Senate Report 113-45 - TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2014

[Senate Report 113-45]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

Calendar No. 99
113th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 113-45

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

TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2014
_______

June 27, 2013.--Ordered to be printed

_______

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

REPORT

[To accompany S. 1243]

The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 1243)
making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation and
Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2014, and for other purposes,
reports favorably thereon and recommends that the bill do pass.

Amounts of new budget (obligational) authority for fiscal year 2014

Total of bill as reported to the Senate................. $54,045,000,000
Amount of 2013 appropriations\1\\2\..................... 80,767,564,000
Amount of 2014 budget estimate\3\....................... 51,603,014,000
Bill as recommended to Senate compared to--
2013 appropriations................................. -26,722,564,000
2014 budget estimate\2\............................. +2,441,986,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.
\2\The fiscal year enacted level includes $29,070,000,000 in emergency
funding provided by the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013
(division A of Public Law 113-2).
\3\The budget estimate proposed converting $1,452,000,000 previously
treated as budget authority into obligation limits which are not
included here.

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...................................... 7
Federal Aviation Administration.............................. 23
Federal Highway Administration............................... 42
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.................. 53
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration............... 59
Federal Railroad Administration.............................. 66
Federal Transit Administration............................... 71
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation................ 84
Maritime Administration...................................... 85
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration....... 90
Office of Inspector General.................................. 93
Surface Transportation Board................................. 95
General Provisions--Department of Transportation............. 95
Title II: Department of Housing and Urban Development:
Administration, Operations, and Management................... 98
Program Offices Salaries and Expenses........................ 100
Public and Indian Housing.................................... 104
Community Planning and Development........................... 118
Housing Programs............................................. 127
Federal Housing Administration............................... 134
Government National Mortgage Association..................... 137
Policy Development and Research.............................. 138
Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity........................... 138
Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control.............. 140
Information Technology Fund.................................. 141
Office of Inspector General.................................. 142
Transformation Initiative.................................... 143
General Provisions--Department of Housing and Urban
Development................................................ 144
Title III: Independent Agencies:
Access Board................................................. 147
Federal Maritime Commission.................................. 148
National Railroad Passenger Corporation: Office of Inspector
General.................................................... 148
National Transportation Safety Board......................... 149
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation........................ 150
United States Interagency Council on Homelessness............ 151
Title IV: General Provisions--This Act........................... 153
Compliance With Paragraph 7, Rule XVI, of the Standing Rules of
the
Senate......................................................... 155
Compliance With Paragraph 7(c), Rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules
of the Senate.................................................. 156
Compliance With Paragraph 12, Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of
the Senate..................................................... 157
Budgetary Impact of Bill......................................... 185
Comparative Statement of Budget Authority........................ 186

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, as
well as to improve, repair, or replace aging bridges located on
critical road corridors.
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 2014. 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 2014, 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, shall be applied equally to each
budget item that is listed under said account in the budget
justifications submitted to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations as modified by subsequent appropriations acts
and accompanying committee reports, conference reports, or
joint explanatory statements of the committee of conference.

REPROGRAMMING GUIDELINES

The Committee includes a provision (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. 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 2015 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 2015 to the fiscal year 2014
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
2015 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 2014. Plans to achieve these savings in
fiscal year 2014 should be submitted to the Committee no later
than 30 days after enactment of this act.

TITLE I

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

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; three Assistant Secretarial offices for
Budget and Programs, Governmental Affairs, and Administration;
and the Offices of Public Affairs, the Executive Secretariat,
Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, Intelligence,
Security and Emergency Response, and Chief Information Officer.
The Office of the Secretary also includes the Department's
Office of Civil Rights and the Department's Working Capital
Fund.

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $102,276,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 113,109,000
Committee recommendation................................ 109,340,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 $109,340,000 for
salaries and expenses of the Office of the Secretary of
Transportation, including $60,000 for reception and
representation expenses. The recommendation is $3,769,000 less
than the budget request and $7,064,000 more than the fiscal
year 2013 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 2013 enacted
level and the budget request:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
2013 enacted\1\ recommendation
2014 estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immediate Office of the Secretary............................ 2,613,000 2,652,000 2,652,000
Office of the Deputy Secretary............................... 982,000 1,000,000 1,000,000
Office of the General Counsel................................ 19,476,000 20,504,000 20,502,000
Office of the Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy... 10,087,000 12,804,000 10,271,000
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs.... 10,517,000 13,326,000 13,026,000
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Government Affairs..... 2,495,000 2,627,000 2,627,000
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration......... 25,418,000 27,468,000 26,686,000
Office of Public Affairs..................................... 2,016,000 2,203,000 2,051,000
Executive Secretariat........................................ 1,592,000 1,714,000 1,714,000
Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization....... 1,366,000 1,386,000 1,386,000
Office of Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response..... 10,756,000 10,849,000 10,849,000
Office of the Chief Information Officer...................... 14,958,000 16,576,000 16,576,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total, Salaries and Expenses........................... 102,276,000 113,109,000 109,340,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112-25.

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 $2,652,000 for fiscal year 2014
for the Immediate Office of the Secretary. The recommendation
is equal to the budget request and $39,000 more than the fiscal
year 2013 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 $1,000,000 for the Immediate
Office of the Deputy Secretary, which is equal to the budget
request and $18,000 more than the fiscal year 2013 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 $20,502,000 for expenses of the
Office of the General Counsel for fiscal year 2014. The
recommended funding level is $2,000 less than the budget
request and $1,026,000 more than the fiscal year 2013 enacted
level.
The Committee supports the General Counsel's efforts to
enforce air travel consumer rights and protections, and the
Committee recommendation includes an additional $2,531,000 for
these activities. This figure equals the additional $2,500,000
provided in each of the past 6 years, adjusted for unavoidable
increases such as inflation. The Committee recommendation also
includes $500,000 that the Department requested to support work
related to aviation consumer protection and required by the FAA
Modernization and Reform Act of 2012.

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 $10,271,000 for the Office of the
Under Secretary for Policy. The recommended funding level is
$2,533,000 less than the budget request and $184,000 more than
the fiscal year 2013 enacted level.
The Committee recommendation does not include $1,033,000 in
the Department's budget request for additional positions, or
$1,500,000 requested for a series of workshops that would serve
as a forum for Federal agencies with enforcement
responsibilities.

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 $13,026,000 for the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs. The recommended
level is $300,000 less than the budget request and $2,509,000
more than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level.
The Committee recommendation includes $2,000,000 to
establish a credit oversight office, as requested by the
Department. The Department offers credit assistance through the
Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act
program, the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing
program, and the Federal Ship Financing program, which is
usually referred to as the Title XI program. Among these three
programs, the Department oversees a portfolio of about
$11,900,000,000 in direct loans and loan guarantees.
Applications for credit assistance are complex in nature, and
the Committee expects that the level of credit assistance
provided by the Department will increase over the coming years.
The additional resources provided under the Committee
recommendation will help the Department review applications and
maintain strong oversight over its growing portfolio.
The Committee recommendation also includes $350,000
requested by the Department for contract support to improve the
Department's internal financial management

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 $2,627,000 for the
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs. The
recommended level is equal to the budget request and $132,000
more than the fiscal year 2013 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 $26,686,000 for the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Administration. The recommended funding
level is $782,000 less than the budget request and $1,268,000
more than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level.
The Committee recommendation includes $900,000 requested by
the Department for contract support for the Office of the
Senior Procurement Executive to conduct procurement management
reviews and assess internal controls over acquisition
activities and programs. The funding will also allow the
Department to train over 200 acquisition professionals across
the Department. The Committee recommendation also includes
$300,000 requested for contract support to meet executive order
and legislative requirements related to the Department's
energy, environmental, and sustainability impacts. The
Committee recommendation, however, does not include funding
requested for additional positions, workforce plans, and other
personnel activities.

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 $2,051,000 for the Office of
Public Affairs, which is $152,000 less than the budget request
and $35,000 more than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level. The
Committee recommendation does not include $152,000 requested
for a new speechwriter.

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 equal to the budget request
and $122,000 more than the fiscal year 2013 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 $1,386,000, an amount that is
equal to the budget request and $20,000 more than the fiscal
year 2013 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 $10,849,000 for the Office of
Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response. The
recommendation is equal to the request and $93,000 more than
the fiscal year 2013 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 $16,576,000, which is equal to the
budget request and $1,618,000 more than the fiscal year 2013
enacted level.

NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $499,000,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 500,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 550,000,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 $51,000,000 more than the
fiscal year 2013 enacted level and $50,000,000 more than the
budget request.
Eligibility of Projects That Support Safety.--On the
evening of Thursday, May 23, 2013, a section of the I-5 bridge
collapsed into the Skagit River. While it is fortunate that
nobody was seriously injured, the incident serves as a reminder
of the need to invest in our Nation's transportation
infrastructure. For many, the collapse of this bridge called to
mind the collapse of the I-35 West bridge in Minneapolis,
Minnesota, which killed 13 people and injured another 145
people.
Such high profile incidents occur in every mode of
transportation. In 2008, for example, two trains collided near
Chatsworth, California. This collision lead to the enactment of
legislation that mandates the implementation of positive train
control on certain rail lines. According to the National
Transportation Safety Board, positive train control technology
provides critical redundancy that would have prevented the
collision.
Incidents such as the collapse of a bridge or a train
collision illustrate the importance of making transportation
investments that improve safety and protect human life. Such
projects, including the implementation of positive train
control, are eligible for funding under this program.
Planning Activities.--The Committee recommendation includes
up to $35,000,000 for the planning, preparation or design of
projects eligible for funding under this heading.
Protections for Rural Areas.--The Committee continues to
believe that our Federal infrastructure programs must benefit
communities across the country. For this reason, the Committee
continues to require the Secretary to award grants and credit
assistance in a manner that ensures an equitable geographic
distribution of funds and an appropriate balance in addressing
the needs of urban and rural communities. The Committee also
set aside funding for projects located in rural areas, and
included specific provisions to match grant requirements with
the needs of rural areas. Specifically, the Committee has
lowered the minimum size of a grant awarded to a rural area and
increased the Federal share of the total project cost.

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT CAPITAL

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $4,980,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 10,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 10,000,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 $10,000,000 to support the
Secretary's Financial Management Capital initiative, which is
equal to the budget request and $5,020,000 more than the fiscal
year 2013 enacted level.
The Committee repeats instructions included in its report
last year, directing OST to include a table in its budget
justifications for fiscal year 2015 that specifies how much of
the funding for this activity would be provided by each of the
modal administrations.

CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $9,980,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 6,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 6,000,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 $6,000,000 to support
the Secretary's Cyber Security Initiative, which is equal to
the budget request and $3,980,000 less than the fiscal year
2013 enacted level.

OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $9,365,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 9,551,000
Committee recommendation................................ 9,551,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 $9,551,000 for
the Office of Civil Rights. The recommendation is equal to the
budget request and $186,000 more than the fiscal year 2013
enacted level.

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $8,982,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 9,750,000
Committee recommendation................................ 9,750,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of the Secretary performs those research
activities and studies which can more effectively or
appropriately be conducted at the departmental level. This
research effort supports the planning, research, and
development activities needed to assist the Secretary in the
formulation of national transportation policies. The program is
carried out primarily through contracts with other Federal
agencies, educational institutions, nonprofit research
organizations, and private firms.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $9,750,000 for transportation
planning, research, and development, which is equal to the
budget request and $768,000 more than the fiscal year 2013
enacted level.

WORKING CAPITAL FUND

Limitation, 2013\1\..................................... $172,000,000
Budget estimate, 2014\2\................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 178,000,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.
\2\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 $178,000,000 on
activities financed through the Working Capital Fund. The
recommended limit is $6,000,000 more than the limit enacted for
fiscal year 2013. 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 by other entities. The Committee
directs that services shall be provided on a competitive basis
to the maximum extent possible.
The Committee notes that the ``transparency paper''
included in the justifications for fiscal year 2014 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 2015.

MINORITY BUSINESS RESOURCE CENTER PROGRAM

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation on
Appropriations guaranteed loans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2013\1\.............. $920,000 $18,367,000
Budget estimate, 2014................ 925,000 18,367,000
Committee recommendation............. 925,000 18,367,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.

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 equal to the budget estimate and $5,000
more than the fiscal year 2013 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 2013 enacted level.

MINORITY BUSINESS OUTREACH

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $3,062,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 3,088,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,088,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 $3,088,000 for grants and
contractual support provided under this program for fiscal year
2014. The recommendation is equal to the budget request and
$26,000 more than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level.

PAYMENTS TO AIR CARRIERS

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations Mandatory\1\ Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, 2013\2\.......................................... $142,714,000 $50,000,000 $192,714,000
Budget estimate, 2014........................................... 146,000,000 100,000,000 246,000,000
Committee recommendation........................................ 146,000,000 100,000,000 246,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\From overflight fees provided to the Federal Aviation Administration pursuant to section 41742 of title 49,
United States Code.
\2\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112-25.

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 $146,000,000
for the EAS program. This appropriation would be in addition to
an estimated $100,000,000 of overflight fees collected by the
Federal Aviation Administration, allowing the Department to
support a total program level for EAS of about $246,000,000.
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 $53,286,000 more than the total program level
enacted for fiscal year 2013; the total program level enacted
for that year was comprised of an appropriation of $142,714,000
plus $50,000,000 in overflight fees.
Recently enacted legislation to reauthorize the FAA allows
all of the receipts collected from overflight fees to be used
to finance the EAS program. The Administration currently
estimates that it will have a total of about $116,000,000
available in fiscal year 2014 from the collection of new
overflight fees and unobligated balances of fees collected in
prior years. The Committee recognizes that it is difficult to
forecast the exact cost of the EAS program. By assuming the
Administration uses less than $116,000,000 of fee collections
in fiscal year 2014, the Committee protects the program against
unexpected costs or low fee collections that might otherwise
disrupt service to communities dependent on EAS. Any fees not
spent in fiscal year 2014 will then be available to support the
program the following year.
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, removes the requirement with the expectation that the
Department will use this flexibility judiciously. The
Department should use it for communities where historical
passenger levels indicate that smaller aircraft would still
accommodate the great majority of passengers, or for
communities where viable proposals for service are not
available. The Committee does not expect the Department to use
this flexibility simply to lower costs if a community can show
regular enplanement levels that would justify larger aircraft.
Transfer Authority.--Under the FAA Modernization and Reform
Act of 2012, a larger share of the funding for the EAS program
is derived from the FAA's collection of overflight fees. The
Committee recognizes that funding the EAS program in this way
presents the Department with a challenge because it is
uncertain when during the course of the fiscal year the FAA
will receive the fees and then be able to transfer them to the
Office of the Secretary. In order to help the Office of the
Secretary manage the timing of its EAS funding in the coming
year, the Committee recommendation includes bill language that
allows the Secretary to borrow funds from other programs within
the Office of the Secretary. Such funds, however, must also be
returned to the original program in fiscal year 2014 once
enough overflight fees have been transferred from the FAA.
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. To remain eligible for EAS
service, the community's level of subsidy per passenger must be
below $1,000. The Department determines eligibility by
reviewing a community's per passenger subsidy level in the last
fiscal year of its contract.
The table shows two communities that received per passenger
subsidies greater than $1,000 during the period the data was
collected. Following its regular process for such
circumstances, the Department issued a tentative finding that
the communities are no longer eligible under the EAS program.
After issuing the tentative finding, the Department may receive
objections to the termination of subsidies. A final decision on
each community is expected by the end of June.

ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE SUBSIDY PER PASSENGER
[Data is based on April 1, 2013, subsidy rates and calendar year 2012 passengers]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 13.1 $2,603,365 8,216 $316.87
AREl Dorado/Camden 107 9.6 2,436,074 6,008 405.47
ARHarrison 86 16.9 2,080,318 10,590 196.44
ARHot Springs 51 7.6 1,474,388 4,749 310.46
ARJonesboro 82 14.5 1,717,781 9,107 188.62
AZKingman 121 2.9 1,168,390 1,829 638.81
AZPage 282 20.6 1,559,206 12,924 120.64
AZPrescott 102 16.6 1,832,233 10,405 176.09
AZShow Low 154 12.1 1,719,058 7,547 227.78
CACrescent City 314 41.3 1,996,959 25,849 77.25
CAEl Centro 101 17.8 1,943,751 11,144 174.42
CAMerced 60 10.5 1,698,878 6,602 257.33
CAVisalia 47 10.7 1,697,929 6,700 253.42
COAlamosa 164 22.3 2,078,676 13,988 148.60
COCortez 255 24.5 2,240,766 15,349 145.99
COPueblo 36 13.7 1,592,276 8,548 186.27
GAAthens 72 ............ 1,553,093 ........... \1\N/A
GAMacon 82 ............ 1,998,696 ........... \1\N/A
IABurlington 74 24.6 1,917,566 15,376 124.71
IAFort Dodge 91 18.1 1,798,693 11,329 158.77
IAMason City 131 18.9 1,174,468 11,814 99.41
IASioux City 88 84.1 1,512,799 52,634 28.74
IAWaterloo 63 57.5 1,541,824 36,026 42.80
ILDecatur 126 23.1 2,667,922 14,439 184.77
ILMarion/Herrin 123 31.4 2,053,783 19,626 104.65
ILQuincy 111 30.9 1,946,270 19,333 100.67
KSDodge City 150 18.0 1,688,598 11,262 149.94
KSGarden City 202 55.2 2,919,026 34,571 84.44
KSGreat Bend 114 3.1 1,082,020 1,929 560.92
KSHays 175 29.7 2,164,041 18,600 116.35
KSLiberal/Guymon 138 17.9 2,555,150 11,196 228.22
KSSalina 97 7.9 1,490,479 4,955 300.80
KYOwensboro 105 11.5 1,529,913 7,175 213.23
KYPaducah 146 65.7 1,710,775 41,135 41.59
MDHagerstown 78 ............ 1,785,638 ........... \1\N/A
MEAugusta/Waterville 69 ............ 1,362,616 ........... \1\N/A
MEBar Harbor 178 16.5 1,631,223 10,320 158.06
MEPresque Isle/Houlton 270 38.7 3,892,174 24,242 160.55
MERockland 80 25.5 1,420,545 15,983 88.88
MIAlpena 174 40.6 3,098,472 25,404 121.97
MIEscanaba 112 42.8 2,833,558 26,764 105.87
MIHancock/Houghton 219 81.1 934,156 50,750 18.41
MIIron Mountain/Kingsford 105 26.8 2,512,971 16,790 149.67
MIIronwood/Ashland 213 8.0 1,747,326 5,006 349.05
MIManistee 110 ............ 2,143,294 ........... \1\N/A
MIMuskegon 42 54.4 1,576,067 34,029 46.32
MIPellston 213 78.5 1,055,322 49,142 21.47
MISault Ste. Marie 278 63.0 1,676,136 39,424 42.52
MNBemidji 158 69.1 1,338,293 43,287 30.92
MNBrainerd 143 46.2 1,356,764 28,948 46.87
MNChisholm/Hibbing 199 35.9 2,517,770 22,495 111.93
MNInternational Falls 298 46.4 1,107,900 29,058 38.13
MNThief River Falls 305 9.1 1,881,815 5,727 328.59
MOCape Girardeau 127 18.7 1,469,715 11,721 125.39
MOFort Leonard Wood 85 26.3 2,905,794 16,440 176.75
MOJoplin 70 78.1 342,560 48,894 7.01
MOKirksville 137 17.7 1,649,248 11,095 148.65
MSGreenville 124 16.3 3,522,398 10,227 344.42
MSHattiesburg/Laurel 85 34.4 2,965,667 21,532 137.73
MSMeridian 84 44.7 2,417,808 27,970 86.44
MSTupelo 94 24.3 3,522,398 15,197 231.78
MTButte 76 64.7 672,230 40,488 16.60
MTGlasgow 285 6.0 1,166,049 3,784 308.15
MTGlendive 223 2.3 1,193,391 1,427 836.29
MTHavre 230 3.8 1,162,329 2,354 493.77
MTLewistown 103 1.0 1,325,733 656 \2\2,020.93
MTMiles City 145 1.1 1,621,821 713 \2\2,274.64
MTSidney 272 36.3 2,932,152 22,736 128.97
MTWest Yellowstone 89 40.9 535,141 9,986 53.59
MTWolf Point 293 9.2 1,502,378 5,757 260.97
NDDevils Lake 402 9.5 2,797,467 5,952 470.00
NDJamestown 97 11.7 1,987,655 7,309 271.95
NEAlliance 233 5.1 1,309,865 3,192 410.36
NEChadron 290 6.4 1,309,865 4,022 325.67
NEGrand Island 138 73.4 2,215,582 45,949 48.22
NEKearney 181 39.8 1,752,904 24,907 70.38
NEMcCook 256 5.3 1,976,338 3,310 597.08
NENorth Platte 255 26.4 1,657,510 16,538 100.22
NEScottsbluff 192 28.2 1,398,351 17,667 79.15
NHLebanon/White River Jct. 124 31.9 2,347,744 19,991 117.44
NMCarlsbad 149 8.6 1,397,081 5,371 260.12
NMClovis 102 5.8 1,954,490 3,642 536.65
NMSilver City/Hurley/Deming 134 4.4 2,098,460 2,755 761.69
NYJamestown 76 9.9 1,940,272 6,223 311.79
NYMassena 138 15.6 2,090,949 9,753 214.39
NYOgdensburg 105 15.8 1,702,697 9,914 171.75
NYPlattsburgh 82 21.9 2,470,834 13,722 180.06
NYSaranac Lake/Lake Placid 132 19.0 1,366,538 11,909 114.75
NYWatertown 54 56.4 3,047,972 35,327 86.28
ORPendleton 185 15.3 1,834,708 9,591 191.29
PAAltoona 112 10.9 1,998,594 6,835 292.41
PABradford 77 6.8 1,940,272 4,277 453.65
PADuBois 112 16.1 2,587,029 10,055 257.29
PAFranklin/Oil City 85 4.1 1,293,515 2,597 498.08
PAJohnstown 84 20.8 1,998,594 13,009 153.63
PALancaster 28 ............ 2,504,174 ........... \1\N/A
PRMayaguez 105 17.7 1,198,824 11,097 108.03
SDAberdeen 189 78.4 1,198,222 49,077 24.42
SDHuron 121 5.3 1,929,349 3,312 582.53
SDWatertown 207 18.4 1,710,324 11,494 148.80
TNJackson 86 5.7 1,115,210 3,597 310.04
TXVictoria 93 ............ 2,294,036 ........... \1\N/A
UTCedar City 179 32.3 2,273,395 20,224 112.41
UTMoab 256 13.0 1,816,486 8,127 223.51
UTVernal 150 23.0 1,299,194 14,379 90.35
VAStaunton 113 42.0 3,394,629 26,309 129.03
VTRutland 69 18.8 797,141 11,756 67.81
WIEau Claire 92 64.6 1,733,576 40,424 42.88
WIRhinelander 190 35.1 1,519,619 21,996 69.09
WVBeckley 168 8.3 2,512,494 5,198 483.36
WVClarksburg 96 18.2 1,728,125 11,423 151.28
WVGreenbrier/White Sulphur Springs 166 26.8 3,484,710 16,782 207.65
WVMorgantown 75 29.8 1,728,125 18,650 92.66
WVParkersburg/Marietta 110 24.8 2,587,029 15,515 166.74
WYCody 108 90.0 352,058 56,359 6.25
WYLaramie 145 22.7 1,635,346 14,211 115.08
WYWorland 161 8.9 1,987,148 5,556 357.66
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Communities may not have any passenger data due to a service hiatus, an airport closure, a carrier
transition, or incorrect or missing data. The Department does not pay any subsidy for the time that an air
carrier is not providing service to the community.
\2\On March 28, the Department issued a tentative finding that Lewistown and Miles City, Montana, are no
longer eligible under the EAS program. A final decision is expected by the end of June.

RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

Appropriations, 2013\1\\2\.............................. $15,949,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 14,765,000
Committee recommendation................................ 14,765,000

\1\Appropriations for fiscal year 2013 were provided for a separate
agency within the Department of Transportation, whereas the budget
request and Committee recommendation include funds for an office within
the Office of the Secretary to perform the same activities.
\2\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $14,765,000
for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and
Technology. This amount is equal to the budget request, and
$1,184,000 less than the amount provided to the Research and
Innovative Technology Administration to perform the same
activities in fiscal year 2013. The following table summarizes
the Committee's recommendation in comparison to the budget
request and the fiscal year 2013 enacted level:

Intelligent Transportation Systems [ITS].--Intelligent
Transportation Systems are developed to improve the safety and
efficiency of our transportation network. The Committee
recommendation includes $100,000,000 for ITS research,
technology transfer and evaluations, and program support. This
funding is provided through the Federal Highway Administration,
and the level is consistent with the most recent authorization
law, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act. The
ITS Joint Program Office coordinates the Department's ITS
initiatives among the Federal Highway Administration, the
Federal Transit Administration, the Maritime Administration,
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and the
Office of the Secretary of Transportation.
The Department's efforts include work on vehicle-to-vehicle
and vehicle-to-infrastructure communications. Such
communications increase situational awareness, and can reduce
or eliminate crashes through the use of driver advisories,
driver warnings, and vehicle or infrastructure controls. With
safety applications for light vehicles, trucks, buses, and
fleets of all kinds, vehicle-to-vehicle communications have the
potential to address up to 80 percent of crash scenarios that
involve unimpaired drivers. As result, vehicle-to-vehicle
communications may prevent tens of thousands of automobile
crashes every year. Vehicle-to-infrastructure communications
have the potential to address an additional 12 percent of the
crash scenarios that involve unimpaired drivers.
The private sector will continue to develop technologies
that have market demand or a clear business case. However,
Federal leadership is needed to apply vehicle-to-vehicle and
vehicle-to-infrastructure communications to safety
improvements. The Federal Government supports collaboration
among automotive manufacturers, public sector agencies, and
their suppliers, and it is developing standards that ensure the
interoperability of vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-
infrastructure systems produced throughout the industry.
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.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION

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

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 2014 amounts to $15,920,817,000 including new budget
authority, a limitation on the obligation of contract
authority, and a rescission of unobligated balances. This
funding level is $370,019,000 more than the budget request and
$20,937,000 more than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level.
The following table summarizes the Committee's
recommendations for fiscal year 2014 in comparison to the
budget request and the fiscal year 2013 enacted level:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-------------------------------------- Committee
2013 enacted\1\ 2014 estimate recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations............................................. $9,634,089,000 $9,707,000,000 $9,707,000,000
Facilities and equipment............................... 2,725,270,000 2,777,798,000 2,730,000,000
Emergency funds for facilities and equipment........... 30,000,000 ................. .................
Research, engineering and development.................. 167,221,000 166,000,000 160,000,000
Rescission of research, engineering and development ................. ................. -26,183,000
funds.................................................
Grants-in-aid for airports............................. 3,343,300,000 2,900,000,000 3,350,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................ 15,899,880,000 15,550,798,000 15,920,817,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112-25.

OPERATIONS

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $9,634,089,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 9,707,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 9,707,000,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 $9,707,000,000 for FAA
operations. This funding level is equal to the budget request,
and $72,911,000 more than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level.
The Committee recommendation derives $6,121,000,000 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 2013 enacted level:

FAA OPERATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate, Committee
2014 recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air traffic organization.......... $7,311,790,000 $7,311,790,000
Aviation safety................... 1,204,777,000 1,216,777,000
Commercial space transportation... 16,011,000 17,011,000
Finance and management............ 807,646,000 802,520,000
NextGen and operations planning... 59,782,000 59,477,000
Staff offices..................... 199,801,000 192,780,000
Human resource management......... 107,193,000 106,645,000
-------------------------------------
Total....................... 9,707,000,000 9,707,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 2014.
Contract Towers.--The Committee recommendation provides a
total of $140,350,000 for the contract tower program, which
includes $130,000,000 for the base program and $10,350,000 for
the contract tower cost share program. This total funding level
is sufficient to keep all 251 current contract towers open
throughout fiscal year 2014. The Committee also retains
language that limits contributions in the contract tower cost
share program to 20 percent of total costs.
Air Traffic Controller Workforce.--The Committee remains
committed to the critical workforces of the Federal Aviation
Administration, including its air traffic controllers. The
Committee notes, however, that the controller workforce has
been undermined by the combination of a full-year continuing
resolution and the sequestration of funds during fiscal year
2013.
To live with its budget constraints this year, in April,
the FAA began to furlough almost its entire workforce for 1 day
each pay period. These furloughs resulted in significant air
traffic delays across the country, and the Congress took
notice. It enacted the Reducing Flight Delays Act of 2013 to
stop the furloughs and return air traffic operations back to
its regular levels. While this act provided some relief for the
FAA, it did not address the full damage of sequestration to the
agency's budget. The FAA continues to operate under a hiring
freeze and with severely reduced training resources, including
resources for the training necessary to certify new air traffic
controllers. As a result of these measures, the agency is
losing controllers through attrition at a time when about a
quarter of all certified controllers are eligible to retire.
This situation is unsustainable for the FAA and the safety of
our aviation system.
The Committee recommendation includes sufficient funding to
maintain the FAA's workforce of air traffic controllers. The
recommended funding level will allow the FAA to add new hires
to its workforce as its current controllers retire or leave the
agency for other reasons. The funding level will also allow the
FAA to train its new hires and developmental controllers.
Aviation Inspector Workforce.--Aviation safety inspectors
are another critical workforce that has been hurt by the
combination of a full-year continuing resolution and the
sequestration of funds this past year. Yet, recent events with
lithium-ion batteries have underscored the importance of a
strong inspector workforce in protecting the safety of our air
transportation system. The Committee recommendation therefore
includes an additional $12,000,000 for aviation safety
activities to strengthen the FAA's workforce of safety
inspectors, critical certification staff and necessary support
staff. The Committee directs the FAA to use this funding to
increase its workforce by not fewer than 100 positions, and to
dedicate an appropriate portion of this funding to training
activities.
In previous years, the Committee has included language in
the bill that protected any funding increases for aviation
safety inspectors by prohibiting the FAA from using those funds
for any other purpose. These staff increases remain a high
priority, and the Committee recommendations dedicate scarce
resources to the inspector workforce. Nevertheless, the
Committee recognizes that this bill language diminishes the
flexibility of the FAA. With resources so scarce, the Committee
does not believe that it is in the best interest of the FAA to
put such strong limitations on the use of its funding. The
Committee also believes that it can best protect the public
interest by ensuring that taxpayer dollars can always be put to
the highest priority, even if those priorities shift during the
course of a fiscal year. For these reasons, the Committee has
not included the same language in this year's bill. The
Committee, however, identifies the staff increases for aviation
safety activities as a congressional item of interest and
expects the FAA to use the funding increases for their intended
purpose. Furthermore, the Committee directs the FAA to submit
to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a request
for approval before redirecting any of the funding provided for
staff increases to any other activity.
The Committee also supports the FAA's efforts to implement
a system approach to aviation safety. Under this approach, the
FAA will make better use of data analysis to identify risks and
target resources to the highest priorities. Aviation safety
inspectors will always be the foundation of the FAA's safety
oversight, and a system approach will allow the FAA workforce
to conduct its oversight effectively without constraining the
growth and innovation of the aviation industry. The Committee
recognizes the progress that FAA has made in implementing a
system approach to its flight standards work, and the Committee
urges the FAA to continue its efforts to achieve a fuller
implementation of its new approach. The Committee believes that
the FAA also needs to prioritize implementing a system approach
in its aircraft certification work.
The FAA Modernization and Reform Act identified two other
areas where the FAA must improve its certification process.
Section 312 of the act requires the FAA to develop a more
streamlined certification process, and section 313 requires the
FAA to address the agency's inconsistent interpretation of
safety regulations. Each of these sections requires the FAA to
consult with aviation stakeholders, assess the problem, and
issue a report with recommendations and a plan for implementing
those recommendations. Both reports are now overdue. Given the
importance of these issues, the Committee is disappointed that
the Administration did not respond to these deadlines in a
timely manner.
The Committee urges the FAA to issue both reports due under
sections 312 and 313 immediately. The Committee also instructs
the FAA to submit to the Congress reports that describe the
agency's progress in implementing the section 312 and section
313 recommendations 1 year after the submission of the original
reports, and to submit the update reports not later than 18
months after the submission of the original reports. These
issues are complex in nature, and the Committee understands
that the FAA will not be able to achieve its most ambitious
goals within a year. However, the Committee also believes that
1 year is long enough to show progress and report on it.
Unmanned Aerial Systems.--The development of unmanned
aerial systems [UAS] offers benefits in a wide variety of
applications, including law enforcement and border patrol,
precision agriculture, wildfire mapping, weather monitoring,
oil and gas exploration, disaster management, and aerial
imaging. The UAS industry also presents an opportunity for
substantial domestic job growth. The FAA is taking important
steps toward integrating UAS into the national airspace,
including implementing a UAS test site program to help the
agency gather critical safety data.
The expanded use of UAS also presents the FAA with
significant challenges. The Committee is concerned that,
without adequate safeguards, expanded use of UAS by both
governmental and non-governmental entities will pose risks to
individuals' privacy. The FAA has recognized the importance of
addressing privacy concerns by requiring that UAS test sites
have privacy policies in place before test flights begin.
However, as the FAA looks to integrate UAS into the national
airspace, a more comprehensive approach to privacy may be
warranted. The United States Constitution, Federal, and various
State privacy laws apply to the operation of UAS, but in
consideration of the rapid advancement of technology in this
area, the Committee questions whether current laws offer
sufficient protections to adequately protect individuals.
FAA's oversight and regulatory authority over the national
airspace places the agency in a position to work with other
agencies on addressing privacy concerns. To that end, the
Committee directs the FAA to collaborate with other Federal
agencies in evaluating the impact that broader use of UAS in
the national airspace could have on individual privacy.
Furthermore, the Committee includes bill language that
prohibits the FAA from issuing final regulations on the
integration of UAS into the national airspace until the
Secretary submits a report detailing the results of such
collaboration. The Committee expects this report to address the
application of existing privacy law to governmental and non-
governmental entities; identify gaps in existing law,
especially with regard to the use and retention of personally
identifiable information by both governmental and non-
governmental entities; and recommend next steps in how the FAA
or other Federal agencies can address the impact of widespread
use of UAS on individual privacy. The Committee directs the FAA
to submit this report to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations not later than 1 year after enactment of this
act.
Aeronautical Navigation Products.--The Committee remains
concerned that Aeronautical Navigation Products [AeroNav]
continues to move forward with 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 also 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 has included
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.
Automated Weather Observation Systems [AWOS].--AWOS systems
provide real-time weather information, including specific data
on visibility, cloud height, temperature, dew point, wind
speed, wind direction, pressure, and precipitation. With this
information in hand, pilots are able to use an airport more
often during marginal weather conditions than would otherwise
be possible.
The FAA currently requires that a licensed technician
conduct an on-site inspection of each AWOS system on a
quarterly basis. These inspections entail an additional cost
for the airport, and can be a heavy burden on small general
aviation airports. Remote monitoring technology could allow an
airport to inspect AWOS systems on a continuous basis without
having to pay for on-site inspections. The Committee directs
the FAA to review allowing automated remote monitoring of AWOS
systems as an alternative to quarterly on-site inspections at
general aviation airports. The Committee further directs the
FAA to submit a report on its findings to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations not later than 90 days after
enactment of this act.
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.
Human Intervention Motivation Study and the Flight
Attendant Drug and Alcohol Program.--The Human Intervention and
Motivation Study [HIMS] is a substance abuse program that
provides help to airline pilots in a way that protects their
careers as well as air safety. The HIMS program is an industry-
wide effort that involves airlines, pilot unions, and the FAA
in the identification of impaired pilots, their treatment, and
their return to the cockpit.
Traditional programs to address substance abuse have relied
on workplace supervisors. However, airline pilots perform most
of their duties among their peers, without direct supervision.
The HIMS program works because it uses peer identification and
intervention. The HIMS program provides educational materials,
holds seminars, and conducts outreach to the pilot community.
Flight attendants are also safety professionals who, like
pilots, perform their duties with little management oversight.
The Flight Attendant Drug and Alcohol Program [FADAP] is
designed specifically for the needs of flight attendants, and
with its emphasis on peer identification and intervention, it
operates much like the HIMS program. FADAP is an essential tool
to help flight attendants who may be abusing alcohol or drugs.
The Committee recommendation includes $2,103,000 to
continue funding for HIMS and FADAP over the fiscal year 2014-
2016 period.
Use of Personal Electronic Devices on Airplanes.--The
Federal Aviation Administration initiated a study on the use of
personal electronic devices (PEDs) in the spring of 2012. An
Aviation Rulemaking Committee has been established to make
recommendations to the FAA that will clarify and provide
guidance on allowing additional PEDs without compromising the
continued safe operation of the aircraft.
The existing rules regarding PEDs have gone essentially
unchanged for decades, even though technology has radically
changed. Air travelers have expressed interest in using PEDs
during taxis, takeoffs, and landings. The Committee believes
this issue needs to be resolved, encourages the Aviation
Rulemaking Committee to submit its final report as soon as
possible, and urges the FAA to act on those recommendations
expeditiously.

