the use of assistance from which a
property is converted under the demonstration or funds made
available under the headings of ``Public Housing Capital
Fund'', ``Public Housing Operating Fund'', and ``Project-Based
Rental Assistance'', under this Act or any prior Act or any Act
enacted during the period of conversion of assistance under the
demonstration for properties with assistance converted under
the demonstration, upon a finding by the Secretary that any
such waivers or alternative requirements are necessary for the
effective conversion of assistance under the demonstration:
Provided further, That the Secretary shall publish by notice in
the Federal Register any waivers or alternative requirements
pursuant to the previous proviso no later than 10 days before
the effective date of such notice: Provided further, That the
demonstration may proceed after the Secretary publishes notice
of its terms in the Federal Register: Provided further, That
notwithstanding sections 3 and 16 of the Act, the conversion of
assistance under the demonstration shall not be the basis for
re-screening or termination of assistance or eviction of any
tenant family in a property participating in the demonstration,
and such a family shall not be considered a new admission for
any purpose, including compliance with income targeting
requirements: Provided further, That in the case of a property
with assistance converted under the demonstration from
assistance under section 9 of the Act, section 18 of the Act
shall not apply to a property converting assistance under the
demonstration for all or substantially all of its units, the
Secretary shall require ownership or control of assisted units
by a public or nonprofit entity except as determined by the
Secretary to be necessary pursuant to foreclosure, bankruptcy,
or termination and transfer of assistance for material
violations or substantial default, in which case the priority
for ownership or control shall be provided to a capable public
entity, then a capable entity, as determined by the Secretary,
shall require long-term renewable use and affordability
restrictions for assisted units, and may allow ownership to be
transferred to a for-profit entity to facilitate the use of tax
credits only if the public housing agency preserves its
interest in the property in a manner approved by the Secretary,
and upon expiration of the initial contract and each renewal
contract, the Secretary shall offer and the owner of the
property shall accept renewal of the contract subject to the
terms and conditions applicable at the time of renewal and the
availability of appropriations each year of such renewal:
Provided further, That the Secretary may permit transfer of
assistance at or after conversion under the demonstration to
replacement units subject to the requirements in the previous
proviso: Provided further, That the Secretary may establish
the requirements for converted assistance under the
demonstration through contracts, use agreements, regulations,
or other means: Provided further, That the Secretary shall
assess and publish findings regarding the impact of the
conversion of assistance under the demonstration on the
preservation and improvement of public housing, the amount of
private sector leveraging as a result of such conversion, and
the effect of such conversion on tenants: Provided further,
That for fiscal years 2012 through [December 31, 2014] 2016,
owners of properties assisted under section 101 of the Housing
and Urban Development Act of 1965, section 236(f)(2) of the
National Housing Act, or section 8(e)(2) (except for funds
allocated under such section for single room occupancy
dwellings as authorized by title IV of the McKinney-Vento
Homeless Assistance Act) of the United States Housing Act of
1937, for which an event after October 1, 2006 has caused or
results in the termination of rental assistance or
affordability restrictions and the issuance of tenant
protection vouchers under section 8(o) of the Act, shall be
eligible, subject to requirements established by the Secretary,
including but not limited to tenant consultation procedures
[and agreement of the administering public housing agency], for
conversion of assistance available for such vouchers to
assistance under a long-term project-based subsidy contract
under section 8 of the Act, which shall have a term of no less
than 20 years, with rent adjustments only by an operating cost
factor established by the Secretary, which shall be eligible
for renewal under section 524 of the Multifamily Assisted
Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 (42 U.S.C. 1437f
note), or, subject to agreement of the administering public
housing agency, to assistance under section 8(o)(13) of the
Act, to which the limitation under subsection (B) of section
8(o)(13) of the Act shall not apply and for which the Secretary
of Housing and Urban Development may waive or alter the
provisions of subparagraphs (C) and (D) of section 8(o)(13) of
the Act: Provided further, That amounts made available under
the heading ``Rental Housing Assistance'' during the period of
conversion under the previous proviso, which may extend beyond
fiscal year 2016 as necessary to allow processing of all timely
applications, shall be available for project-based subsidy
contracts entered into pursuant to the previous proviso:
Provided further, That amounts, including contract authority,
recaptured from contracts following a conversion under the
previous two provisos are hereby rescinded and an amount of
additional new budget authority, equivalent to the amount
rescinded is hereby appropriated, to remain available until
expended for such conversions: Provided further, That the
Secretary may transfer amounts made available under the heading
``Rental Housing Assistance'', amounts made available for
tenant protection vouchers under the heading ``Tenant-Based
Rental Assistance'' and specifically associated with any such
conversions, and amounts made available under the previous
proviso as needed to the account under the ``Project-Based
Rental Assistance'' heading to facilitate conversion under the
three previous provisos and any increase in cost for ``Project-
Based Rental Assistance'' associated with such conversion shall
be equal to amounts so transferred: Provided further, That
[with respect to the previous proviso] with respect to the
previous four provisos, the Comptroller General of the United
States shall conduct a study of the long-term [impact of the
previous proviso] impact of the fiscal year 2012 and 2013
conversion of tenant protection vouchers to assistance under
section 8(o)(13) of the Act on the ratio of tenant-based
vouchers to project-based vouchers.

* * * * * * *

General Provisions--Department of Housing and Urban Development

Sec. 203. (a) Notwithstanding section 854(c)(1)(A) of the
AIDS Housing Opportunity Act (42 U.S.C. 12903(c)(1)(A)), from
any amounts made available under this title for [fiscal year
2012] fiscal year 2015 that are allocated under such section,
the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall allocate
and make a grant, in the amount determined under subsection
(b), for any State that--
(1) received an allocation in a prior fiscal year
under clause (ii) of such section; and
(2) is not otherwise eligible for an allocation for
[fiscal year 2012] fiscal year 2015 under such clause
(ii) because the areas in the State outside of the
metropolitan statistical areas that qualify under
clause (i) in fiscal year 2011 do not have the number
of cases of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS)
required under such clause.
(b) The amount of the allocation and grant for any State
described in subsection (a) shall be an amount based on the
cumulative number of AIDS cases in the areas of that State that
are outside of metropolitan statistical areas that qualify
under clause (i) of such section 854(c)(1)(A) in [fiscal year
2012] fiscal year 2015 , in proportion to AIDS cases among
cities and States that qualify under clauses (i) and (ii) of
such section and States deemed eligible under subsection (a).
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the amount
allocated for [fiscal year 2012] fiscal year 2015 under
section 854(c) of the AIDS Housing Opportunity Act (42 U.S.C.
12903(c)), to the city of New York, New York, on behalf of the
New York-Wayne-White Plains, New York-New Jersey Metropolitan
Division (hereafter ``metropolitan division'') of the New York-
Newark-Edison, NY-NJ-PA Metropolitan Statistical Area, shall be
adjusted by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development by:
(1) allocating to the city of Jersey City, New
Jersey, the proportion of the metropolitan area's or
division's amount that is based on the number of cases
of AIDS reported in the portion of the metropolitan
area or division that is located in Hudson County, New
Jersey, and adjusting for the proportion of the
metropolitan division's high-incidence bonus if this
area in New Jersey also has a higher than average per
capita incidence of AIDS; and
(2) allocating to the city of Paterson, New Jersey,
the proportion of the metropolitan area's or division's
amount that is based on the number of cases of AIDS
reported in the portion of the metropolitan area or
division that is located in Bergen County and Passaic
County, New Jersey, and adjusting for the proportion of
the metropolitan division's high incidence bonus if
this area in New Jersey also has a higher than average
per capita incidence of AIDS. The recipient cities
shall use amounts allocated under this subsection to
carry out eligible activities under section 855 of the
AIDS Housing Opportunity Act (42 U.S.C. 12904) in their
respective portions of the metropolitan division that
is located in New Jersey.
(d) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the amount
allocated for [fiscal year 2012] fiscal year 2015 under
section 854(c) of the AIDS Housing Opportunity Act (42 U.S.C.
12903(c)) to areas with a higher than average per capita
incidence of AIDS, shall be adjusted by the Secretary on the
basis of area incidence reported over a 3-year period.

* * * * * * *

Sec. 209. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
the amount allocated for [fiscal year 2012] fiscal year 2015
under section 854(c) of the AIDS Housing Opportunity Act (42
U.S.C. 12903(c)), to the city of Wilmington, Delaware, on
behalf of the Wilmington, Delaware-Maryland-New Jersey
Metropolitan Division (hereafter ``metropolitan division''),
shall be adjusted by the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development by allocating to the State of New Jersey the
proportion of the metropolitan division's amount that is based
on the number of cases of AIDS reported in the portion of the
metropolitan division that is located in New Jersey, and
adjusting for the proportion of the metropolitan division's
high incidence bonus if this area in New Jersey also has a
higher than average per capita incidence of AIDS. The State of
New Jersey shall use amounts allocated to the State under this
subsection to carry out eligible activities under section 855
of the AIDS Housing Opportunity Act (42 U.S.C. 12904) in the
portion of the metropolitan division that is located in New
Jersey.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall allocate to
Wake County, North Carolina, the amounts that otherwise would
be allocated for [fiscal year 2012] fiscal year 2015 under
section 854(c) of the AIDS Housing Opportunity Act (42 U.S.C.
12903(c)) to the city of Raleigh, North Carolina, on behalf of
the Raleigh-Cary North Carolina Metropolitan Statistical Area.
Any amounts allocated to Wake County shall be used to carry out
eligible activities under section 855 of such Act (42 U.S.C.
12904) within such metropolitan statistical area.
(c) Notwithstanding section 854(c) of the AIDS Housing
Opportunity Act (42 U.S.C. 12903(c)), the Secretary of Housing
and Urban Development may adjust the allocation of the amounts
that otherwise would be allocated for [fiscal year 2012] fiscal
year 2015 under section 854(c) of such Act, upon the written
request of an applicant, in conjunction with the State(s), for
a formula allocation on behalf of a metropolitan statistical
area, to designate the State or States in which the
metropolitan statistical area is located as the eligible
grantee(s) of the allocation. In the case that a metropolitan
statistical area involves more than one State, such amounts
allocated to each State shall be in proportion to the number of
cases of AIDS reported in the portion of the metropolitan
statistical area located in that State. Any amounts allocated
to a State under this section shall be used to carry out
eligible activities within the portion of the metropolitan
statistical area located in that State.
------