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2013\1\\2\.............................. $2,755,270,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 2,777,798,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,730,000,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.
\2\Includes emergency funding of $30,000,000 in the Disaster Relief
Appropriations Act, 2013 (division A of Public Law 113-2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 $2,730,000,000
for the Facilities and Equipment account of the Federal
Aviation Administration. The recommended level is $47,798,000
less than the budget request and $25,270,000 less than the
fiscal year 2013 enacted level. Excluding emergency funding,
the Committee recommendation is $4,730,000 more than the fiscal
year 2013 enacted level.
Budget Activities Format.--The Committee directs that the
fiscal year 2015 budget request for the Facilities and
Equipment account conform to the same organizational structure
of budget activities as displayed below.
The Committee's recommended distribution of funds for each
of the budget activities funded by the appropriation follows:

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Committee
estimate, 2014 recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Activity 1, Engineering, Development,
Test and Evaluation:
Advanced Technology Development and $33,500,000 $32,000,000
Prototype..........................
NAS Improvements of System Support 1,000,000 1,000,000
Laboratory.........................
William J. Hughes Technical Center 12,000,000 12,000,000
Facilities.........................
William J. Hughes Technical Center 6,000,000 6,000,000
Infrastructure Sustainment.........
Data Communications in support of 115,450,000 115,450,000
Next Generation Air Transportation
System.............................
Next Generation Transportation 24,674,500 20,000,000
System--Technology Demonstrations
and Infrastructure Development.....
Next Generation Transportation 61,500,000 56,500,000
System--System Development.........
Next Generation Transportation 18,000,000 17,000,000
System--Trajectory Based Operations
Next Generation Transportation 6,000,000 5,000,000
System--Reduce Weather Impact......
Next Generation Transportation 7,000,000 6,000,000
System--Arrivals/Departures at High
Density Airports...................
Next Generation Transportation 41,000,000 40,000,000
System--Collaborative ATM..........
Next Generation Transportation 15,000,000 14,000,000
System--Flexible Terminals and
Airports...........................
Next Generation Transportation 9,000,000 8,750,000
System--System Network Facilities..
Next Generation Transportation 10,000,000 10,000,000
System--Future Facilities..........
Performance Based Navigation........ 32,200,000 32,200,000

Activity 2, Air Traffic Control
Facilities and Equipment:

En Route Programs:
En Route Automation Modernization 26,100,000 86,100,000
[ERAM].............................
En Route Automation Modernization 64,974,000 34,974,000
[ERAM]--D Position Upgrade and
System Enhancements................
En Route Communications Gateway 2,200,000 2,200,000
[ECG]..............................
Next Generation Weather Radar 4,100,000 4,100,000
[NEXRAD]...........................
ARTCC Building Improvements/Plant 53,000,000 40,000,000
Improvements.......................
Air Traffic Management [ATM]........ 13,800,000 13,800,000
Air/Ground Communications 5,500,000 5,500,000
Infrastructure.....................
Air Traffic Control En Route Radar 5,900,000 5,900,000
Facilities Improvements............
Voice Switch and Control System 20,000,000 20,000,000
[VSCS].............................
Oceanic Automation System........... 4,800,000 4,800,000
Next Generation Very High Frequency 20,250,000 20,250,000
A/G Communications System [NEXCOM].
System-Wide Information Management 70,500,000 70,500,000
[SWIM].............................
ADS-B NAS Wide Implementation....... 282,100,400 282,100,400
Wind Hazard Detection Equipment..... 2,000,000 2,000,000
Weather and Radar Processor [WARP].. 700,000 700,000
Collaborative Air Traffic Management 29,390,800 29,390,600
Technologies.......................
Colorado ADS-B WAM Cost Share....... 3,400,000 3,400,000
Tactical Flow Time Based Flow 10,500,000 10,500,000
Management [TBFM]..................
ATC Beacon Interrogator [ATCBI]-- 1,000,000 1,000,000
Sustainment........................
NextGen Weather Processors.......... 23,510,000 23,510,000
Terminal Programs:
Airport Surface Detection Equipment-- 12,100,000 12,100,000
Model X [ASDE-X]...................
Terminal Doppler Weather Radar 3,600,000 3,600,000
[TDWR]--Provide....................
Standard Terminal Automation 45,500,000 47,300,000
Replacement System [STARS] (TAMR
Phase 1)...........................
Terminal Automation Modernization/ 136,550,000 144,500,000
Replacement Program (TAMR Phase 3).
Terminal Automation Program......... 2,600,000 2,600,000
Terminal Air Traffic Control 71,998,300 69,000,000
Facilities--Replace................
ATCT/Terminal Radar Approach Control 53,200,000 49,000,000
[TRACON] Facilities--Improve.......
Terminal Voice Switch Replacement 5,000,000 5,000,000
[TVSR].............................
NAS Facilities OSHA and 26,000,000 20,000,000
Environmental Standards Compliance.
Airport Surveillance Radar [ASR-9] 10,900,000 10,900,000
Service Life Extension Program
[SLEP].............................
Terminal Digital Radar [ASR-11] 19,400,000 19,400,000
Technology Refresh.................
Runway Status Lights [RWSL]......... 35,250,000 35,250,000
National Airspace System Voice 16,000,000 16,000,000
Switch [NVS].......................
Integrated Display System [IDS]..... 4,100,000 4,100,000
Remote Monitoring and Maintenance 1,000,000 1,000,000
System [RMLS] Technology Refresh...
Mode S Service Life Extension 7,300,000 7,300,000
Program [SLEP].....................
Surveillance Interface Modernization 6,000,000 6,000,000
[SIM]..............................
Tower Flight Data Manager [TFDM].... 23,500,000 23,500,000
Voice Recorder Replacement Program 6,200,000 6,200,000
[VRRP].............................
Precision Runway Monitor Replacement 5,000,000 5,000,000
[PRMR].............................
Integrated Terminal Weather System 1,300,000 1,300,000
[ITWS].............................
Flight Service Programs:
Automated Surface Observing System 10,000,000 10,000,000
[ASOS].............................
Future Flight Service Program....... 3,000,000 3,000,000
Alaska Flight Service Facilities 2,900,000 2,900,000
Modernization [AFSFM]..............
Weather Camera Program.............. 1,200,000 1,200,000
Landing and Navigational Aids Programs:
VHF Omnidirectional Radio Range 8,300,000 8,300,000
[VOR] with Distance Measuring
Equipment [DME]...................
Instrument Landing System [ILS] 7,000,000 7,000,000
Establish/Expand...................
Wide Area Augmentation System [WAAS] 109,000,000 100,000,000
for GPS............................
Runway Visual Range [RVR]........... 6,000,000 6,000,000
Approach Lighting System Improvement 3,000,000 4,000,000
Program [ALSIP]....................
Distance Measuring Equipment [DME].. 4,000,000 4,000,000
Visual Navaids--Establish/Expand.... 2,500,000 2,500,000
Instrument Flight Procedures 4,500,000 4,500,000
Automation [IFPA]..................
Navigation and Landing Aids--Service 3,000,000 3,000,000
Life Extension Program [SLEP]......
VASI Replacement-Replace with 2,500,000 2,500,000
Precision Approach Indicator [PAPI]
Global Positioning System [GPS] 20,000,000 15,000,000
Civil Requirements.................
Runway Safety Areas--Navigational 38,000,000 38,000,000
Mitigation.........................
Other Air Traffic Control Facilities
Programs:
Fuel Storage Tank Replacement and 8,700,000 8,700,000
Monitoring.........................
Unstaffed Infrastructure Sustainment 33,000,000 30,000,000
Aircraft Related Equipment Program.. 10,400,000 10,400,000
Airport Cable Loop System--Sustained 5,000,000 5,000,000
Support............................
Alaskan Satellite Telecommunications 11,000,000 11,000,000
Infrastructure [ASTI]..............
Facilities Decommissioning.......... 6,500,000 6,500,000
Electrical Power Systems--Sustain/ 85,000,000 70,075,000
Support............................
FAA Employee Housing and Life Safety 2,500,000 2,500,000
Shelter System Service.............

Activity 3, Non-Air Traffic Control
Facilities and Equipment:

Support Equipment:
Hazardous Materials Management...... 20,000,000 20,000,000
Aviation Safety Analysis System 12,700,000 12,700,000
[ASAS].............................
Logistics Support Systems and 10,000,000 10,000,000
Facilities [LSSF]..................
NAS Recovery Communications [RCOM].. 12,000,000 12,000,000
Facility Security Risk Management... 15,000,000 15,000,000
Information Security................ 13,000,000 13,000,000
System Approach for Safety Oversight 9,500,000 9,500,000
[SASO].............................
Aviation Safety Knowledge Management 12,200,000 12,200,000
Environment [ASKME]................
Data Center Optimization............ 1,000,000 1,000,000
Aerospace Medical Equipment Needs 5,000,000 5,000,000
[AMEN].............................
Aviation Safety Information Analysis 15,000,000 15,000,000
and Sharing........................
National Test Equipment Program..... 3,000,000 3,000,000
Mobile Assets Management Program.... 3,000,000 3,000,000
Aerospace Medicine Safety 3,900,000 3,900,000
Information System [AMSIS].........
Training Equipment and Facilities:
Aeronautical Center Infrastructure 12,300,000 12,300,000
Modernization......................
Distance Learning................... 1,000,000 1,000,000

Activity 4, Facilities and Equipment
Mission Support:
System Engineering and Development 35,600,000 35,600,000
Support............................
Program Support Leases.............. 42,100,000 42,100,000
Logistics Support Services [LSS].... 11,500,000 11,500,000
Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center 17,900,000 17,900,000
Leases.............................
Transition Engineering Support...... 16,500,000 16,500,000
Technical Support Services Contract 25,000,000 25,000,000
[TSSC].............................
Resource Tracking Program [RTP]..... 4,000,000 4,000,000
Center for Advanced Aviation System 70,000,000 70,000,000
Development [CAASD]................
Aeronautical Information Management 9,050,000 9,050,000
Program............................

Activity 5, Personnel and Related
Expenses:
Personnel and Related Expenses...... 482,000,000 468,000,000
-------------------------------
Total............................. 2,777,798,000 2,730,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cyber Security.--The primary mission of the FAA is to
protect the safety of our aviation system, and to fulfill this
mission, it must protect the security of its own computer
systems. This responsibility grows more challenging as the FAA
modernizes its air traffic control system. FAA's next
generation system will not rely on radars and closed
information systems; instead it will make use of satellite
technology and open computer networks that can manage and share
data more efficiently. These same innovations, however, will
make the FAA's air traffic control system more vulnerable to
cyber attacks. For that reason, it is critical that the FAA
continually assess its vulnerabilities and effectively
addresses its risks.
The Department's budget reflects the importance of
protecting cyber security at the FAA. For the entire Department
of Transportation, the Committee recommendation includes
$136,339,000 to improve cyber security, a funding level that is
equal to the budget request. Of this total, $105,195,000--or 77
percent--is for improving cyber security at the FAA.
Given the importance of securing the FAA's computer
systems, the Committee is concerned about recent reports from
the Office of Inspector General [OIG]. This past December, the
OIG published a report describing how the FAA had not
adequately implemented security requirements for its En Route
Automation Modernization System. The report follows another
published in 2011, which describes how the FAA had not
adequately implemented security requirements for its Automatic
Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast System. The two programs
discussed in these reports are fundamental parts of the FAA's
efforts to modernize its air traffic control system.
A new Chief Information Officer [CIO] serves in the Office
of the Secretary. The Committee supports his efforts to reach
out to CIOs at each of the modal administrations and discuss
the Department's cyber security needs. The Committee notes,
however, that the Program Management Office at the FAA serves
an important role in the development of the FAA's computer
systems. This office was created in order to improve the
agency's management of its acquisitions programs, including
programs that develop complex computer systems. The Committee
therefore expects the Vice President of Program Management to
coordinate with the CIO for the FAA and for the Department to
ensure the security of FAA's systems is made a high priority.
Performance-Based Navigation.--The Committee provides
$32,200,000 for Performance-Based Navigation [PBN], which is
equal to the budget request. The Committee believes that the
use of PBN procedures will give users of the national airspace
critical near-term benefits that support the FAA's
modernization effort. However, aviation stakeholders, the
Inspector General, and the Government Accountability Office
have all expressed concern over the FAA's implementation of the
PBN program. The FAA has not yet developed an efficient way to
produce PBN procedures, and the agency has been unable to
integrate published procedures into its management of air
traffic.
The Committee directs FAA to continue implementing section
213 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, which
establishes a number of requirements for the FAA related to
PBN. The Committee further directs FAA to provide a letter
report on its progress in meeting the requirements of section
213, including the estimated fuel and carbon dioxide emissions
savings from any new PBN procedure designed or implemented in
2012 and 2013, to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations by March 31, 2014. In addition, upon completion
of the FAA's pilot program on the use of third-party
procedures, the Committee expects the FAA to present to the
House and Senate Committee on Appropriations a complete
evaluation of the pilot program, including an analysis of costs
and benefits of using third parties to develop PBN procedures.
En Route Automation Modernization [ERAM].--The FAA
established ERAM to replace the computer system for air traffic
control facilities that manage high-altitude 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.
The Committee recognizes that the FAA has improved its
management of ERAM, addressing many of the concerns that led to
significant cost increases and schedule delays just a few years
ago. However, the budget and schedule of ERAM is still subject
to risk. Testifying before the Committee this past April, the
Inspector General described several of these risks. He noted,
for example, that the FAA will likely encounter new problems
when it deploys ERAM at its busiest facilities. He also noted
that the FAA spends about $12,000,000 each month on the capital
needs of ERAM, and that the current budget cannot afford
continued spending at this rate. Furthermore, the Office of the
Inspector General has previously reported that, while the FAA
increased the ERAM budget by $330,000,000, actual cost
increases could reach as much as $500,000,000 if problems
persist with the program.
In addition to the risks identified by the Inspector
General, the temporary furlough of FAA employees due to
sequestration disrupted the implementation of ERAM this year.
In order to support the deployment of the program during fiscal
year 2014, and avoid further risk to the program's schedule,
the Committee recommendation includes $86,100,000 for ERAM in
fiscal year 2014, an increase of $60,000,000 above the budget
request.
The Committee develops its recommendations in a constrained
budget environment, and so the additional funds that the
Committee recommends for the base ERAM program come at a cost
to other activities in the FAA's budget request. For example,
the Committee recommendation includes $34,974,000 for D-
position upgrades and system enhancements to the ERAM program,
a decrease of $30,000,000 from the budget request.
Terminal Automation Modernization/Replacement [TAMR].--The
Committee recommendation includes $47,300,000 for the first
phase of TAMR, an increase of $1,800,000 above the budget
request. The recommendation also includes $144,500,000 for the
third phase of TAMR, an increase of $7,950,000 above the budget
request. The Committee recognizes that the temporary furlough
of FAA employees due to sequestration disrupted the
implementation of TAMR this year, and recommends these
increases to support the program and avoid further risk to the
program's schedule.
Under the TAMR program, the FAA is replacing the computer
systems used for 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; also like ERAM, TAMR has a history
of cost overruns and schedule delays.
This past May, the OIG issued a report on TAMR that
questions whether the FAA has developed a reliable schedule and
budget for the program. The OIG asserts 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 FAA
has concurred or partially concurred with every one of the
OIG's recommendations, and the agency continues to provide
additional information on how it will fulfill those
recommendations.
The Committee expects that the FAA's continued adherence to
OIG recommendations will help keep the program within its
schedule and budget. While the Committee understands that the
program remains within its current baseline, the agency's track
record on its acquisition programs does not give comfort to the
Committee.
Runway Status Lights.--The Committee recommends $32,250,000
for runway status lights, which is equal to the budget request.
This program improves safety by installing runway and taxiway
lights that signal when it is unsafe to enter, cross, or begin
takeoff on a runway.
The FAA planned to install runway status lights at a total
of 23 airports, but the Committee understands the agency is
facing cost increases that will make it difficult to complete
the original scope of work under the current baseline. While
the FAA considers alternatives for moving forward with this
program, the Committee is concerned that it will simply reduce
the number of sites where the agency will install runway status
lights without a plan for addressing the remaining original
locations. This approach would allow the FAA to claim that it
is staying within its budget, but in fact fewer airports would
receive an important technology for preventing runway
incursions under the FAA's current baseline.
Some of the deadliest airplane accidents occur on the
ground, and not in the air. For this reason, the National
Transportation Safety Board [NTSB] continues to include the
improvement of runway safety on its ``most wanted'' list. In
fact, the NTSB specifically cites runway safety lights as an
effective way to improve runway safety.
Given the importance of improving runway safety, the
Committee believes that the FAA's management of this program
reflects poorly on the agency. As it moves forward with the
program, the Committee expects the FAA be more responsible in
developing a realistic budget and schedule, more vigilant in
containing costs throughout the life of the program, and more
engaged with airport sponsors on agreeing to an equitable share
of program costs.
Approach Lighting System Improvement Program.--The
Committee recommendation includes $4,000,000 for the
procurement and replacement of Medium Intensity Approach
Lighting Systems with Runway Alignment Indicator Lights, an
increase of $1,000,000 above the budget request. These lighting
systems improve safety by helping pilots align their aircraft
with the center line of the runway.
VHF Omnidirectional Radio Range [VOR] With Distance
Measuring Equipment [DME].--The Committee is aware of the FAA's
efforts to reduce the number of VORs to a minimum operating
network. The Committee directs the FAA to provide the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations a report that provides a
schedule for the implementation of the network, and a plan for
involving stakeholders and aviation users in the
implementation. The Committee further directs the FAA to submit
this plan within 120 days of enactment of this act.
FAA Management Training and Conference Center.--The
Committee recommends that the FAA continue to pursue new leased
space for its Management Training and Conference Center. A
significant amount of both private and public resources have
been committed to this procurement process. The Committee
recognizes that a best value acquisition will result in
continuing the preceding procurement process as the FAA's long-
term need for such a facility remains. The Committee, in
understanding both the FAA's long-term needs and costs of
remaining in the current facility, recognizes that it is
appropriate to not only continue with the procurement but that
doing so is consistent with the recently enacted FAA
Modernization and Reform Act of 2012.

RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, AND DEVELOPMENT

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

(INCLUDING RESCISSION)

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $167,221,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 166,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 160,000,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 $160,000,000 for the FAA's
research, engineering, and development activities. The
recommended level of funding is $6,000,000 less than the budget
request and $7,221,000 less than the fiscal year 2013 enacted
level. The Committee also recommends the rescission of
$26,183,000 in unobligated balances from prior year
appropriations.
A table showing the fiscal year 2014 budget estimate and
the Committee recommendation follows:

RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, AND DEVELOPMENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Committee
estimate, 2014 recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety:
Fire Research and Safety................ $8,313,000 $7,500,000
Propulsion and Fuel Safety.............. 1,974,000 1,800,000
Advanced Structural/Structural Safety... 2,607,000 2,600,000
Atmospheric Hazards-Aircraft Icing/ 7,582,000 7,500,000
Digital System Safety..................
Continued Airworthiness................. 8,167,000 8,000,000
Aircraft Catastrophic Failure Prevention 1,652,000 1,500,000
Research...............................
Flightdeck/Maintenance/System 5,000,000 5,000,000
Integration Human Factors..............
System Safety Management................ 11,583,000 11,000,000
Air Traffic Control Technical Operations 6,000,000 5,000,000
Human Factors..........................
Aeromedical Research.................... 8,672,000 7,000,000
Weather Program......................... 15,279,000 13,860,000
Unmanned Aircraft System................ 7,500,000 7,500,000
NextGen Alternative Fuels for General 5,571,000 7,100,000
Aviation...............................
NextGen Advanced Systems and Software 1,021,000 1,000,000
Validation.............................
Economic Competitiveness:
Joint Program and Development Office.... 12,057,000 9,000,000
NextGen: Wake Turbulence................ 9,267,000 9,000,000
NextGen: Air Ground Integration......... 10,329,000 10,000,000
NextGen: Weather in the Cockpit......... 4,169,000 4,000,000
Environmental Sustainability:
Environment and Energy.................. 14,542,000 14,600,000
NextGen: Environmental Research......... 18,979,000 21,400,000
Mission Support:
System Planning and Resource Management. 2,289,000 2,200,000
William J. Hughes Technical Center 3,447,000 3,440,000
Laboratory Facility....................
-------------------------------
Total............................. 166,000,000 160,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unmanned Aerial Systems.--The Committee is aware of the
FAA's progress in establishing an FAA Unmanned Aerial System
[UAS] Center of Excellence to address a host of research
challenges associated with integration of UAS systems into the
national airspace. The Committee asserts that the formation of
a UAS Center of Excellence is essential to meet requirements
enacted as part of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of
2012. The Committee directs the FAA to complete the
establishment of the UAS Center of Excellence with funds
provided for UAS research. The Committee directs that the
establishment of a Center of Excellence shall be through a
separate process than the process it uses to establish UAS test
sites in accordance with the FAA Modernization and Reform Act
of 2012, although the Committee encourages cooperation among
the Center of Excellence and the six test sites after
establishment. The Committee further directs that the new
Center of Excellence shall: provide recommendations for a safe,
non-exclusionary airspace designation for cooperative manned
and unmanned flight operations; conduct research to support UAS
interagency requirements to include emergency response,
maritime contingencies, and bio-fuel and clean fuel
technologies; coordinate such research and development
activities with the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration and the Department of Defense; provide
recommendations on aircraft certification to include composites
and stress modeling, flight standards and air traffic
requirements; and facilitate UAS technology transfer to other
civilian and defense agencies, initially focusing on emergency
management. The Administrator shall take into consideration
geographical and climate diversity, relevant research
capability, and participating consortia from the public and
private sectors, educational institutions, and nonprofit
organizations.
UAS Test Sites.--The Committee recognizes the FAA's
progress in designating UAS test ranges in accordance with the
FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. The Committee directs
the FAA to ensure the selection of test sites incorporates
location criteria outlined in that law. The Committee notes the
importance of each of the selection requirements, which involve
consideration of geographic and climatic diversity, the
location of ground infrastructure and research needs; and
consultation with the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration and the Department of Defense.
Alternative Fuels Center of Excellence.--The Committee
recommendation includes $14,600,000 for Environment and Energy,
and another $21,400,000 for NextGen Environmental Research
Aircraft Technologies Fuels and Metrics, for a total funding
level of $36,000,000 for activities related to environmental
sustainability. This funding level is $2,479,000 above the
budget request. Consistent with the budget request, the total
Committee recommendation for environmental sustainability
activities includes not less than $5,000,000 to establish a
new, separate Center of Excellence for alternative jet fuel
research in civil aircraft, as authorized by section 911 of the
FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. The Committee is
aware that the FAA has closed a solicitation to establish the
new Center of Excellence and directs it to act expeditiously to
designate a Center of Excellence for alternative jet fuel
research.
In accordance with the FAA Modernization and Reform Act,
the Committee notes that the primary purpose of the Center of
Excellence will be the development and analysis of alternative
jet fuels. As envisioned by FAA's solicitation, the new Center
of Excellence will also identify solutions for existing and
anticipated problems facing aviation in terms of environment
and energy by conducting testing, modeling, and analysis
related to aviation impacts.
The Committee encourages the FAA to select an educational
and research institution that can lead this effort in
collaboration with substantial private sector support and in
partnership with other educational and research institutions.
The Center should have strong capacity in both alternative
fuels research and development, and in environmental impacts
modeling and analysis. As specified in the FAA Modernization
and Reform Act, the Center should leverage facilities and
experience across the alternative fuel supply chain, including
research, feedstock development and production, small-scale
development, testing, and technology evaluation related to the
creation, processing, production, and transportation of
alternative fuels. In consideration of the purpose of section
911 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act, the Committee
continues to encourage the FAA to establish a Center of
Excellence that will build on the body of work performed by a
consortium examining the development of alternative aviation
fuels.

GRANTS-IN-AID FOR AIRPORTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of
$3,350,000,000 for grants-in-aid to airports for fiscal year
2014. The recommended limitation on obligations is $6,700,000
more than the enacted level for fiscal year 2013, and
$450,000,000 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
$235,000,000 less than the fiscal year 2013 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 AIP Funding for Airport Infrastructure
Development.--In fiscal year 2013, as part of the Reducing
Flight Delays Act, Congress provided the one-time transfer of
up to $253,000,000 in carryover balances from grants-in-aid to
airports to the FAA's Operations account. Congress authorized
this transfer in order to prevent the reduction of agency
operations and staffing necessary for the FAA to live within
its limited resources following the sequester of funds under
Public Law 112-25.
The Committee views this use of limited airport resources
in fiscal year 2013 as a one-time occurrence aimed at averting
serious national impacts. The Committee does not anticipate
further diversion of AIP funds to FAA operations or any other
activity beyond those specified in this legislation. The use of
AIP funds for purposes other than airport infrastructure
development could have a serious impact on the ability of the
Nation's airports to meet current and future FAA standards;
replace or rehabilitate critical airport facilities; increase
airfield capacity; enhance competition among airlines; modify,
replace, or construct facilities to accommodate additional
passengers and aircraft; or meet other important safety,
security, and environmental requirements. The Committee also
believes that any future legislation to address the impact of
sequestration cuts to the FAA's budget should be part of a
larger package that replaces sequestration with a more
responsible approach to deficit reduction.
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. In addition, the Committee directs 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 further directs GAO to issue a report on
its findings not later than 1 year following enactment.
Administrative Expenses.--The Committee recommends
$106,600,000 to cover administrative expenses. This funding
level is equal to the budget request, and $5,802,000 more than
the fiscal year 2013 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 $30,000 more
than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level.
Airport Technology.--The Committee recommends $29,500,000
for airport technology research. This funding level is equal to
the budget request, and $309,000 more than the fiscal year 2013
level.
Small Community Air Service Development Program [SCASDP].--
The Committee recommends $6,000,000 for the Small Community Air
Service Development Program. This funding level is $12,000 more
than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level. The administration
requested no funds for this program for fiscal year 2014.

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 2014.
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 eight 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 take certain measures to
address helicopter noise in Los Angeles County.
Section 119E prohibits the FAA from issuing regulations on
the integration of unmanned aerial systems until the Secretary
submits a report on the privacy implications of such systems.

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 $41,495,000,000 would be provided for the activities of the
Federal Highway Administration in fiscal year 2014. The
recommendation is $500,000,000 more than the budget request.
The total program level under the Committee recommendations is
$885,000,000 less than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level;
however, the total for fiscal year 2013 also included
$2,022,000,000 in emergency spending that would not be repeated
for fiscal year 2014 under the Committee recommendation.
Excluding emergency relief, the funding reflected in the bill
is $1,136,398,000 above last year's level. The following table
summarizes the Committee's recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-------------------------------------- Committee
2013 enacted 2014 estimate recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-aid highway program obligation limitation\1\... $39,619,602,000 $40,256,000,000 $40,256,000,000
Bridges in critical corridors.......................... ................. ................. 500,000,000
Contract authority exempt from the obligation 739,000,000 739,000,000 739,000,000
limitation\1\.........................................
Emergency relief (emergency spending)\1\............... 2,022,000,000 ................. .................
--------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................ 42,380,602,000 40,995,000,000 41,495,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112-25. Obligation limitations for
the Federal-aid highway program (and the related contract authority) are not subject to the sequester, but
contract authority that is exempt from the obligation limitation is subject to the sequester.

LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Limitation, 2013\1\..................................... $416,126,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 429,855,000
Committee recommendation................................ 429,855,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25. Obligation limitations for the Federal-aid highway program
is not subject to the sequester.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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
$429,855,000 for administrative expenses of the agency. This
limitation is equal to the budget request and $13,729,000 more
than the fiscal year 2013 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.

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Limitation, 2013\1\..................................... $39,619,602,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 40,256,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 40,256,000,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25. Obligation limitations for the Federal-aid highway program
are not subject to the sequester.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 2014 Federal-
aid highways obligations to $40,256,000,000, which is equal to
the budget request and $636,398,000 more than the fiscal year
2013 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.
MAP-21 Implementation.--The Committee is aware of the many
programmatic, regulatory, and reporting requirements and
deadlines established in MAP-21. Though MAP-21 is a 2-year
authorization bill, many of its policies and provisions are
expected to take several years beyond fiscal year 2014 to be
completed and implemented. As FHWA works to implement MAP-21,
it needs to provide regular updates to Congress on whether it
faces any challenges in meeting its statutory deadlines.
Therefore, the Committee directs FHWA to provide to the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations not later than 180 days
after enactment of this act, and biennially thereafter, a
report that lists all deadlines, requirements, and mandates in
MAP-21, the current status of each activity, and an explanation
of any delays.
The Committee has fully funded the administration's request
for administrative resources to ensure that the agency is able
to implement MAP-21, and directs FHWA to provide an explanation
in its fiscal year 2015 budget justifications of how the agency
is making any changes to the composition of its workforce as a
result of MAP-21.
Justification Reports.--FHWA issued its most recent
guidance on interstate access points in 2009. The guidance
requires that, before approving a new access point to the
interstate system, FHWA must determine, among other things,
that the need being addressed by the new access point would not
be satisfied by existing interchanges and that the new access
point would not have a significant adverse impact on safety.
The guidance also specifically recognizes the critical role
that surface transportation plays in shaping the economic
health of regions and States. In recognition of that policy,
the Committee notes that, so long as proposed new interchanges
meet requirements in FHWA guidance, the agency's current
guidance provides room for FHWA to approve access points
designed to encourage economic growth.
Section 1505 of MAP-21 amended section 111 of title 23 to
allow the Secretary to permit a State department of
transportation to approve justification reports for a project
that would add a point of access to, or exit from, the
interstate system. The Committee notes that FHWA has not yet
provided any new guidance on how the agency will implement
section 1505. The Committee encourages FHWA to issue such
guidance immediately, building upon existing policy on
interstate access points.
Alternative Fuels Infrastructure.--Recent years have seen
meaningful growth in the alternative fuel vehicle sector. By
helping to decrease fuel consumption, this sector plays an
important role in our Nation's energy security. As automobile
manufacturers design new vehicles to meet stronger fuel economy
standards in coming years, alternative fuel vehicles are
expected to comprise a larger share of the vehicle fleet in the
United States. At this time, efforts to encourage the
deployment of refueling and recharging infrastructure to
support alternative fuel vehicles have relied primarily on
State and Federal incentives, grants and matching programs. As
the industry looks to the future, however, the development of
new, innovative funding mechanisms will be important to
continued market growth.
The Committee recognizes FHWA's ongoing efforts to evaluate
the prospects for deployment of electric vehicles and to
analyze the potential impact of this deployment on its mission,
including the financial implications for available highway
revenues. The Committee directs FHWA to provide the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations, not later than 1 year
after enactment of this Act, a report on options for financing
alternative fueling stations, including public-access electric
vehicle charging stations. The Committee expects the report to
address a variety of financing mechanisms, including, but not
limited to, Federal grants and credit assistance, public-
private partnerships and membership-based cooperatives. The
Committee further directs that, in developing its report, FHWA
consult with interested stakeholders, including the Department
of Energy, relevant industry members, and State departments of
transportation actively participating in alternative and
electric vehicle infrastructure deployment.
Construction of Ferry Boats and Ferry Terminal
Facilities.--An important principle of our Federal
transportation programs has long been that taxpayer dollars
support projects for the public benefit. For this reason, the
Federal-aid Highway program provides grants to public entities
such as State and local governments. The ferry program follows
this same principle, allowing Federal grants to support only
ferry systems that are operated by a public entity or by a
private firm operating the system on behalf of a public entity.
The enactment of MAP-21 changed the ferry program from a
discretionary program that distributed funds through a
competitive process to a formula program that distributes funds
based on the number of passengers, vehicles and route miles in
each ferry system. The Committee notes, however, that MAP-21
does not change the eligibility requirements of the program. In
its published materials on the ferry program, FHWA explains
that ``[ferry boat program] eligibilities continue unchanged''
and that eligible ferry systems must operate on a route that
has been classified as a public road; it must be either
publicly owned or operated, or majority publicly owned; and the
operating authority and the amount of fares charged for passage
on the ferry shall be under the control of the State or other
public entity.
In order to distribute ferry grants provided by the short-
term continuing resolution, FHWA used data from the Bureau of
Transportation Statistic's 2010 Census of Ferry Boat Operators,
which is the best available data. FHWA understood, however,
that this data was not sufficient to make final eligibility
decisions because it took into account all ferry operators in
the United States, including some that might be considered
private operators. The agency required its division offices to
confirm the eligibility of each operator before making funds
available for obligation. Since FHWA's initial distribution of
funds, division offices have worked closely with State and
local agencies, identifying a number of operators that are not
eligible for the program. FHWA is currently preparing to
distribute ferry grants with the full-year of funding, and this
notice will incorporate the corrections found by the division
offices.
The Committee recognizes that FHWA worked hard to
distribute the funding in a timely manner, but notes that the
process has been confusing for ferry operators and the public,
leading to uncertainty regarding the amount of funding
available to eligible entities. Going forward, the Committee
urges FHWA to proactively determine the eligibility of ferry
operators to provide certainty regarding available funds for
those entities that are eligible recipients.
Safe Routes to Schools.--The Safe Routes to Schools program
was created in 2005 to help children walk or bicycle to school
by making their routes safer and more appealing. The program
supported changes to the local transportation system that
improve safety and that reduce traffic, fuel consumption, and
air pollution in the school's surrounding area.
The Safe Routes to Schools program originally provided 100
percent of a project's costs. MAP-21, however, combined the
Safe Routes to Schools program with other Federal-aid Highway
programs. As a result, projects that had been eligible for the
program now require a local match of funds. This match
requirement poses a significant challenge for low-income areas
that want to create a safe environment around their schools.
The Committee believes that the underlying authorization
law needs to strike the correct balance between recognizing the
needs of low-income neighborhoods with requiring local
stakeholders to contribute to their transportation
improvements. The Committee also recognizes that significant
unobligated balances remain from the funding originally
dedicated to the Safe Routes to Schools program. Those balances
retain the 100 percent Federal share. The Committee directs
FHWA to work with States on a way to target those funds to
projects that benefit low-income neighborhoods.
Technology Transfer of Paving Materials.--The Committee
encourages the Department to use discretionary funds authorized
under subsection 503(b)(3)(C)(xix) of title 23, United States
Code, for technology transfer and adoption of permeable,
pervious, or porous paving materials, practices, and systems
that are designed to minimize environmental impacts, stormwater
runoff, and flooding, and to treat or remove pollutants by
allowing stormwater to infiltrate through the pavement in a
manner similar to predevelopment hydrologic conditions. Such
activities may include testing of high-traffic permeable
pavements using infiltration concrete or asphalt bases;
validation of hydrologic/hydraulic/pollutant removal
performance data and modeling; data collection and reporting on
permeable pavements, installation, maintenance and life cycle
costs. If the Department uses its discretionary funds in this
manner, then the Committee directs the Department to issue
reports on its findings to State and municipal transportation
agencies to overcome technical barriers to adoption of
permeable infiltration pavements in the transportation
infrastructure.
Private Activity Bonds.--Section 1143 of the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users authorized private activity bonds for
qualified highway and surface freight transfer facility
projects. These bonds play a large role in incentivizing
private investment in public projects. While the
$15,000,000,000 statutory cap has not yet been reached, the
Committee directs the Secretary to analyze the existing program
and report back to the House and Senate Committees within 120
days of enactment regarding projected future utilization and
the current project pipeline, as well as any recommendations to
increase or eliminate the authorization cap.
Buy America.--The Committee is aware of concerns being
raised by local transportation districts regarding changes made
in MAP-21 to the applicability of the Buy America law to
federally funded highway projects and the effect of those
changes on utility relocation projects. Specifically, utilities
have stated that while they intend to be Buy America compliant
in the future, they are currently unable to comply due to
existing stockpiles of utility-specific materials and the long
lead time required to replace them. These issues could result
in delays to hundreds of projects and cost thousands of jobs.
The Committee urges the Department to work with local
stakeholders to find a solution that implements the intent of
the Buy America provisions but allows critical projects to move
forward.
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
2013 enacted 2014 estimate recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Formula Programs