FAA MODERNIZATION AND REFORM ACT OF 2012, PUBLIC LAW 112-95

TITLE IX--FEDERAL AVIATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

SEC. 916. REAUTHORIZATION OF CENTER OF EXCELLENCE IN APPLIED RESEARCH
AND TRAINING IN THE USE OF [ADVANCED MATERIALS IN
TRANSPORT AIRCRAFT] JOINT ADVANCED MATERIALS AND
STRUCTURES.

Section 708(b) of the Vision 100.--Century of Aviation
Reauthorization Act (49 U.S.C. 44504 note) is amended by
striking ``for fiscal year 2004'' and inserting ``for each of
fiscal years 2012 through 2015''.

* * * * * * *

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 in Committee Amount in
allocation bill allocation bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of amounts in the bill with the subcommittee
allocation for 2015: Subcommittee on Transportation and
Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies:
Mandatory........................................... ............ ............ ............ ............
Discretionary....................................... 54,439 54,439 119,834 \1\119,379
Security........................................ 186 186 NA NA
Nonsecurity..................................... 54,253 54,253 NA NA
Projections of outlays associated with the
recommendation:
2015................................................ ............ ............ ............ \2\39,239
2016................................................ ............ ............ ............ 33,817
2017................................................ ............ ............ ............ 14,082
2018................................................ ............ ............ ............ 6,041
2019 and future years............................... ............ ............ ............ 7,464
Financial assistance to State and local governments for NA 32,441 NA 30,215
2015...................................................

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

NA: Not applicable.

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2015
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Committee recommendation
compared with (+ or -)
Item 2014 Budget estimate Committee -----------------------------------
appropriation recommendation 2014
appropriation Budget estimate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Salaries and expenses......................................... 107,000 109,916 108,000 +1,000 -1,916
Immediate Office of the Secretary......................... (2,652) (2,696) (2,696) (+44) ................
Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary.................. (1,000) (1,011) (1,011) (+11) ................
Office of the General Counsel............................. (19,900) (20,312) (19,980) (+80) (-332)
Office of the Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy (10,271) (10,417) (10,300) (+29) (-117)
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs. (12,676) (13,111) (12,676) ................ (-435)
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs (2,530) (2,567) (2,500) (-30) (-67)
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration...... (26,378) (27,420) (27,131) (+753) (-289)
Office of Public Affairs.................................. (2,020) (2,061) (2,000) (-20) (-61)
Office of the Executive Secretariat....................... (1,714) (1,746) (1,714) ................ (-32)
Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization.... (1,386) (1,414) (1,414) (+28) ................
Office of Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response.. (10,778) (11,055) (10,778) ................ (-277)
Office of the Chief Information Officer................... (15,695) (16,106) (15,800) (+105) (-306)

Research and Technology....................................... 14,765 14,625 13,500 -1,265 -1,125
National Infrastructure Investments........................... 600,000 ................ 550,000 -50,000 +550,000
(Liquidation of contract authorization)................... ................ (1,250,000) ................ ................ (-1,250,000)
(Limitation on obligations)........................... ................ (1,250,000) ................ ................ (-1,250,000)
Infrastructure Permitting Center.............................. ................ 8,000 ................ ................ -8,000
Financial Management Capital.................................. 7,000 5,000 5,000 -2,000 ................
Cyber Security Initiatives.................................... 4,455 5,000 5,000 +545 ................
Office of Civil Rights........................................ 9,551 9,600 9,600 +49 ................
Transportation Planning, Research, and Development............ 7,000 8,000 6,000 -1,000 -2,000
Rescission of unobligated balances........................ -2,750 ................ ................ +2,750 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................ 4,250 8,000 6,000 +1,750 -2,000

Working Capital Fund.......................................... (178,000) ................ (182,000) (+4,000) (+182,000)
Minority Business Resource Center Program..................... 925 1,013 925 ................ -88
(Limitation on guaranteed loans).......................... (18,367) (18,367) (18,367) ................ ................
Minority Business Outreach.................................... 3,088 3,099 3,099 +11 ................
Safe Transport of Oil......................................... ................ 40,000 ................ ................ -40,000
Payments to Air Carriers (Airport & Airway Trust Fund)........ 149,000 155,000 155,000 +6,000 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Office of the Secretary.......................... 900,034 359,253 856,124 -43,910 +496,871
=========================================================================================
Federal Aviation Administration

Operations.................................................... 9,651,422 9,750,000 9,750,000 +98,578 ................
Air traffic organization.................................. (7,311,790) (7,396,654) (7,396,654) (+84,864) ................
Aviation safety........................................... (1,204,777) (1,215,458) (1,215,458) (+10,681) ................
Commercial space transportation........................... (16,011) (16,605) (16,605) (+594) ................
Finance and management.................................... (762,462) (765,047) (765,047) (+2,585) ................
Staff offices............................................. (296,600) (296,147) (296,147) (-453) ................
NextGen................................................... (59,782) (60,089) (60,089) (+307) ................

Facilities and Equipment (Airport & Airway Trust Fund)........ 2,600,000 2,603,700 2,473,700 -126,300 -130,000

Research, Engineering, and Development (Airport & Airway Trust 158,792 156,750 156,750 -2,042 ................
Fund.........................................................
Rescission of unobligated balances........................ -26,184 ................ ................ +26,184 ................

Grants-in-Aid for Airports (Airport and Airway Trust Fund) (3,200,000) (3,200,000) (3,200,000) ................ ................
(Liquidation of contract authorization)......................
(Limitation on obligations)........................... (3,350,000) (2,900,000) (3,480,000) (+130,000) (+580,000)
Administration............................................ (106,600) (107,100) (107,100) (+500) ................
Airport cooperative research program...................... (15,000) (15,000) (15,000) ................ ................
Airport technology research............................... (29,500) (29,750) (29,750) (+250) ................
Small community air service development program........... (5,000) ................ (8,000) (+3,000) (+8,000)
FAA facilities and equipment located at airports.......... ................ ................ (130,000) (+130,000) (+130,000)
Rescission of contract authority.......................... ................ -256,000 -256,300 -256,300 -300
Pop-up contract authority................................. ................ 126,000 256,300 +256,300 +130,300
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Federal Aviation Administration.................. 12,384,030 12,380,450 12,380,450 -3,580 ................

Limitations on obligations............................ (3,350,000) (2,900,000) (3,480,000) (+130,000) (+580,000)
Total budgetary resources........................... (15,734,030) (15,280,450) (15,860,450) (+126,420) (+580,000)
=========================================================================================
Administrative Provision

War Risk Insurance Program Extension.......................... -100,000 ................ ................ +100,000 ................

Federal Highway Administration

Limitation on Administrative Expenses......................... (416,100) (439,000) (426,100) (+10,000) (-12,900)

Federal-Aid Highways (Highway Trust Fund):
(Liquidation of contract authorization)................... (40,995,000) (48,062,248) (40,995,000) ................ (-7,067,248)
(Limitation on obligations)........................... (40,256,000) (47,323,248) (40,256,000) ................ (-7,067,248)

Fixing and Accelerating Surface Transportation ................ (500,000) ................ ................ (-500,000)
(Liquidation of contract authorization)..................
(Limitation on obligations)........................... ................ (500,000) ................ ................ (-500,000)

(Exempt contract authority)............................... (739,000) (739,000) (739,000) ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Federal Highway Administration................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
Limitations on obligations.......................... (40,256,000) (47,823,248) (40,256,000) ................ (-7,567,248)
Exempt contract authority........................... (739,000) (739,000) (739,000) ................ ................
Total budgetary resources......................... (40,995,000) (48,562,248) (40,995,000) ................ (-7,567,248)
=========================================================================================
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

Motor Carrier Safety Operations and Programs (Highway Trust (259,000) (315,770) (271,000) (+12,000) (-44,770)
Fund)(liquidation of contract authorization).................
(Limitation on obligations)............................... (259,000) (315,770) (271,000) (+12,000) (-44,770)

National Motor Carrier Safety Program (Highway Trust Fund) (13,000) ................ (8,300) (-4,700) (+8,300)
(liquidation of contract authorization)......................
(Limitation on obligations)............................... (13,000) ................ (8,300) (-4,700) (+8,300)

Motor Carrier Safety Grants (Highway Trust Fund) (Liquidation (313,000) (352,753) (313,000) ................ (-39,753)
of contract authorization)...................................
(Limitation on obligations)............................... (313,000) (352,753) (313,000) ................ (-39,753)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration...... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
Limitations on obligations.......................... (585,000) (668,523) (592,300) (+7,300) (-76,223)
Total budgetary resources......................... (585,000) (668,523) (592,300) (+7,300) (-76,223)
=========================================================================================
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Operations and Research....................................... 134,000 ................ 134,500 +500 +134,500
(Liquidation of contract authorization)................... ................ (122,000) ................ ................ (-122,000)
(Limitation on obligations)........................... ................ (122,000) ................ ................ (-122,000)

Operations and Research Vehicle Safety (Highway Trust Fund) (123,500) (152,000) (138,500) (+15,000) (-13,500)
(Liquidation of contract authorization)......................
(Limitation on obligations)............................... (123,500) (152,000) (138,500) (+15,000) (-13,500)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Operations and Research....................... 257,500 274,000 273,000 +15,500 -1,000