ALABAMA...................................................... $688,831,859 $696,248,501 $696,248,501
ALASKA....................................................... 435,370,860 440,059,377 440,059,377
ARIZONA...................................................... 650,616,469 657,617,792 657,617,792
ARKANSAS..................................................... 459,330,022 464,277,115 464,277,115
CALIFORNIA................................................... 3,272,641,156 3,307,822,975 3,307,822,975
COLORADO..................................................... 486,155,977 491,384,692 491,384,692
CONNECTICUT.................................................. 446,993,251 451,801,921 451,801,921
DELAWARE..................................................... 150,424,643 152,043,358 152,043,358
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA......................................... 141,856,122 143,382,759 143,382,759
FLORIDA...................................................... 1,720,188,250 1,738,709,837 1,738,709,837
GEORGIA...................................................... 1,173,217,863 1,185,842,059 1,185,842,059
HAWAII....................................................... 146,982,130 148,564,656 148,564,656
IDAHO........................................................ 254,016,617 256,751,384 256,751,384
ILLINOIS..................................................... 1,292,591,900 1,306,493,924 1,306,493,924
INDIANA...................................................... 827,077,797 835,985,313 835,985,313
IOWA......................................................... 426,894,869 431,492,636 431,492,636
KANSAS....................................................... 343,178,928 346,873,280 346,873,280
KENTUCKY..................................................... 603,319,173 609,814,555 609,814,555
LOUISIANA.................................................... 607,795,550 614,345,130 614,345,130
MAINE........................................................ 164,049,729 165,815,463 165,815,463
MARYLAND..................................................... 521,862,034 527,477,962 527,477,962
MASSACHUSETTS................................................ 552,487,736 558,427,064 558,427,064
MICHIGAN..................................................... 957,059,672 967,354,488 967,354,488
MINNESOTA.................................................... 579,268,659 585,504,512 585,504,512
MISSISSIPPI.................................................. 429,071,692 433,692,924 433,692,924
MISSOURI..................................................... 839,999,333 849,045,845 849,045,845
MONTANA...................................................... 364,225,269 368,147,186 368,147,186
NEBRASKA..................................................... 256,594,101 259,357,034 259,357,034
NEVADA....................................................... 323,181,926 326,658,572 326,658,572
NEW HAMPSHIRE................................................ 150,165,032 151,780,515 151,780,515
NEW JERSEY................................................... 908,231,611 917,995,611 917,995,611
NEW MEXICO................................................... 318,311,999 321,741,336 321,741,336
NEW YORK..................................................... 1,527,079,966 1,543,495,078 1,543,495,078
NORTH CAROLINA............................................... 903,591,363 913,322,956 913,322,956
NORTH DAKOTA................................................. 225,540,143 227,967,389 227,967,389
OHIO......................................................... 1,192,003,625 1,204,830,604 1,204,830,604
OKLAHOMA..................................................... 562,545,112 568,604,309 568,604,309
OREGON....................................................... 443,811,370 448,589,838 448,589,838
PENNSYLVANIA................................................. 1,491,186,466 1,507,228,860 1,507,228,860
RHODE ISLAND................................................. 194,275,207 196,366,599 196,366,599
SOUTH CAROLINA............................................... 570,076,439 576,213,948 576,213,948
SOUTH DAKOTA................................................. 244,696,001 247,331,581 247,331,581
TENNESSEE.................................................... 750,444,186 758,523,665 758,523,665
TEXAS........................................................ 2,867,152,600 2,898,005,952 2,898,005,952
UTAH......................................................... 286,071,694 289,151,776 289,151,776
VERMONT...................................................... 180,390,588 182,332,111 182,332,111
VIRGINIA..................................................... 904,189,531 913,922,375 913,922,375
WASHINGTON................................................... 602,452,369 608,936,859 608,936,859
WEST VIRGINIA................................................ 387,876,267 392,053,125 392,053,125
WISCONSIN.................................................... 683,461,819 690,817,948 690,817,948
WYOMING...................................................... 222,239,560 224,633,385 224,633,385
--------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL............................................... 34,731,076,535 35,104,838,134 35,104,838,134
==================================================
Allocated programs........................................... 4,367,010,516 4,624,181,656 4,624,181,656
Sections 154 and 164 penalties............................... 521,514,949 526,980,210 526,980,210
==================================================
Total.................................................. 39,619,602,000 40,256,000,000 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 highway, highway safety, and transit
authorization through fiscal year 2014, made Federal-aid
highways funds 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 have been administered by the Research and Innovative
Technology Administration. The Committee recommendation would
elevate RITA's responsibilities to the Office of the Secretary,
as requested by the Administration.

BRIDGES IN CRITICAL CORRIDORS

Appropriations, 2013....................................................
Budget estimate, 2014...................................................
Committee recommendation................................ $500,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation will support additional investments
under the Surface Transportation Program, which is one of the
core formula grant programs that represent the majority of
funding under the Federal-aid Highways Program. The funding is
targeted to bridge projects that are located on the national
highway system, or that are expected to provide significant
safety or economic benefits.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation includes $500,000,000 for the
repair, replacement, and construction of bridges that are
located in critical corridors on our Nation's highway system.
This funding will support bridge projects across the country
that are designed to protect the safety and reliability of our
transportation network, or which would result in significant
economic benefits.
The collapse of the I-5 bridge over the Skagit River in May
caused immeasurable disruption to the region and its economy,
and the incident serves as a reminder of what happens to our
communities when they lose an essential part of their
transportation infrastructure. Without the use of the Skagit
River bridge, commuters have been trapped in their cars for an
additional hour every day. Local shops have experienced a
dramatic loss of business. Larger companies that move goods
throughout the region have been forced to divert shipments,
draining their productivity.
On June 13, the Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and
Urban Development, and Related Agencies held a hearing to
examine the need to invest in our Nation's roads and bridges.
Witnesses from the Administration and the Government
Accountability Office [GAO] testified to the importance of
investments in our transportation infrastructure. Mr. Phillip
Herr, Managing Director of Physical Infrastructure at GAO,
attested to the fact that bridge conditions have improved
slightly in the past decade, but a substantial number of
bridges remain in poor condition. His data show that of the
more than 600,000 bridges in the United States, 25 percent are
classified as deficient. The testimony of Under Secretary Polly
Trottenberg made the case that current programs cannot meet the
demand for bridge projects across the country. The Department
has received hundreds of applications to support bridge
projects through funding provided as National Infrastructure
Investments, commonly referred to as the ``TIGER'' program.
Additionally, several sponsors of nationally significant bridge
projects expressed interest in receiving credit assistance from
the Department. However, according to the Under Secretary,
``there is far more demand for investments than we have funds
available.''
Funding Distribution.--The bill language requires the
Secretary to distribute these funds through a competitive
process. The Committee instructs the Secretary to take such
measures so as to ensure an equitable geographic distribution
of funds, and an appropriate balance in addressing the needs of
urban and rural areas. The Committee recognizes the need for
these bridge repairs far exceeds available funding; therefore,
the Committee encourages the Secretary to consider projects
which leverage nongovernmental support in addition to other
criteria.
GAO Survey on Oversize Load Permitting.--The National
Transportation Safety Board continues to investigate the root
cause of the Skagit River bridge collapse, but it has been
clear that a critical part of this incident is the fact that
the bridge was struck by a truck carrying an oversized load.
Each State administers its own system for issuing permits to
carry such loads, but an incident like the collapse of the
Skagit River bridge raises important questions about how the
Federal and State governments can better protect our
infrastructure. The Committee directs GAO to conduct a survey
of the State departments of transportation on their treatment
of oversize loads, including their permitting process and
oversight regime. The Committee further directs GAO to issue a
report on its findings to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations not later than 18 months after enactment of this
act. The Committee expects this report to detail the GAO's
survey findings, offer recommendations and best practices, and
address the appropriate role of the Federal and State
governments.
Bridge Height Signs.--The collapse of the Skagit River
bridge raised questions about the height of the truck that
struck the bridge, and what the truck driver knew about the
height of the bridge. These questions underscore the importance
of clear and appropriate signage on our public roads. The
Committee directs the Federal Highway Administration to
reevaluate Federal and State requirements for marking bridge
height, including standards related to the position and design
of such signs and the enforcement of such standards. The
Committee further directs FHWA to report its findings and
recommendations to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations not later than 1 year following enactment. In
conducting its evaluation, the Committee expects FHWA to
consult with the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, the American Society of Civil
Engineers, and other relevant organizations.

LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $39,882,583,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 40,995,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 40,995,000,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25. Liquidating authority is not subject to sequester.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 equal to the
budget request and $1,112,417,000 more than the fiscal year
2013 enacted level. This level of liquidating authority is
necessary to pay outstanding obligations from various highway
accounts pursuant to this and prior appropriations acts.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

Section 120 distributes obligation authority among Federal-
aid Highway programs.
Section 121 continues a provision that credits funds
received by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics to the
Federal-aid highways account.
Section 122 provides requirements for any waiver of Buy
American requirements.
Section 123 continues a provision prohibiting tolling in
Texas, with exceptions.
Section 124 makes contract authority available for FHWA's
administrative expenses.
Section 125 requires congressional notification before the
Department provides credit assistance under the TIFIA program.
Section 126 clarifies language in MAP-21 that allows States
to use CMAQ on transit or rail operating assstance with no time
limitation.

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 $595,000,000 for
obligations and liquidations from the Highway Trust Fund. This
level is $23,000,000 more than the request and $35,122,000 more
than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level.

MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY OPERATIONS AND PROGRAMS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Limitation, 2013\1\..................................... $250,498,000
Budget estimate, 2014 (limitation)...................... 259,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 259,000,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds. Obligation
limitations for Motor Carrier Safety Operations and Programs (and the
related contract authority) are not subject to the sequester.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 $259,000,000 for FMCSA's Operations and
Programs. The recommendation is $8,502,000 more than the fiscal
year 2013 enacted level and equal to the budget request. Of the
total limitation on obligations, $9,000,000 is for research and
technology, $1,000,000 is for commercial motor vehicle operator
grants, and $34,545,000 is for information management. The
request for $5,000,000 to develop an Integrated Highway Safety
Program Office is denied.
Over the last 3 years, FMCSA has improved its
responsiveness to recommendations of the National
Transportation Safety Board [NTSB], the Department of
Transportation's Office of Inspector General, and the
Government Accountability Office [GAO]. However, many serious
safety issues remain unresolved, such as: preventing operators
from providing services if they have serious safety violations
for either mechanical failures or unqualified drivers; the
collection and maintenance of data on hours of service; the
mandatory use of electronic logging devices; and the
identification of chameleon carriers. The Committee believes
that FMCSA could further reduce large truck and bus fatalities
and injuries this year by addressing these outstanding
recommendations, and encourages the agency to seize this
opportunity.
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.
According to a Committee-directed February 2011 GAO audit
of the program, after 8 years and $36,000,000 in Federal
investment, key components of the CSA program are significantly
delayed. These delays limit the agency's ability to implement
NTSB's recommendations to expand oversight of motor carrier
operators and drivers. The Safety Fitness Determination [SFD]
rulemaking, which is the cornerstone of CSA, was initially
proposed to be completed in 2009, but the notice of proposed
rulemaking is now targeted for publication in January, 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 expects FMCSA to
meet its new SFD rule target date of January, 2014.
Last year, the Committee raised concerns with FMCSA's
failure to develop a method for determining crash
accountability. The Committee believes this is an important
factor when evaluating a carrier's crash rate for the SMS. The
Committee directed FMCSA to work with the Department of
Transportation's Volpe Center to develop a tool to fairly
establish crash accountability and how it should affect a
carrier's SMS score. This partnership is part of FMCSA's Crash
Weighting Research Plan, which should be completed by the end
of fiscal year 2013. The Committee directs FMCSA to report on
the results of the research plan within 60 days of the date of
enactment of this act and to seek public input on the new crash
weighting methodology.
Pursuant to the Committee's direction, GAO is currently
evaluating: the effectiveness of the CSA program in identifying
carriers that pose the highest safety risk; how interventions
used under CSA improve motor carrier safety; and FMCSA's
progress and challenges in managing the CSA program. The
Committee requires that GAO complete this audit no later than
December 1, 2014.
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. In 2008, this recommendation was
added to NTSB's Most Wanted List. This recommendation remains
``open unacceptable''. MAP-21 mandates that FMCSA issue a rule
by October 2013 requiring all interstate motor carriers to be
equipped with ELDs to improve compliance and enforcement with
existing hours of service regulations. The agency is unlikely
to meet this deadline due to complications with legal
challenges to a prior regulatory activity on the limited use of
ELDs for operators with persistent hours of service violations.
The Committee supports the expanded usage of ELDs and
encourages FMCSA to work aggressively to implement the ELD
mandate.
Chameleon Carriers.--The Committee continues to have
concerns with FMCSA's ability to detect and prevent
unscrupulous motor carrier and motor coach operators from
evading enforcement or out-of-service orders by going out of
business and then re-incorporating as a ``new'' transportation
service provider. These carriers are a blight to the industry
and a hazard to the traveling public.
A 2009 GAO report found that 9 percent of motor carriers
placed out-of-service by FMCSA between 2007 and 2008 applied as
new entrants and many of these operators continued to
demonstrate a pattern of significant violations under their new
operating authority. Based on these findings, the Committee
directed GAO to evaluate the effectiveness of FMCSA's new
applicant screening programs to prevent chameleon carriers from
obtaining new operating authority. The GAO audit released in
March 2012 found that FMCSA's vetting process is not
comprehensive or risk-based, legal constraints impede its
ability to pursue enforcement action, and low penalties are
insufficient to discourage chameleon practices. GAO recommended
that FMCSA develop a risk-based process to target the new
entrant applications with chameleon characteristics. This would
allow FMCSA to expand vetting to freight carriers, which
represent 94 percent of the industry, with few additional
resources. FMCSA concurred with these findings and is in the
process of developing specifications for the modification of
its vetting information technology systems. The Committee
directs FMCSA to report to the Committee by March 31, 2014, on
its implementation of a risk-based vetting methodology to
identify chameleon motor carriers applying for operating
authority. The report should include timelines and performance
goals for expanding vetting to the freight sector, the
modification of information systems to improve the vetting
program consistent with the recommendations of GAO Report 12-
364, and other relevant information.
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
compliance reviews of 69 percent of high-risk carriers in
fiscal year 2008 to 90 percent in the 2012 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. CSMS emphasizes on-road safety performance using
all safety-based inspection violations. Under CSA, and
consistent with section 4138 of SAFETEA-LU, any motor carrier
with certain BASIC alerts for 2 consecutive months is now
labeled ``mandatory'' under CSMS. Mandatory motor carriers are
prioritized for an onsite investigation if they have not
undergone an investigation in the last 24 months. Under FMCSA
regulations, carriers identified as mandatory must have a
compliance review conducted within 1 year.
With the implementation of the new CSMS system, the related
statutory mandate to inspect high-risk carriers is out of date
and does not reflect current programmatic terminology.
Therefore, the Committee has included a technical correction to
reflect the modernization of the program in section 132 of the
Administrative Provisions for FMCSA. 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 2014 for the preceding fiscal year.
ADA Compliance.--For several years, this Committee has
prodded FMCSA to enforce DOT's own Americans with Disability
Act [ADA] regulations for over-the-road curbside operators.
Congress had to pass a law to compel the agency to accept its
responsibility to deny or revoke operating authority based on
an operator's inability or unwillingness to meet DOT's ADA
regulations. The Committee is pleased to find that FMCSA has
developed guidelines and set conditions to suspend or revoke
operating authority based on ADA non-compliance. These
requirements have been integrated into the new entrant safety
audit process and enforcement software. Since 2009, 185 ADA
reviews have been conducted, resulting in two companies
receiving civil penalties for serious violations. The Committee
directs FMCSA to report to the Committee by May 2014 on
enforcement actions the agency has taken in the preceding
fiscal year, including the number of denials or revocations due
to noncompliance.

NATIONAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION OF OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Limitation, 2013........................................................
Budget estimate, 2014...................................................
Committee recommendation................................ $19,000,000

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
$19,000,000 for border facility improvements and information
technology modernization efforts for FMCSA operations and
programs.

MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY GRANTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liquidation of
contract Limitation on
authorization obligations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2013\1\........... $310,000,000 $309,380,000
Budget estimate, 2014............. 313,000,000 313,000,000
Committee recommendation.......... 317,000,000 317,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds. Obligation
limitations for Motor Carrier Safety Grants (and the related contract
authority) are not subject to the sequester.

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 $317,000,000 for motor carrier safety grants.
The recommended limitation is $7,620,000 more than the fiscal
year 2013 enacted level and $4,000,000 more 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 $15,000,000 for High Priority grants
and $36,000,000 for New Entrant grants.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program [MCSAP]...... $222,000,000
Commercial Driver's License and Driver Improvement 30,000,000
Program.............................................
Border Enforcement Grants............................ 32,000,000
Performance and Registration Information System 5,000,000
Management [PRISM] grants...........................
Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks 25,000,000
[CVISN] grants......................................
Safety Data Improvement.............................. 3,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 extends the authority for the Motor Safety
Advisory Committee to the period of authorization of MAP-21.
Section 132 makes technical changes to the mandate for
high-risk carrier safety inspections to reflect the current
programmatic terminology of the CSMS system.

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

In 2011, the number of overall traffic fatalities was
reduced to 32,367, the lowest level since 1949. While the trend
in reduced highway fatalities is significant and encouraging,
the number remains disturbingly high. The agency and its State
partners must remain diligent to sustain these improvements as
the economy recovers and discretionary travel increases. The
Committee recommends $848,343,000 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 $20,000,000
above the President's request and $39,817,000 more than the
fiscal year 2013 enacted level.
The following table summarizes Committee recommendations:

OPERATIONS AND RESEARCH

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway Trust
General Fund Fund Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2013\1\.............................. $139,866,000 $115,269,000 $255,135,000
Budget estimate, 2014........................................... 148,343,000 118,500,000 266,843,000
Committee recommendation........................................ 148,343,000 138,500,000 286,843,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112-25.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

These programs support traffic safety programs and related
research, demonstrations, technical assistance, and national
leadership for highway safety programs conducted by State and
local governments, the private sector, universities, research
units, and various safety associations and organizations. These
highway safety programs emphasize alcohol and drug
countermeasures, vehicle occupant protection, traffic law
enforcement, emergency medical and trauma care systems, traffic
records and licensing, State and community traffic safety
evaluations, protection of motorcycle riders, pedestrian and
bicyclist safety, pupil transportation, distracted and drowsy
driving prevention, young and older driver safety, and improved
accident investigation procedures.
This account also provides funding to implement and operate
the Problem Driver Pointer System [PDPS] and to improve traffic
safety by assisting State motor vehicle administrators in
communicating effectively and efficiently with other States to
identify drivers whose licenses have been suspended or revoked
for serious traffic offenses, such as driving under the
influence of alcohol or other drugs.

OPERATIONS AND RESEARCH

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee provides $286,843,000 for Operations and
Research, which includes funding for the National Driver
Register. This level of funding is $20,000,000 above the
President's budget request and $31,708,000 more than the fiscal
year 2013 enacted level. Of the total amount recommended for
Operations and Research, $148,343,000 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.
The increase above the budget request should be used to
address NTSB safety recommendations for the prevention of
drugged driving, the nationwide deployment of the National
Emergency Medical Services Information System [NEMSIS], and to
increase the number of detailed crash investigations for the
National Automotive Sampling System [NASS] Crashworthiness Data
System [CDS].
Drug Impaired Driving.--The elimination of substance
impaired driving is one of NTSB's Most Wanted top 10 safety
priorities. Substance impaired driving includes drunk and
drugged driving. In 2009, NHTSA published the first roadside
survey of drug and alcohol use. The survey found that 16
percent of drivers tested positive for drugs that could impair
driving. Also in 2009, the National Survey on Drug Use and
Health found that roughly 10.5 million people admitted to
driving while impaired by illicit drugs. As a result of this
information, the Office of National Drug Control Policy [ONDCP]
focused on the prevention of drug impaired driving in the 2011
National Drug Control Strategy. The strategy advocated making
the prevention of drugged driving a national priority on par
with the prevention of drunk driving. ONDCP recommended that
NHTSA build upon the existing foundation of alcohol impaired
driving initiatives to expand public education, data collection
and the development of improved testing procedures. In
addition, the NTSB recommended that NHTSA: (1) establish
standards for post-accident drug testing and reporting, and (2)
develop and disseminate a set of standard practices for drug
toxicology testing to States. NHTSA is collaborating with ONDCP
and the Department of Health and Human Services to develop
standards for drug testing. The Committee expects NHTSA to work
with other Federal agencies to address the NTSB recommendations
to provide a reliable benchmark to measure the effectiveness of
laws, enforcement efforts, education, and other countermeasures
to address drugged driving.
Furthermore, while progress has been made in the fight
against drunk driving over the past three decades, the Federal
Government, States, and local law enforcement face different
challenges in their ability to detect drugged driving and
measure impairment. The Committee directs GAO to conduct a
study on the strategies that NHTSA, ONDCP, and States have
taken to address drug impairment and assess the challenges they
face in detecting and reducing drug impaired driving.
National Emergency Medical Service Information System
[NEMSIS].--NEMSIS provides uniform information for Emergency
Medical Services [EMS] directors and administrators to improve
the provision of emergency medical services. While every State
and territory has signed a memorandum of understanding
acknowledging their support for NEMSIS, the program is only
able to serve 40 States with its current level of funding. The
Committee recommendation includes a $3,000,000 increase to
expand the program to all 50 States and to make one-time
information technology improvements to the NEMSIS Technical
Assistance Center [TAC].
National Automotive Sampling System [NASS].--Since NHTSA's
regulatory activities are data driven, the agency and its
partners rely on real-world crash data to identify potential
problems. The NASS program provides crash data on a nationally
representative sample of police-reported motor vehicle crashes
and related injuries. The Crashworthiness Data System [CDS],
the National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey [NMVCCS], and
Special Crash Investigations [SCI] are components of NASS that
use trained crash investigators to perform detailed crash
investigations. Crash investigators document scene evidence,
vehicle damage, and code all crash-related injuries from
medical records for each CDS case. The statistics-based sample
of crash investigations is then weighted to represent the over
6 million crashes on U.S. roads annually that require a vehicle
to be towed from the scene. The information collected is used
to evaluate motor vehicle safety standards, inform highway
safety research to reduce crash consequences, and investigate
emerging vehicle safety issues.
When NASS was created in the 1970s, it was designed by
experts in data collection and statistical analysis to cover 75
census sites with a total of 200 trained investigators
operating in teams of two to four examining two crashes per
week each year. Over time, the program has been reduced from 50
to 24 sites and the number of crashes investigations has
dropped from a high of 6,319 in 1990 to 4,278 in 2011. The
Committee is concerned that the most recent year of data from
2011 had the fewest number of investigations ever. Safety
researchers and automobile manufactures argue that the current
sample size of 24 census sites and average of 4,500 crash
investigation cases annually is not large enough to identify
trends or problems at the vehicle make/model level in a timely
manner. The Committee recognizes that in a constrained fiscal
climate there is a balance between increasing the number of
crash investigations, having an adequate sample that is
representative of vehicular crashes across the country, and
maintaining the level of in-depth data elements that are
collected from each crash. The Committee directs GAO to
evaluate these factors and report to the House and Senate
Committee on Appropriations on what the optimal range of crash
investigations should be to ensure the reliability of the NASS
program. The Committee expects NHTSA to increase the sample
size of crash investigations from the 2011 all-time low. NASS
CDS data serves as the foundation for informed highway safety
decisionmaking at the Federal, State, and local levels of
government and should be more robust. The Committee
recommendation also includes $2,000,000 for the one-time
purchase of technical equipment to enhance and expedite data
collection.
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 2014
for the CAFE program, as requested. Funding will be used to
support rulemakings for medium- and heavy-duty commercial
vehicles and to propose fuel economy standards for heavy-duty
truck trailers. With these funds, NHTSA also intends to begin
work on a new consumer information program on vehicle fuel
efficiency for medium-duty vehicles as directed in Senate
Report 112-83. The Committee commends NHTSA for its commitment
to this requirement and reiterates its support for completing
this work in fiscal year 2014. Funds will also be used to
initiate a retrospective analysis of fuel efficiency
rulemakings to assess the accuracy of projections as
recommended by GAO, and to conduct technical and economic
studies to assess the potential to improve vehicle fuel economy
for model years 2022 and beyond. The Committee instructs NHTSA,
in coordination with EPA, to provide a long-range research and
regulatory plan to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations within 60 days of enactment of this act
describing the: (1) specific research projects that each agency
is undertaking, their purpose, and intended goal; (2) cost
estimates associated with each research and regulatory
activity; and (3) major milestones and estimated completion
dates for each activity. The plan should include all recent,
current, and future expenditures, starting with fiscal year
2010, until all final actions are concluded for the regulation
of medium and heavy duty trucks for model years 2019-2022.
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 undertake a broader, coordinated national campaign in
2014, 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 500 of these deaths in vehicles since
1998, an average of 38 per year and rising.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liquidation of
contract Limitation on
authorization obligations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2013\1\............... $553,391,000 $554,500,000
Budget estimate, 2014................. 561,500,000 561,500,000
Committee recommendation.............. 561,500,000 561,500,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25. Obligation limitations for Highway Traffic Safety Grants
(and the related contract authority) are not subject to the sequester.

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.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANTS

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 equal to the budget estimate and $8,109,000 more
than the fiscal year 2013 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
Occupant Protection Grants (section 405)................ 43,520,000
Distracted Driver Incentive Grants (section 405)........ 23,120,000
State Traffic Safety Information System Improvement 39,440,000
Grants (section 405)...................................
Impaired Driving Countermeasures Grants (section 405)... 142,800,000
Motorcyclist Safety Grants (section 405)................ 4,080,000
State Graduated Driver Licensing Laws (section 405)..... 13,600,000
In-Vehicle Alcohol Detection Device Research (section 5,440,000
403h)..................................................
High Visibility Enforcement (section 2009).............. 29,000,000
Administrative Expenses................................. 25,500,000
---------------
Total............................................. 561,500,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Drunk Driving Prevention.--Drunk driving deaths continue to
be the leading cause of highway fatalities. Although the number
of drunk driving fatalities has dropped recently, they continue
to represent 31 percent of all highway deaths--a total of 9,878
people in 2011. Numerous national, State, and local efforts are
in place to prevent these fatalities, including successful
high-visibility law enforcement campaigns, incentive grants to
promote further State adoption of ignition interlock laws and
advanced technology research. These activities are among the
components of the Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving, which
unites Mothers Against Drunk Driving, major auto manufacturers,
law enforcement, and other stakeholders who share the goal of
eliminating drunk driving.
Since 2008, NHTSA has partnered with leading automobile
manufacturers in the Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety
[ACTS] on an ambitious research program to develop in-vehicle
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 5 to 8 years. To date, NHTSA and
ACTS have made significant progress towards achieving this goal
by demonstrating the technical viability of driver alcohol
sensing systems. They have completed preliminary device
performance specifications, conducted a technical review of
potential technologies, and finalized proof-of-concept research
to identify technologies which hold the most promise. This has
led to identification of two technologies--breath-based and
touch-based--which are now being developed for installation in
a research vehicle for on-the-road testing and evaluation
starting in fiscal year 2014. The Committee strongly supports
this promising research partnership, which has the potential to
prevent thousands of drunk driving deaths annually. The
Committee recommends a total of $5,440,000 for ACTS to continue
this research, which is consistent with the authorized level
under MAP-21 and the budget request. This level of funding is
$140,000 more than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level.
High-Visibility Enforcement Campaigns.--Ongoing national
high-visibility enforcement campaigns for increasing seat belt
use (Click It or Ticket) and reducing drunk driving (Drive
Sober or Get Pulled Over) are successful highway safety
initiatives. The Committee supports NHTSA's commitment to also
develop a campaign to help enforce state distracted driving
prevention laws; however, it should not do so at the expense of
current levels of investment in the national seat belt use and
drunk driving prevention efforts.

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, 2013\1\................................. $178,239,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 184,500,000
Committee recommendation................................ 184,500,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 $184,500,000 for Safety and
Operations for fiscal year 2014, which is equal to the funding
included for these activities in the budget request and
$6,261,000 more than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level. The
bill specifies that $12,400,000 shall remain available until
expended. This funding covers the cost of the Automated Track
Inspection Program, the Railroad Safety Information System, the
Southeastern Transportation Study, research and development
activities, contract support, and Alaska Railroad liabilities.

RAILROAD RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $34,930,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 35,250,000
Committee recommendation................................ 35,250,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $35,250,000
for railroad research and development, which is equal to the
budget request and $320,000 more than the fiscal year 2013
enacted level.

RAILROAD REHABILITATION AND IMPROVEMENT FINANCING PROGRAM

The Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing
[RRIF] program was established by Public Law 109-178 to provide
direct loans and loan guarantees to State and local
governments, Government-sponsored entities, 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 2014.
The Committee directs FRA to provide a summary of loan
activity for the preceding fiscal years in its fiscal year 2015
budget justification. At a minimum, FRA should detail the
number of loans pending and issued, and the processing time for
these loans. The Committee is concerned that the average time
for processing RRIF loans is 695 days. The Committee also
directs the Government Accountability Office [GAO] to analyze
the RRIF program and report its findings to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations no later than 1 year
following the enactment of this act. The GAO's analysis should
include an assessment of FRA's processes to review and approve
loan requests; an evaluation of the impediments to the agency's
ability to meet the statutory requirement to make a final
determination of loan requests within 90 days (45 U.S.C.
822(i)); and recommendations for ways to improve the program.

THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK)

The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)
operates intercity passenger rail services in 46 States and the
District of Columbia, in addition to serving as a contractor in
various capacities for several commuter rail agencies. Congress
created Amtrak in the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970
(Public Law 91-518) in response to private carriers' inability
to profitably operate intercity passenger rail service.
Thereafter, Amtrak assumed the common carrier obligations of
the private railroads in exchange for the right to priority
access to their tracks for incremental cost.

GRANTS TO THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION

Appropriations, 2013\1\\2\.............................. $1,533,164,000
Budget estimate, 2014\3\................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 1,452,000,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.
\2\Includes emergency funding of $118,000,000 in the Disaster Relief
Appropriations Act, 2013 (division A of Public Law 113-2).
\3\The President's budget would establish three new trust fund accounts
for Current Passenger Rail Service, the Rail Service Improvement
Program, and Railroad Research, Development and Technology totaling
$6,414,750,000, of which $2,700,000,000 would be available to Amtrak
under the new Current Passenger Rail Service Account for both capital
and operating expenses.

The Committee recommends $1,452,000,000 for the FRA to make
grants to Amtrak. This amount is $81,164,000 less than the
fiscal year 2013 enacted level. However, $181,000,000 in
emergency funding was provided in fiscal year 2013 for recovery
from Hurricane Sandy and other disasters. The Committee
recommendation is $1,452,000,000 more than the request. The
Administration's budget request would shift funding for Amtrak
into a new $2,700,000,000 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
$390,000,000 may be used for operating grants, up to
$199,000,000 may be used for debt service payments, and not
less than $75,000,000 shall be used to bring stations into
compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Of the
amounts available for capital, not less than $15,000,000 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 2014.
The Corporation shall continue to submit a budget request for
fiscal year 2015 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 will provide 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 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 45 stations and to
finalize planning and design requirements for another 75
stations. By the end of the fiscal year 2013, Amtrak expects to
complete work in a total of 17 stations.

CAPITAL ASSISTANCE FOR NATIONAL HIGH PERFORMANCE PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE

Appropriations, 2013....................................................
Budget estimate, 2014\1\................................................
Committee recommendation................................ $100,000,000

\1\The budget request includes $3,660,000,000 for a new Rail Service
Improvement Program to perform similar activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $100,000,000 for grants to support
high performance passenger rail service. No funds were provided
for this program in fiscal year 2013. The budget request
proposed $3,660,000,000 for similar activities in the new Rail
Service Improvement Program. The funds provided are limited to
supporting the improvement of existing passenger rail service
and up to $20,000,000 may be used to support multistate
planning efforts.
Positive Train Control.--The Committee notes that positive
train control systems are an eligible expense for capital
investment grants to support intercity passenger rail service
as authorized by section 24402 of title 49, United States Code.
Positive train control systems are designed to prevent train-
to-train collisions, over-speed derailments, incursions into
established work zone limits, and the movement of a train
through a switch left in the wrong position. Passenger
railroads in the United States are required to deploy these
systems on an aggressive schedule. The Committee encourages the
Federal Railroad Administration to consider an applicant's
obligations to comply with Federal rail safety requirements,
consistent with section 24402(c), when evaluating grant project
requests.
Transition Assistance for State-Supported Services.--
Section 209 of PRIIA requires Amtrak, in consultation with the
Secretary and State Governors, to develop and implement a
single nationwide standard methodology for allocating the
operating and capital costs among States and Amtrak along
State-supported corridors. This requires that States now bear
the predominant financial responsibility for these services
beginning in fiscal year 2014. Many States are challenged to
find the necessary resources to keep passenger rail services
running during this transition period due to the timing of
State budgets and ongoing negotiations with Amtrak. The
Committee notes that the capital costs for State-supported
corridor services are an eligible expense under for capital
investment grants as authorized by section 24402 of title 49.

NEXT GENERATION HIGH SPEED RAIL

(RESCISSION)

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

NORTHEAST CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

(RESCISSION)

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

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 150 permanently prohibits funds for the National
Railroad Passenger Corporation from being available if the
Corporation contracts for services, at or from any location
outside of the United States, which were, as of July 1, 2006,
performed by a full-time or part-time Amtrak employee within
the United States.
Section 151 allows the Secretary to receive and use cash or
spare parts to repair and replace damaged track inspection
cars.
Section 152 limits overtime to $35,000 per employee.
However, Amtrak's president may waive this restriction for
specific employees for safety or operational efficiency
reasons. If the cap is waived, Amtrak is required to notify to
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations quarterly of
the reason for such waiver.
Section 153 continues the conditions under which the
Secretary may approve operating grants to Amtrak.
Section 154 clarifies that the grant conditions under
Public Law 113-2 for the National Railroad Passenger
Corporation apply to the scope of the Act rather than any other
act.

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
2012, they took 10.5 billion trips on public transportation,
more than a billion rides more than they took in 2004, and just
slightly below the ridership peak in 2008. 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 communities and the Federal Government
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 San Diego, 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.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

Under the Committee recommendations, a total gross program
level of $11,057,681,041 is provided, an increase of
$349,427,041 above the fiscal year 2013 level. This level is
consistent with the request. The recommendation includes
offsets of $285,710,898 that lower the net cost of FTA programs
to $10,765,670,102 in fiscal year 2014. This level of offsets
is $134,372,889 above the $151,388,009 in offsets accompanying
the request. These additional offsets were included in the
Committee's fiscal year 2013 recommendations, and because FTA
is operating under a continuing resolution this year, remain
available for use.