Highway Traffic Safety Grants (Highway Trust Fund) (561,500) (577,000) (561,500) ................ (-15,500)
(Liquidation of contract authorization)......................
(Limitation on obligations)............................... (561,500) (577,000) (561,500) ................ (-15,500)
Highway safety programs (23 USC 402).................. (235,000) (241,146) (235,000) ................ (-6,146)
National priority safety programs (23 USC 405)........ (272,000) (278,705) (272,000) ................ (-6,705)
High visibility enforcement........................... (29,000) (29,000) (29,000) ................ ................
Administrative expenses............................... (25,500) (28,149) (25,500) ................ (-2,649)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, National Highway Traffic Safety 134,000 ................ 134,500 +500 +134,500
Administration.....................................
Limitations on obligations...................... (685,000) (851,000) (700,000) (+15,000) (-151,000)
Total budgetary resources..................... (819,000) (851,000) (834,500) (+15,500) (-16,500)
=========================================================================================
Federal Railroad Administration

Safety and Operations......................................... 184,500 185,250 191,250 +6,750 +6,000
Railroad Research and Development............................. 35,250 35,100 40,730 +5,480 +5,630

Railroad Grants (Legislative proposal):
Current passenger rail service (HTF):
(Liquidation of contract authorization)............... ................ (2,450,000) ................ ................ (-2,450,000)
(Limitation on obligations)....................... ................ (2,450,000) ................ ................ (-2,450,000)

Rail service improvement program (HTF):
(Liquidation of contract authorization)............... ................ (2,325,000) ................ ................ (-2,325,000)
(Limitation on obligations)....................... ................ (2,325,000) ................ ................ (-2,325,000)

Northeast Corridor Improvement Program (rescission)........... -4,419 ................ ................ +4,419 ................
Next Generation High-Speed Rail (rescission).................. -1,973 ................ ................ +1,973 ................

National Railroad Passenger Corporation:
Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation..... ................ ................ 1,390,000 +1,390,000 +1,390,000
Operating Grants to the National Railroad Passenger 340,000 ................ ................ -340,000 ................
Corporation..............................................
Capital and Debt Service Grants to the National Railroad 1,050,000 ................ ................ -1,050,000 ................
Passenger Corporation....................................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................ 1,390,000 ................ 1,390,000 ................ +1,390,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Federal Railroad Administration.................. 1,603,358 220,350 1,621,980 +18,622 +1,401,630
=========================================================================================
Federal Transit Administration

Administrative Expenses....................................... 105,933 ................ 110,500 +4,567 +110,500
(Liquidation of contract authorization)................... ................ (114,400) ................ ................ (-114,400)
(Limitation on obligations)........................... ................ (114,400) ................ ................ (-114,400)

Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
(Liquidation of contract authorization)................... ................ (25,000) ................ ................ (-25,000)
(Limitation on obligations)........................... ................ (25,000) ................ ................ (-25,000)

Transit Formula Grants (Hwy Trust Fund, Mass Transit Account (9,500,000) (13,800,000) (9,500,000) ................ (-4,300,000)
(liquidation of contract authorization)......................
(Limitation on obligations)............................... (8,595,000) (13,800,000) (8,595,000) ................ (-5,205,000)

Fixing and Acceleration Surface Transportation (Liquidation of ................ (500,000) ................ ................ (-500,000)
contract authorization)......................................
(Limitation on obligations)............................... ................ (500,000) ................ ................ (-500,000)

Research, Development, Demonstration, and Deployment Program.. 40,000 ................ 30,000 -10,000 +30,000
Transit Cooperative Research.................................. 3,000 ................ 3,000 ................ +3,000
Technical Assistance and Standards Development................ 3,000 ................ 5,000 +2,000 +5,000
Human Resources and Training.................................. 2,000 ................ 500 -1,500 +500
Technical Assistance and Training............................. ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
Transit Research and Training................................. ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
(Liquidation of contract authorization)................... ................ (60,000) ................ ................ (-60,000)
(Limitation on obligations)........................... ................ (60,000) ................ ................ (-60,000)
Rapid-Growth Area Bus Rapid Transit Corridor Program ................ (500,000) ................ ................ (-500,000)
(liquidation of contract authorization)......................
(Limitation on obligations)............................. ................ (500,000) ................ ................ (-500,000)
Capital Investment Grants..................................... 1,942,938 ................ 2,161,000 +218,062 +2,161,000
(Liquidation of contract authorization)................... ................ (2,500,000) ................ ................ (-2,500,000)
(Limitation on obligations)........................... ................ (2,500,000) ................ ................ (-2,500,000)

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

Capital and Preventive Maintenance............................ 150,000 150,000 150,000 ................ ................

Administrative Provisions

Rescission (Sec. 169)......................................... -96,228 ................ ................ +96,228 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Federal Transit Administration................... 2,150,643 150,000 2,460,000 +309,357 +2,310,000
Limitations on obligations.......................... (8,595,000) (17,499,400) (8,595,000) ................ (-8,904,400)
Total budgetary resources......................... (10,745,643) (17,649,400) (11,055,000) (+309,357) (-6,594,400)
=========================================================================================
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation

Operations and Maintenance (Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund).... 31,000 31,500 31,500 +500 ................