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $102,507,574
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 109,888,000
Committee recommendation................................ 109,888,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 $109,888,000 for the
agency's salaries and administrative expenses. The recommended
level of funding is $7,380,426 above the fiscal year 2013
enacted level to support new responsibilities assigned to FTA
in the most recent authorization act, MAP-21, as well as to
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. Previous reviews--the most recent in 2008--
concluded that FTA required additional staff to support its
growing workload and improve its ability to perform project
oversight, contract administration, and technical assistance.
The Committee recognizes MAP-21 adds significant new burdens.
FTA is in the process of standing up a new safety office, and
will need to prepare almost three dozen new or updated
regulations and circulars to implement the wide-ranging changes
reflected in the latest reauthorization.
With its new safety responsibilities, FTA will need to
create regulations, training programs, and reporting
requirements for the nation's rail transit systems. While
public transit remains a remarkably safe mode of
transportation, accidents do still happen, such as the
collision between an automobile and Houston Metro light rail
vehicle last September that injured 11. Two months later, in
November, two Chicago Transit Authority trains collided,
sending two to the hospital. Using its new authority, FTA may
now work with a local State Safety Oversight Agency to conduct
investigations for accidents like these. The Committee
recommendation includes funding for 27 additional FTE to
support this work.
The recommendation also provides an additional 10 FTE to
help rebalance FTA's workforce with its workload. These staff
will allow the agency to address Office of Inspector General
concerns about Disadvantaged Business Enterprise compliance;
support the new asset management requirements in section 5326
of MAP-21; and to conduct regulatory impact analysis and cost
benefit analysis required by Executive Orders 12866 and 13422.
The Committee notes FTA provided limited information in its
Congressional Justification for Administrative Expenses on the
number and location of positions it is requesting in fiscal
year 2014. While this information has been provided to the
Committee upon request, greater information on the composition
of staff increases should be provided as part of the
justification.
Asset Management.--In 2008, the Committee required FTA to
assess the condition of the Nation's transit rail
infrastructure. In April 2009, the agency reported that one-
third of transit agencies' assets were either in marginal or
poor condition, and that significant reinvestment is necessary
to address the backlog of capital needs. Compounding the
resource challenge is the general weakness of much of the
transit sector's ability to manage capital assets
strategically. Asset management programs would enable transit
agencies to take inventory of their capital assets, determine
the condition of those assets, use objective and quantitative
analysis to estimate reinvestment needs over the long term, and
prioritize their capital investments using the information and
analysis.
In 2010, the Committee directed FTA to assume a leadership
role in improving asset management in transit agencies.
Specifically, the Committee instructed FTA to develop standards
for asset management plans with an emphasis on maintaining
safety, provide technical assistance to transit agencies on
asset management, and conduct a pilot program to identify best
practices in the field.
In August 2011, FTA awarded demonstration funding to six
transit agencies. One transit system, the Utah Transit
Authority, has already completed its project and the other
pilot projects should be completed by the end of calendar year
2013. The Committee understands FTA will review the final
reports of each project as they are completed, and share the
information with Congress and the industry. FTA also recently
completed a detailed Transit Asset Management Guidebook to help
grantees develop asset management best practices.
MAP-21 strengthens FTA's role in this area by requiring it
to implement a new National Transit Asset Management System and
issue a rule to establish performance measures to assess the
condition of FTA grantees' assets, including equipment, rolling
stock, infrastructure, and facilities. FTA will release the
Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for public comment later
this summer. The Committee recommendation includes not less
than $1,000,000 to support these efforts, consistent with the
request.
Standard Vehicles.--For the past several years, FTA has
worked with the American Public Transportation Association
[APTA] to broker broad agreement on a standard transit bus and
light rail vehicle that could cut transit agencies' future
capital costs. The success of this initiative will expedite
transit vehicle procurement, while providing the maximum
benefit from taxpayers' investment in transit systems. With
FTA's assistance, APTA and the transit industry have developed
and adopted voluntary, consensus standards for transit buses
and rail cars. The hope is that transit agencies will use these
vehicle design and on-board equipment specifications when
purchasing new vehicles, resulting in better pricing and the
eventual introduction of standardized transit vehicles and
vehicle sub-components. The Committee supports these efforts
and directs FTA to provide a report to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations by February 3, 2014, on its
progress to date, the degree to which public transit systems
have been receptive to the new standards, and other areas where
the development of common standards would benefit the industry.
Streetcar Manufacturing Study.--As of 2009, there were 54
transit agencies operating at least one rail transit line, and
the number of such systems is increasing beyond the large
metropolitan areas which dominate the current market for heavy
and light rail streetcars. However, foreign-based companies
have produced almost all of the 8,000 new rail cars purchased
by transit agencies, including streetcars. The Committee
directs the Secretary of Transportation to evaluate the
feasibility of strengthening domestic manufacturing of certain
specialized rail cars, particularly heritage street cars
produced by transit authorities, by allowing them to compete,
bid, or offer contract proposals to public and private
transportation service providers. The report shall include an
assessment of the anticipated impact on existing domestic
manufacturers, a projection of the market demand, and
recommendations on how to grow domestic manufacturing
capabilities in this industry. The Committee directs the
Secretary to provide this report to the Senate Committee on
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, the House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, and the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations by March 28, 2014.
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 2018; (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, 2013\1\............................... $8,461,044,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................. 8,595,000,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 8,595,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.

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 2014 to
$8,595,000,000. The recommendation is consistent with the
authorized level in MAP-21, and is an increase of $133,956,000
above the fiscal year 2013 enacted level.
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--
Formula grants (obligation limitation) Section -------------------------------------
number 2013 2014
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transit Oriented Development................................. 20005(b) $9,980,000 $10,000,000
Planning Programs............................................ 5305 126,646,200 128,800,000
Urbanized Area Formula Grants................................ 5307 4,389,154,100 4,458,650,000
Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with 5310 254,290,400 258,300,000
Disabilities................................................
Formula Grants for Rural Areas............................... 5311 598,301,000 607,800,000
Bus Testing Facility......................................... 5318 2,994,000 3,000,000
National Transit Institute................................... 5322(d) 4,990,000 5,000,000
National Transit Database.................................... 5335 3,842,300 3,850,000
State of Good Repair Grants.................................. 5337 2,132,027,400 2,165,900,000
Bus and Bus Facilities Formula Grants........................ 5339 421,156,000 427,800,000
Growing States and High Density States Formula Grants........ 5340 517,662,600 525,900,000
-------------------------------------
Total.................................................. ........... 8,461,044,000 8,595,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following table displays the State-by-State
distribution of funds for several of the major program
categories in the formula grants account:

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION MAP-21--FISCAL YEAR 2014 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 5310 Section
Enhanced Section 5311 5311(c)(2) Section Fiscal year
Section 5303 Section 5304 Section 5307 mobility of and 5340 Section Appalachian 5311(c)(1) Section 5337 Section 5339 2014
State Metropolitan Statewide and 5340 seniors and Formula 5311(b)(3) Dev. Public Indian State of good Bus and bus President's
planning planning Urbanized areas individuals grants for RTAP Trans. reserv. repair facilities budget State
formula with rural areas Assist. formula formula total
disabilities Program
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama...................... $845,029 $220,656 $23,432,869 $4,180,123 $15,465,881 $257,122 $5,000,000 $7,072 ............... $3,667,525 $53,076,277
Alaska....................... 424,042 110,727 15,187,590 413,243 8,075,713 95,139 ............ 413,844 $18,565,930 1,899,705 45,185,933
American Samoa............... ............ ............ ............... 14,005 307,682 14,230 ............ ............ ............... 506,872 842,789
Arizona...................... 2,434,325 485,642 70,788,122 5,096,238 11,515,087 164,318 ............ 1,784,374 2,376,022 8,669,757 103,313,885
Arkansas..................... 425,323 109,396 12,380,892 2,478,576 11,995,711 202,758 ............ ............ 236,235 2,537,432 30,366,323
California................... 15,901,099 3,172,063 758,944,431 28,620,059 27,287,154 364,996 ............ 593,379 334,351,611 65,350,442 1,234,585,234
Colorado..................... 1,780,573 366,807 71,677,731 3,599,127 10,773,136 155,628 ............ ............ 8,820,414 8,188,415 105,361,831
Connecticut.................. 1,101,856 287,714 80,239,114 3,327,601 2,995,615 106,748 ............ ............ 49,343,597 5,470,714 142,872,958
Delaware..................... 424,042 110,727 14,802,756 767,308 1,690,033 86,212 ............ ............ ............... 2,333,058 20,214,134
District of Columbia......... 424,042 110,727 89,070,044 368,180 ............ ............ ............ ............ 125,052,562 4,827,034 219,852,589
Florida...................... 7,639,679 1,560,037 234,997,790 19,520,107 15,514,774 249,805 ............ ............ 38,668,444 25,071,585 343,222,221
Georgia...................... 3,016,708 601,079 89,161,818 6,301,622 20,860,192 327,811 592,000 ............ 49,482,799 8,893,125 179,237,154
Guam......................... ............ ............ ............... 53,015 795,410 22,395 ............ ............ ............... 506,872 1,377,693
Hawaii....................... 424,042 110,727 32,892,281 1,178,661 2,613,201 94,647 ............ ............ 1,063,473 5,151,606 43,528,637
Idaho........................ 424,042 110,727 10,147,352 1,352,968 7,625,668 125,119 ............ 1,550,654 ............... 2,363,870 23,700,400
Illinois..................... 5,057,190 973,667 270,055,941 9,798,538 16,306,844 266,208 ............ ............ 204,402,084 17,473,535 524,334,008
Indiana...................... 1,724,643 364,065 49,653,930 5,396,153 16,034,889 272,282 ............ ............ 14,435,733 5,388,250 93,269,945
Iowa......................... 461,149 120,416 19,325,721 2,468,915 12,246,558 203,884 ............ ............ ............... 3,199,365 38,026,008
Kansas....................... 625,221 135,832 15,752,769 2,206,804 11,095,543 175,914 ............ 127,895 ............... 2,883,249 33,003,227
Kentucky..................... 698,260 168,770 24,847,233 3,489,347 16,635,304 265,490 1,764,000 ............ ............... 3,979,371 51,847,775
Louisiana.................... 1,010,415 263,842 33,752,325 3,950,254 11,379,561 201,963 ............ ............ 3,884,985 4,670,038 59,113,383
Maine........................ 424,042 110,727 12,108,427 1,155,373 7,102,451 141,199 ............ 426,908 3,823,959 1,707,690 27,000,776
Maryland..................... 2,386,103 457,657 126,355,197 4,412,369 5,710,453 138,876 636,000 ............ 52,150,917 8,369,955 200,617,527
Massachusetts................ 2,837,001 561,075 205,030,550 6,077,073 3,657,252 114,046 ............ ............ 124,263,232 9,443,977 351,984,206
Michigan..................... 2,975,112 622,514 87,271,147 9,222,281 21,037,985 325,459 ............ ............ 1,043,303 10,592,489 133,090,291
Minnesota.................... 1,537,443 291,895 58,298,392 3,632,107 15,453,651 239,309 ............ 1,134,408 11,766,763 6,559,996 98,913,965
Mississippi.................. 424,042 110,727 7,815,235 2,140,395 14,056,059 233,009 254,000 939,836 ............... 2,029,970 28,003,272
Missouri..................... 1,648,889 321,693 51,448,450 4,951,095 17,571,744 268,480 ............ ............ 13,542,097 5,920,139 95,672,588
Montana...................... 424,042 110,727 4,403,474 897,186 9,953,954 121,308 ............ 2,554,430 ............... 1,683,863 20,148,985
N. Mariana Islands........... ............ ............ ............... 11,060 295,476 14,101 ............ ............ ............... 506,872 827,510
Nebraska..................... 424,042 110,727 11,557,011 1,260,901 7,653,571 130,498 ............ 256,997 ............... 2,528,378 23,922,125
Nevada....................... 1,147,555 221,692 35,569,089 1,823,328 6,373,426 92,768 ............ 11,487 724,007 5,175,459 51,138,811
New Hampshire................ 424,042 110,727 6,631,756 1,069,110 3,953,924 118,637 ............ ............ ............... 1,968,985 14,277,181
New Jersey................... 4,104,422 769,575 338,953,652 7,501,002 4,060,050 117,747 ............ ............ 170,997,635 19,019,266 545,523,348
New Mexico................... 424,042 110,727 23,489,199 1,712,306 10,281,226 139,015 ............ 251,989 ............... 2,892,879 39,301,383
New York..................... 7,751,050 1,520,012 752,987,937 16,359,050 20,248,306 328,328 200,000 ............ 606,806,474 35,061,710 1,441,262,868
North Carolina............... 2,088,501 496,557 64,980,271 6,617,360 26,132,002 402,460 1,450,000 776,104 893,094 8,150,712 111,987,060
North Dakota................. 424,042 110,727 4,908,031 593,118 5,068,472 95,851 ............ 864,346 ............... 1,735,161 13,799,748
Ohio......................... 3,440,254 714,990 99,963,274 10,395,027 23,096,739 378,801 964,000 ............ 22,122,796 10,929,389 172,005,270
Oklahoma..................... 624,175 162,986 17,416,743 2,952,731 14,661,005 224,045 ............ 6,556,851 ............... 3,056,440 45,654,975
Oregon....................... 1,105,695 227,116 54,301,443 3,294,644 11,983,259 177,171 ............ 886,738 17,647,006 5,992,211 95,615,283
Pennsylvania................. 4,132,234 851,906 191,527,763 12,305,967 21,775,891 357,021 4,788,000 ............ 135,188,002 14,705,555 385,632,339
Puerto Rico.................. 1,568,389 320,736 52,482,201 5,471,323 1,911,048 91,311 ............ ............ 6,261,601 5,396,997 73,503,607
Rhode Island................. 508,178 110,727 21,242,810 1,039,439 568,853 72,020 ............ ............ 109,986 2,656,044 26,308,056
South Carolina............... 948,519 244,829 24,671,286 3,664,949 12,537,258 224,952 200,000 86,194 ............... 3,858,322 46,436,310
South Dakota................. 424,042 110,727 3,877,088 657,729 6,317,678 108,988 ............ 2,194,670 ............... 1,673,386 15,364,307
Tennessee.................... 1,395,132 327,450 49,312,154 5,254,507 18,436,951 291,797 1,110,000 ............ 1,311,219 5,415,332 82,854,542
Texas........................ 8,973,291 1,798,031 276,426,257 16,887,477 40,565,990 551,466 ............ ............ 30,582,749 28,668,912 404,454,174
Utah......................... 976,944 212,887 44,627,901 1,601,702 6,246,959 105,044 ............ 34,116 7,550,707 4,722,598 66,078,857
Vermont...................... 424,042 110,727 2,391,665 504,238 3,486,351 104,774 ............ ............ ............... 1,427,992 8,449,789
Virgin Islands............... ............ ............ 1,093,756 175,317 ............ ............ ............ ............ ............... 624,166 1,893,239
Virginia..................... 2,611,116 529,887 78,429,076 5,622,024 14,722,750 254,178 1,150,000 ............ 36,998,121 8,678,457 148,995,609
Washington................... 2,373,326 478,401 136,863,050 5,760,932 12,363,206 196,467 ............ 1,780,182 53,912,230 13,691,263 227,419,057
West Virginia................ 424,042 110,727 9,578,344 2,236,471 7,804,338 161,449 1,892,000 ............ 974,548 2,106,647 25,288,566
Wisconsin.................... 1,371,166 301,132 48,018,139 4,707,234 15,708,648 261,775 ............ 1,767,526 764,374 6,326,364 79,226,358
Wyoming...................... 424,043 110,727 2,029,266 460,832 6,242,252 97,578 ............ ............ ............... 1,490,601 10,855,299
Unallocated.................. ............ ............ 5,303 ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............... ............ ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................. 106,010,643 22,145,357 4,823,170,742 257,008,500 618,253,133 10,332,600 20,000,000 25,000,000 2,150,118,711 427,800,000 8,459,839,687
==================================================================================================================================================================
Oversight.................... 532,717 111,283 33,437,875 1,291,500 3,039,000 ............ ............ ............ 15,781,289 ............ 54,193,664
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................. 106,543,360 22,256,640 4,856,608,617 258,300,000 621,292,133 10,332,600 20,000,000 25,000,000 2,165,900,000 427,800,000 8,514,033,350
==================================================================================================================================================================
Ferry Discretionary Program.. ............ ............ 30,000,000 ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............... ............ 30,000,000
State Safety Oversight ............ ............ 22,293,250 ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............... ............ 22,293,250
Program.....................
Tribal discretionary Program. ............ ............ ............... ............ ............ ............ ............ 5,000,000 ............... ............ 5,000,000
National RTAP................ ............ ............ ............... ............ ............ 1,823,400 ............ ............ ............... ............ 1,823,400
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................... 106,543,360 22,256,640 4,908,901,867 258,300,000 621,292,133 12,156,000 20,000,000 30,000,000 2,165,900,000 427,800,000 8,573,150,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TRANSIT RESEARCH PROGRAMS

------------------------------------------------------------------------
General fund
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2013\1\............................... $43,912,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................. 49,000,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 55,300,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation provides assistance to 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 $55,300,000 for the transit
research programs. The recommendation is $11,388,000 above the
fiscal year 2013 enacted level, and is 6,300,000 above the
request. Of the total, $43,300,000 is for activities authorized
under section 5312 of MAP-21. The Committee recommendation
allocates the balance of funds for activities authorized by 49
U.S.C. 5313, 5314, and 5322(a), (b), and (e).
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.
However, the Committee has observed that the creativity and
energy that characterized FTA's research agenda in recent years
has been absent during the past year. Perhaps this is
understandable as the agency focused its attention on preparing
to assume significant new responsibilities for transit safety.
However, the Committee expects the FTA to resume and expand its
leadership role in transit research, particularly as it relates
to fostering innovation. To that end, the FTA must quickly
place a permanent leader in charge of the research programs,
someone who can work with the agency's partners and industry to
develop and implement an agenda that takes full advantage of
new and emerging technologies, some of which FTA had a role in
developing. The Committee expects this position to be filled
before the end of fiscal year 2013.
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 communities
in their efforts to improve air quality. They also support U.S.
economic competitiveness. To support these goals, the Committee
directs the Office of the Inspector General to provide a report
to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by
February 3, 2014, recommending next steps the FTA could take to
promote the development and deployment of cost-effective low-
and zero-emission buses. The report should also identify other
promising technologies that could benefit the industry by
significantly reducing costs, curbing emissions, or improving
safety.
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.

CAPITAL INVESTMENT GRANTS

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $1,951,090,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 1,981,472,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,942,938,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

The Committee recommends a level of $1,942,938,000 for
capital investment grants. This level fully funds the
Department's request of $1,981,472,000 due to the availability
of $38,534,000 in additional prior year balances. The Committee
directs these additional balances be used to help fully fund
the projects included in the Department's budget justification.
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.
Appropriations for Full Funding Grant Agreements [FFGA].--
The Committee reiterates direction initially agreed to in the
fiscal year 2002 conference report that FTA should not sign any
FFGAs that have a maximum Federal share higher than 60 percent.
The Committee notes the request did not include funding for
two projects it now expects to sign FFGAs in fiscal year 2014.
The Committee believes the request should include sufficient
funding for all projects the Department expects to commit to in
the coming fiscal year so that they are not delayed. For an
agency so adept at planning, this is a surprising omission, and
the Committee directs FTA to avoid a repeat of this practice in
its fiscal year 2015 budget request.

COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING

The Columbia River Crossing is a project to replace the
aging Interstate 5 between Portland, Oregon, and Vancouver,
Washington, with a new bridge, better interchanges, and
improved transit connections. The States of Washington and
Oregon, along with Federal Highway Administration and the
Federal Transit Administration, have worked closely with the
Coast Guard and other agencies for more than a decade to gather
extensive public comment and to balance the needs of businesses
and residents.
The existing bridges accommodate river traffic with a lift
span, requiring traffic on I-5--the primary north/south highway
connecting California to Canada--to come to a complete stop for
at least 20 minutes and continue at a crawl for hours every
time a ship wants to pass. This accommodation comes at the
expense of local and national businesses, contributing to the
slowing of both commercial and personal vehicle traffic for an
unacceptable total of 6 hours each day.
The Committee commends the sponsors of the project for
modifying the proposed height of the new structure from 95 feet
to 116 feet, dramatically reducing the number of companies
impacted from 57 to three. The project's sponsors recently
signed agreements with two of the remaining firms to mitigate
the impacts to their operations that would be caused by the new
I-5 bridge. Discussions with the third impacted metal company
remain ongoing.
The Columbia River Crossing project will have a significant
positive effect on the economy in both States, adding an
estimated $231,000,000 in economic activity, increasing jobs by
4,200, saving $435,000,000 in costs associated with reduced
travel time, and increasing the property values of adjacent
homes and businesses.
The recommendation reflected in the bill fully funds the
request for this critical project. The Committee directs the
Department to continue to support local efforts to complete the
FFGA during fiscal year 2014 so that the citizens and
businesses of the region can enjoy the benefits of eased
traffic congestion, increased safety, and faster commerce for
both vehicle and river traffic.