Maritime Administration

Maritime Security Program..................................... 186,000 211,000 186,000 ................ -25,000
Operations and Training....................................... 148,003 148,400 149,900 +1,897 +1,500
Ready Reserve Force (by transfer)............................. ................ (291,000) ................ ................ (-291,000)
Ship Disposal................................................. 4,800 4,800 4,800 ................ ................
Assistance to Small Shipyards................................. ................ ................ ................ ................ ................

Maritime Guaranteed Loan (Title XI) Program Account:
Administrative expenses................................... 3,500 3,100 3,100 -400 ................
Guaranteed loans subsidy.................................. 35,000 ................ 4,000 -31,000 +4,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................ 38,500 3,100 7,100 -31,400 +4,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Maritime Administration.......................... 377,303 367,300 347,800 -29,503 -19,500
=========================================================================================
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Operational Expenses:
General Fund.............................................. 21,015 22,225 22,225 +1,210 ................
Pipeline Safety Fund...................................... 639 ................ ................ -639 ................
Pipeline Safety Information grants to Communities......... (1,500) (1,500) (1,500) ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................ 21,654 22,225 22,225 +571 ................

Hazardous Materials Safety:
General Fund.............................................. 45,000 52,000 52,000 +7,000 ................
Special Permit and Approval Fees.......................... ................ -6,000 ................ ................ +6,000

Pipeline Safety:
Pipeline Safety Fund...................................... 98,514 136,500 136,500 +37,986 ................
Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund............................ 18,573 19,500 19,500 +927 ................
Pipeline Safety Design Review Fund........................ 2,000 2,000 2,000 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................ 119,087 158,000 158,000 +38,913 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 185,741 226,225 232,225 +46,484 +6,000
Administration.........................................

Pipeline Safety User Fees..................................... -99,153 -136,500 -136,500 -37,347 ................
Pipeline Safety Design Review Fee............................. -2,000 -2,000 -2,000 ................ ................

Emergency Preparedness Grants:
Limitation on emergency preparedness fund................. (28,318) (28,318) (28,318) ................ ................
(Emergency preparedness fund)......................... (188) (188) (188) ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 84,588 87,725 93,725 +9,137 +6,000
Administration.....................................
=========================================================================================
Office of Inspector General

Salaries and Expenses......................................... 85,605 86,223 86,223 +618 ................

Surface Transportation Board

Salaries and Expenses......................................... 31,000 31,500 31,500 +500 ................
Offsetting collections.................................... -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Surface Transportation Board..................... 29,750 30,250 30,250 +500 ................
=========================================================================================
Total, title I, Department of Transportation............ 17,680,311 13,713,051 18,042,552 +362,241 +4,329,501
Appropriations...................................... (17,813,115) (13,976,301) (18,300,102) (+486,987) (+4,323,801)
Rescissions......................................... (-131,554) ................ ................ (+131,554) ................
Rescissions of contract authority................... ................ (-256,000) (-256,300) (-256,300) (-300)
Offsetting collections.............................. (-1,250) (-7,250) (-1,250) ................ (+6,000)
Limitations on obligations.............................. (53,471,000) (75,767,171) (53,623,300) (+152,300) (-22,143,871)
(By transfer)........................................... ................ (291,000) ................ ................ (-291,000)
Total budgetary resources........................... (71,151,311) (89,480,222) (71,665,852) (+514,541) (-17,814,370)
=========================================================================================
TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Management and Administration

Executive Offices............................................. 14,500 15,234 14,700 +200 -534
Administration Support Offices................................ 506,000 530,783 519,867 +13,867 -10,916

Program Office Salaries and Expenses:
Public and Indian Housing................................. 205,000 213,664 205,525 +525 -8,139
Community Planning and Development........................ 102,000 110,535 103,300 +1,300 -7,235
Housing................................................... 381,500 386,677 386,677 +5,177 ................
Policy Development and Research........................... 22,000 23,248 22,300 +300 -948
Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity........................ 69,000 77,629 69,700 +700 -7,929
Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes........... 7,000 7,879 7,075 +75 -804
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................ 786,500 819,632 794,577 +8,077 -25,055
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Management and Administration.................... 1,307,000 1,365,649 1,329,144 +22,144 -36,505
=========================================================================================
Public and Indian Housing

Tenant-based Rental Assistance:
Renewals.................................................. 17,365,527 18,006,550 17,719,000 +353,473 -287,550
Tenant protection vouchers................................ 130,000 150,000 130,000 ................ -20,000
Administrative fees....................................... 1,500,000 1,705,000 1,555,000 +55,000 -150,000
Veterans affairs supportive housing....................... 75,000 75,000 75,000 ................ ................
Sec. 811 mainstream voucher renewals...................... 106,691 108,450 83,160 -23,531 -25,290
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal (available this fiscal year)................... 19,177,218 20,045,000 19,562,160 +384,942 -482,840

Advance appropriations.................................... 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 ................ ................
Less appropriations from prior year advances.............. -4,000,000 -4,000,000 -4,000,000 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Tenant-based Rental Assistance appropriated in 19,177,218 20,045,000 19,562,160 +384,942 -482,840
this bill..............................................
=========================================================================================
Rental Assistance Demonstration............................... ................ 10,000 10,000 +10,000 ................
Public Housing Capital Fund................................... 1,875,000 1,925,000 1,900,000 +25,000 -25,000
Drug Elimination (rescission)................................. ................ ................ -1,101 -1,101 -1,101
Public Housing Operating Fund................................. 4,400,000 4,600,000 4,475,000 +75,000 -125,000
Choice Neighborhoods.......................................... 90,000 120,000 90,000 ................ -30,000
Family Self-Sufficiency....................................... 75,000 75,000 75,000 ................ ................
Native American Housing Block Grants.......................... 650,000 650,000 650,000 ................ ................
Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant........................... 10,000 13,000 10,000 ................ -3,000
Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund Program Account............ 6,000 8,000 6,000 ................ -2,000
(Limitation on guaranteed loans).......................... (1,818,000) (1,200,000) (714,290) (-1,103,710) (-485,710)
Native Hawaiian Loan Guarantee Fund Program Account........... 100 ................ 100 ................ +100
(Limitation on guaranteed loans).......................... (18,868) ................ (16,130) (-2,738) (+16,130)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Public and Indian Housing........................ 26,283,318 27,446,000 26,777,159 +493,841 -668,841
=========================================================================================
Community Planning and Development

Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS................... 330,000 332,000 330,000 ................ -2,000

Community Development Fund:
CDBG formula.............................................. 3,030,000 2,800,000 3,020,000 -10,000 +220,000
Indian CDBG............................................... 70,000 70,000 70,000 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................ 3,100,000 2,870,000 3,090,000 -10,000 +220,000

Rural Housing and Economic Development (rescission)........... ................ ................ -2,300 -2,300 -2,300
Youth Build (rescission)...................................... ................ ................ -460 -460 -460

Community Development Loan Guarantees (Section 108):
(Limitation on guaranteed loans).......................... (150,000) (500,000) (500,000) (+350,000) ................
Credit subsidy............................................ 3,000 ................ ................ -3,000 ................
HOME Investment Partnerships Program.......................... 1,000,000 950,000 950,000 -50,000 ................
Self-help and Assisted Homeownership Opportunity Program...... 50,000 ................ 50,000 ................ +50,000
Capacity Building............................................. ................ 20,000 ................ ................ -20,000
Brownsfields (rescission)..................................... ................ ................ -2,913 -2,913 -2,913
Homeless Assistance Grants.................................... 2,105,000 2,406,400 2,145,000 +40,000 -261,400
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Community Planning and Development............... 6,588,000 6,578,400 6,559,327 -28,673 -19,073
=========================================================================================
Housing Programs

Project-based Rental Assistance:
Renewals.................................................. 9,651,628 9,536,000 9,536,000 -115,628 ................
Contract administrators................................... 265,000 210,000 210,000 -55,000 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal (available this fiscal year)................... 9,916,628 9,746,000 9,746,000 -170,628 ................

Advance appropriations.................................... 400,000 400,000 400,000 ................ ................
Less appropriations from prior year advances.............. -400,000 -400,000 -400,000 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Project-based Rental Assistance appropriated in 9,916,628 9,746,000 9,746,000 -170,628 ................
this bill..............................................
=========================================================================================
Housing for the Elderly....................................... 383,500 440,000 420,000 +36,500 -20,000
Housing for Persons with Disabilities......................... 126,000 160,000 135,000 +9,000 -25,000
Housing Counseling Assistance................................. 45,000 60,000 49,000 +4,000 -11,000
Rental Housing Assistance..................................... 21,000 28,000 28,000 +7,000 ................
Rent Supplement (rescission).................................. -3,500 ................ ................ +3,500 ................
Manufactured Housing Fees Trust Fund.......................... 7,530 10,000 10,000 +2,470 ................
Offsetting collections.................................... -6,530 -10,000 -10,000 -3,470 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Housing Programs................................. 10,489,628 10,434,000 10,378,000 -111,628 -56,000
=========================================================================================
Federal Housing Administration

Mutual Mortgage Insurance Program Account:
(Limitation on guaranteed loans).......................... (400,000,000) (400,000,000) (400,000,000) ................ ................
(Limitation on direct loans).............................. (20,000) (20,000) (20,000) ................ ................
Offsetting receipts....................................... -10,841,000 -7,951,000 -7,951,000 +2,890,000 ................
Proposed offsetting receipts (HECM)....................... -57,000 -36,000 -36,000 +21,000 ................
Additional offsetting receipts (Sec. 244)................. ................ -32,000 -32,000 -32,000 ................
Administrative contract expenses.......................... 127,000 170,000 145,000 +18,000 -25,000

General and Special Risk Program Account:
(Limitation on guaranteed loans).......................... (30,000,000) (30,000,000) (30,000,000) ................ ................
(Limitation on direct loans).............................. (20,000) (20,000) (20,000) ................ ................
Offsetting receipts....................................... -926,000 -876,000 -876,000 +50,000 ................
(Rescission).......................................... ................ ................ -10,000 -10,000 -10,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Federal Housing Administration............... -11,697,000 -8,725,000 -8,760,000 +2,937,000 -35,000
=========================================================================================
Government National Mortgage Association

Guarantees of Mortgage-backed Securities Loan Guarantee
Program Account:
(Limitation on guaranteed loans).......................... (500,000,000) (500,000,000) (500,000,000) ................ ................
Administrative expenses................................... 19,500 28,000 24,000 +4,500 -4,000
Offsetting receipts....................................... -100,000 -94,000 -94,000 +6,000 ................
Offsetting receipts....................................... -707,000 -742,000 -742,000 -35,000 ................
Proposed offsetting receipts (HECM) (Sec. 210)............ -12,000 -28,000 -28,000 -16,000 ................
Additional contract expenses.............................. 1,000 1,000 1,000 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Gov't National Mortgage Association.............. -798,500 -835,000 -839,000 -40,500 -4,000
=========================================================================================
Policy Development and Research

Research and Technology....................................... 46,000 50,000 46,000 ................ -4,000

Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity

Fair Housing Activities....................................... 66,000 71,000 66,000 ................ -5,000

Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes

Lead Hazard Reduction......................................... 110,000 120,000 110,000 ................ -10,000

Management and Administration

Information Technology Fund................................... 250,000 272,000 250,000 ................ -22,000
Office of Inspector General................................... 125,000 129,000 129,000 +4,000 ................
Transformation Initiative..................................... 40,000 ................ ................ -40,000 ................
(by transfer)............................................. ................ (80,000) (40,000) (+40,000) (-40,000)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Management and Administration.................... 415,000 401,000 379,000 -36,000 -22,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Grand total, Management and Administration)............ (1,722,000) (1,766,649) (1,708,144) (-13,856) (-58,505)
=========================================================================================
Total, title II, Department of Housing and Urban 32,809,446 36,906,049 36,045,630 +3,236,184 -860,419
Development............................................
Appropriations...................................... (41,062,476) (42,275,049) (41,431,404) (+368,928) (-843,645)
Rescissions......................................... (-3,500) ................ (-16,774) (-13,274) (-16,774)
Advance appropriations.............................. (4,400,000) (4,400,000) (4,400,000) ................ ................
Offsetting receipts................................. (-12,643,000) (-9,759,000) (-9,759,000) (+2,884,000) ................
Offsetting collections.............................. (-6,530) (-10,000) (-10,000) (-3,470) ................
(By transfer)........................................... ................ 80,000 40,000 +40,000 -40,000
(Limitation on direct loans)............................ (40,000) (40,000) (40,000) ................ ................
(Limitation on guaranteed loans)........................ (931,986,868) (931,700,000) (931,230,420) (-756,448) (-469,580)
=========================================================================================
TITLE III--OTHER INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Access Board.................................................. 7,448 7,548 7,548 +100 ................
Federal Housing Finance Agency, Office of Inspector General ................ 48,000 ................ ................ -48,000
(legislative proposal).......................................
Offsetting collections (legislative proposal)............. ................ -48,000 ................ ................ +48,000
Federal Maritime Commission................................... 24,669 25,660 25,660 +991 ................
National Railroad Passenger Corporation Inspector General..... 23,499 24,499 23,499 ................ -1,000
National Transportation Safety Board.......................... 103,027 103,000 103,981 +954 +981
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation......................... 204,100 182,000 186,600 -17,500 +4,600
United States Interagency Council on Homelessness............. 3,500 3,530 3,530 +30 ................
=========================================================================================
Total, title III, Other Independent Agencies............ 366,243 346,237 350,818 -15,425 +4,581
=========================================================================================
Grand total............................................. 50,856,000 50,965,337 54,439,000 +3,583,000 +3,473,663
Appropriations...................................... (59,241,834) (56,645,587) (60,082,324) (+840,490) (+3,436,737)
Rescissions......................................... (-135,054) ................ (-16,774) (+118,280) (-16,774)
Rescissions of contract authority................... ................ (-256,000) (-256,300) (-256,300) (-300)
Advance appropriations.............................. (4,400,000) (4,400,000) (4,400,000) ................ ................
Offsetting receipts................................. (-12,643,000) (-9,759,000) (-9,759,000) (+2,884,000) ................
Offsetting collections.............................. (-7,780) (-65,250) (-11,250) (-3,470) (+54,000)
(By transfer)........................................... ................ 371,000 40,000 +40,000 -331,000
(Limitation on obligations)............................. (53,471,000) (75,767,171) (53,623,300) (+152,300) (-22,143,871)
Total budgetary resources........................... (104,327,000) (126,732,508) (108,062,300) (+3,735,300) (-18,670,208)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------