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION EMERGENCY RELIEF PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2013\1\\2\.............................. $10,900,000,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 25,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 15,000,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.
\2\Includes emergency funding of $10,900,000,000 in the Disaster Relief
Appropriations Act, 2013 (division A of Public Law 113-2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

The Committee recommendation includes $15,000,000 for the
emergency relief program, $10,000,000 below the request. This
level is $10,885,000,000 less than the fiscal year 2013 level.
However, the $10,900,000,000 in fiscal year 2013 emergency
funding was provided to aid recovery from Hurricane Sandy and
other disasters. The amount recommended by the Committee
represents the first time emergency funding is provided through
the regular annual appropriations process. These funds will
make it possible for FTA to respond immediately in the event of
a disaster in fiscal year 2014.

GRANTS TO THE WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $149,700,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 150,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 150,000,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. 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.
The bill requires the FTA to provide these grants to WMATA
only after receiving and reviewing a request for each specific
project to be funded under this heading. The bill also requires
the FTA to determine that WMATA has placed the highest priority
on funding projects that will improve the safety of its public
transit system before approving these grants. The Committee
expects FTA to make this determination by taking into account
the extent to which WMATA plans to use the funding provided
under this heading in order to implement the safety
recommendations of the National Transportation Safety Board.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

Section 160 exempts authority previously made available for
programs of the FTA under section 5338 of title 49, United
States Code, from the obligation limitations in this act.
Section 161 requires that funds appropriated or limited by
this act for specific projects not obligated by September 30,
2018, 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,
2013 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 allows FTA to use unobligated and recovered
fiscal year 2010 through 2012 alternatives analysis funding to
carry out eligible fixed guideway projects.
Section 166 makes $93,269,369 in prior year bus and bus
facilities funds available for bus rapid transit projects
proposed in the Capital Investment Grants program.
Section 167 rescinds $96,156,190 in unobligated balances
from various transit programs.

Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation [SLSDC]
is a wholly owned Government corporation established by the
Saint Lawrence Seaway Act of May 13, 1954 (33 U.S.C. 981).
SLSDC is a vital transportation corridor for the international
movement of bulk commodities such as steel, iron, grain, and
coal, serving the North American region that makes up one-
quarter of the United States population and nearly one-half of
the Canadian population. The SLSDC is responsible for the
operation, maintenance, and development of the United States
portion of the Saint Lawrence Seaway between Montreal and Lake
Erie.

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

(HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $32,194,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 32,855,000
Committee recommendation................................ 33,000,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 $33,000,000 for the operations,
maintenance, and asset renewal of the Saint Lawrence Seaway.
This amount is $145,000 more than the budget request and
$806,000 more than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level. The
recommended level includes $16,000,000 to continue the agency's
Asset Renewal Program [ARP].
The Seaway is entering its 55th year of operation, which
means that its infrastructure components are reaching the end
of their design life. The ARP is a significant 10-year, multi-
project strategy to address the long-term asset renewal needs
of the U.S. portions of the Saint Lawrence Seaway, with
attention to the two locks operated and maintained by the
United States (Snell and Eisenhower), the U.S. segment of the
Seaway International Bridge, maintenance dredging, operational
systems, facilities, and equipment.
SLSDC has made significant progress in executing the
projects identified in the ARP under limited construction
capacity since receiving initial appropriations in fiscal year
2009. The Committee directs SLSDC to continue to submit an
annual report to the Senate and House Appropriations
Committees, not later than April 30 of each year, summarizing
the activities of the ARP during the immediate preceding fiscal
year.

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, 2013\1\................................. $173,944,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 208,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 186,000,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 $22,000,000 less than the budget
request and $12,056,000 more than the fiscal year 2013 enacted
level. The recommended appropriation provides sufficient funds
to satisfy the fully authorized payment level for fiscal year
2014.
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 2015 budget request.

OPERATIONS AND TRAINING

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $155,945,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 152,168,000
Committee recommendation................................ 153,803,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 $153,803,000
for Operations and Training at MARAD for fiscal year 2014. This
amount is $2,142,000 less than the fiscal year 2013 enacted
level and $1,635,000 more than the budget request.

MARITIME ADMINISTRATION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
2014 Senate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Merchant Marine Academy............................ $81,500,000
Academy Operations.................................. 63,500,000
Salaries and Benefits........................... 34,000,000
Operating Expenses.............................. 29,500,000
Capital Asset Management............................ 18,000,000
Capital Improvements............................ 14,000,000
Facilities Maintenance, Repairs, and Equipment.. 4,000,000
State Maritime Academies................................ 17,100,000
MARAD Operations........................................ 55,203,000
Environment and Compliance.......................... 4,000,000
Port Infrastructure Development..................... 2,000,000
---------------
Total, Operations and Training.................... 153,803,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

National Sealift Strategy.--The Departments of Defense,
Homeland Security, and Transportation rely on the U.S. Merchant
Marine to provide privately owned, commercial U.S.-flag ships
and intermodal logistics capability to meet military and
emergency response requirements and to provide U.S. mariners
for the crewing of government reserve ships. The Committee
directs the Administrator to submit a report to the
Appropriations Committee within 90 days of the date of
enactment of this act detailing the current and future impacts
of reductions in government impelled cargo on the U.S. Merchant
Marine as a result of changes to cargo preference requirements
included in MAP-21, the historical reductions in the Public Law
480 Food for Peace program, and the winding down of the wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan. The Committee also directs the
Administrator and the Secretary of Transportation to work
closely with the Department of Defense to further develop a
national sealift strategy that ensures the long-term viability
of the U.S. Merchant Marine.
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. The Committee remains
troubled that for many years, officials at the Academy engaged
in questionable financial management practices that compromised
the integrity of the institution. Senior leadership at MARAD
and the Department of Transportation did not exercise
sufficient oversight of Academy operations and failed to
effectively manage the physical infrastructure projects in the
Academy's Capital Improvement Program [CIP]. The culmination of
these failures caused significant turmoil in all aspects of the
Academy's operations and resulted in a crisis of leadership.
Thankfully, the current Secretary and Deputy Secretary of the
Department of Transportation have taken a keen interest in
reforming and restoring the Academy to a top-notch academic
institution. However, this effort remains a work in progress.
The Committee once again directs the Administrator to
provide an annual report by March 31, 2014, 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.
The Committee recognizes the reforms needed to restore the
Academy will take time to fully implement. Therefore, the
Committee has again included language requiring that all
funding for the Academy be allocated directly to the Secretary,
with 50 percent of the funding withheld until MARAD submits a
plan detailing how the funding will be spent. The Committee
believes this process will ensure the Secretary's continued
engagement, as well as sustain the newly developed system of
financial control and accountability.
Environment and Compliance.--The Committee commends MARAD's
initiative to support the domestic maritime industry's efforts
to comply with emerging international and domestic
environmental regulatory requirements. Funds provided in fiscal
year 2014 should be used to continue independent testing of
ballast water technologies to meet domestic and international
regulatory requirements, as well as to assist in the testing
and certification or verification of air emissions reduction
technology in conjunction with the Environmental Protection
Agency.

SHIP DISPOSAL

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $5,489,000
Budget estimate, 2014\2\................................ 2,000,000
Committee Recommendation................................ 4,800,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.
\2\The budget proposed shifting $2,800,000 for the NS Savannah to the
Operations and Training account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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]. Currently there is a
backlog of 35 ships awaiting disposal. Many of these vessels
are 50 or more years old and have the potential to pose a
significant environmental threat due to the presence of
hazardous substances, such as asbestos and solid and liquid
polychlorinated biphenyls [PCBs].

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,800,000 for
MARAD's Ship Disposal program. This level of funding is
$689,000 less than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level and
$2,800,000 more than the budget request. This level of funding,
in addition to the anticipated carryover from previous
appropriations, is sufficient to meet the terms and conditions
of the Suisun Bay Reserve Fleet settlement and continued
activities related to NS Savannah. The Committee directs MARAD
to take all actions practicable and reasonable to align the
scope of vessels listed for inspection in the notice of vessel
visitation to the subsequent notice of vessels available for
sale. Further, MARAD shall make best value determinations and
award ship recycling contracts no later than 90 days from the
close of the ship specific solicitation period for sales offers
and/or price revisions for vessel dismantlement/recycling
services.

ASSISTANCE TO SMALL SHIPYARDS

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $9,960,000
Budget estimate, 2014...................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 10,000,000

\1\Does not include the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $10,000,000
for assistance to small shipyards. This level of funding is
$40,000 more than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level. The
President did not request funding for this program in fiscal
year 2014.
The Committee began funding this program in fiscal year
2008 to assist small shipyards in maritime dependent
communities to improve the efficiency of their operations by
providing funding for equipment and other facility upgrades, as
well as workforce training and apprenticeship programs. A total
of 113 qualified applicants submitted requests totaling
$96,000,000 in fiscal year 2013, far exceeding available
resources. The funding recommended by the Committee will help
improve the competitiveness of our Nation's shipyard industry.

MARITIME GUARANTEED LOAN PROGRAM [TITLE XI]

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $3,733,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 2,655,000
Committee recommendation................................ 38,500,000

\1\Does not include the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee provides an appropriation of $38,500,000 for
the loan guarantee program, of which $3,500,000 shall be used
for administrative expenses. This level of funding is
$35,845,000 more than the President's budget request and
$34,767,000 more than the fiscal year 2013 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, 2013\1\................................. $21,317,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 21,654,000
Committee recommendation................................ 21,654,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $21,654,000 for this account, of
which $639,000 is to be derived from the Pipeline Safety Fund,
and 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 $337,000
more than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level.

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $42,253,000
Budget estimate, 2014\2\................................ 45,801,000
Committee recommendation................................ 45,000,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds.
\2\The budget request included a new user fee as offsetting collections
in the amount of $12,000,000, bringing the total request to $51,801,000.
CBO's re-estimate of the fee was $6 million, bringing the request level
down to $45,801,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $45,000,000
for hazardous materials safety, of which $1,716,000 shall
remain available until September 30, 2015. The amount provided
is $801,000 less than the budget request and $2,747,000 more
than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level. The increase in
funding is provided to accommodate base program adjustments and
information technology modernization.
In the fiscal year 2013 and 2014 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.

PIPELINE SAFETY

(PIPELINE SAFETY FUND)

(OIL SPILL LIABILITY TRUST FUND)

(PIPELINE SAFETY DESIGN REVIEW FUND)

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $109,033,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 153,573,000
Committee recommendation................................ 151,427,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 $151,427,000 for the Office of Pipeline
Safety. The amount is $42,394,000 more than the fiscal year
2013 enacted level and $2,146,000 less than the budget request.
Of the funding provided, $18,573,000 shall be derived from the
Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, $131,493,000 shall be derived
from the Pipeline Safety Fund, and $2,000,000 shall be derived
from the Pipeline Safety Design Review Fund.
This level of funding provides additional resources to hire
10 pipelines safety inspectors as authorized by the Pipeline
Safety, Regulatory Certainty and Job Creation Act of 2011,
Public Law 112-90). The recommendation includes increases of
$18,839,000 for the State Pipeline Safety Grant Program and
$5,448,000 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. Further, in performing the study on
the transportation of diluted bitumen required under section 16
of Public Law 112-90, the Administrator shall determine whether
the spill properties differ sufficiently from those of other
liquid petroleum products to warrant modifications of spill
response plans, spill preparedness, or clean up regulations.
Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure.--Section 23 of Public
Law 112-90 requires each pipeline owner or operator to submit
to the Secretary a list of pipeline segments whose records are
insufficient to confirm the established maximum allowable
operating pressure. The Secretary must then issue regulations
for conducting tests to confirm the material strength of
untested natural gas transmission pipelines, as well as
timeframes for the completion of such testing. The Committee
encourages the Secretary to meet the statutory deadlines
required to protect the public from accidents that can result
from operating pipelines at unsafe pressures.

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS GRANTS

(EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUND)

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $28,130,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 28,318,000
Committee recommendation................................ 28,318,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

Office of Inspector General

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $79,465,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 85,605,000
Committee recommendation................................ 86,605,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 $86,605,000 for
activities of the Office of the Inspector General, which is
$1,000,000 more than the President's budget request and
$7,140,000 more than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level.
OIG criminal investigations and program audits are
invaluable contributions to the Department of Transportation.
Furthermore, the Committee relies on the Inspector General and
his staff to provide objective analysis of the Department's
programs. In recent years, the office has had to take
aggressive measures to live within its budgetary resources, and
the Committee recognizes that these constraints are beginning
to restrict the ability of the OIG to respond to developments
at the Department. For example, to complete work mandated by
Congress, the OIG has not initiated audits where its staff sees
an opportunity to improve the Department's performance. For
this reason, the Committee recommendation includes $1,000,000
in addition to the OIG's budget request. These funds are
intended to ensure that the OIG has adequate resources to
maintain its workforce and fulfill all of its responsibilities.
Asset Forfeiture.--When the Federal Government uses asset
forfeiture authority, it punishes and deters criminal activity
by depriving criminals of property used or acquired through
illegal activities. Certain law enforcement agencies
participate in the Treasury Department's Treasury Forfeiture
Fund or the Justice Department's Asset Forfeiture Fund. These
agencies can use forfeited funds to pay expenses related to the
investigation of illegal activities, such as contracting with
forensic accountants who can reconstruct financial transactions
and identify forfeitable assets in complex grant and
procurement fraud cases. In order to strengthen the law
enforcement activities of the OIG, the Committee includes a
provision that would allow the office to participate in asset
forfeiture programs.
Audit Reports.--The Committee requests the Inspector
General to continue to forward copies of all audit reports to
the Committee immediately after they are issued, and to
continue to make the Committee aware immediately of any review
that recommends cancellation or modifications to any major
acquisition project or grant, or which recommends significant
budgetary savings. The OIG is also directed to withhold from
public distribution for a period of 15 days any final audit or
investigative report which was requested by the House or Senate
Committees on Appropriations.
Sole-Source Contracts.--The Committee has included a
provision in section 407 that requires all departments and
agencies in this act to report to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations on all sole-source contracts,
including the contractor, the amount of the contract, and the
rationale for a sole-source procurement as opposed to a market-
based procurement. The Committee directs the IG to assess any
conflicts of interest with regard to these contracts and DOT.
Unfair Business Practices.--The bill maintains language
which authorizes the OIG to investigate allegations of fraud
and unfair or deceptive practices and unfair methods of
competition by air carriers and ticket agents.

Surface Transportation Board

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crediting
Appropriation offsetting
collections
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2013\1\............... $29,254,000 $1,250,000
Budget estimate, 2014\2\.............. 30,775,000 1,250,000
Committee recommendation.............. 32,250,000 1,250,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.
\2\STB submitted a budget request independently proposing a total
appropriation of $34,284,000.

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
$32,250,000. This funding level is $1,475,000 more than the
President's request and $2,996,000 more than the fiscal year
2013 enacted level. Included in the recommendation is
$1,250,000 in fees, which will offset the appropriated funding.
The Committee recommendation includes additional funding to
hire up to four additional staff to manage the increasing
workload for passenger rail matters and for oversight
responsibilities of railroad financial, employment, and
operational data that the STB is required to analyze and use to
ensure compliance with the agency's core statute. Funds are
also provided to make long overdue improvements to the agency's
information technology systems. The request for additional
funding for travel expenses is denied.

General Provisions--Department of Transportation

Section 180 allows funds for maintenance and operation of
aircraft; motor vehicles; liability insurance; uniforms; or
allowances, as authorized by law.
Section 181 limits appropriations for services authorized
by 5 U.S.C. 3109 not to exceed the rate for an Executive Level
IV.
Section 182 prohibits funds in this act for salaries and
expenses of more than 110 political and Presidential appointees
in the Department of Transportation.
Section 183 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 184 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 185 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 186 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 187 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 188 establishes requirements for reprogramming
actions by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
Section 189 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 190 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 191 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.
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.

Administration, Operations, and Management

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $536,713,000
Budget estimate, 2014\2\................................ 519,853,000
Committee recommendation................................ 521,375,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.
\2\Requested under two new accounts $14,540,000 for ``Executive
Offices'' and $505,313,000 under ``Administrative Support Offices''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Administration, Operations, and Management [AOM]
account is the backbone of HUD's operations, and consists of
several offices that are supposed to work seamlessly to provide
the leadership and support services to ensure the Department
performs its core mission and is compliant with all legal,
operational, and financial guidelines. The AOM account funds
the salaries and expenses of the Immediate Office of the
Secretary, the Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary, the
Office of Adjudicatory Services, the Office of Small and
Disadvantaged Business Utilization, the Office of Congressional
and Intergovernmental Relations, the Office of General Counsel,
the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, the Office of Public
Affairs, the Office of the Chief Procurement Officer, the
Office of Departmental Equal Employment Opportunity, the Office
of Field Policy and Management, the Office of Strategic
Planning and Management, the Office of the Chief Human Capital
Officer, the Office of Administration, the Office of the Chief
Information Officer, and the Center for Faith-Based and
Neighborhood Partnerships.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $521,375,000
for this account, which is $15,338,422 less than the fiscal
year 2013 enacted level. The President's budget proposed to
fund these offices in two separate accounts totaling
$519,853,000, $1,522,000 less than the amount recommended.
The President's fiscal year 2014 budget proposed to create
two new personnel accounts for the Department, one for
executive support offices and another for administrative
support offices, and to eliminate 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.
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immediate Office of the Secretary....................... $3,810,000
Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary................ 1,290,000
Office of Adjudicatory Services......................... 1,760,000
Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization.. 745,000
Office of the Chief Financial Officer................... 48,300,000
Office of the General Counsel........................... 94,510,000
Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations. 2,410,000
Office of Public Affairs................................ 3,530,000
Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer............... 51,810,000
Office of Administration................................ 193,600,000
Office of Field Policy and Management................... 52,700,000
Office of the Chief Procurement Officer................. 17,360,000
Office of Departmental Equal Employment Opportunity..... 3,150,000
Center for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.... 1,400,000
Office of Strategic Planning and Management............. 5,000,000
Office of the Chief Information Officer................. 40,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Office of the Chief Information Officer.--The Committee
recommendation includes an increase of $2,602,000 above the
request for the OCIO. The President's budget proposed to reduce
resources available to OCIO for project management and
budgeting staff. Based on GAO's reviews of HUD's implementation
of its IT modernization projects, these are two areas where
OCIO needs to increase its capacity. Therefore, the recommended
funding increase is directed to address those areas of
weakness. To accommodate this increase, the recommendation has
decreased HUD's Information Technology Fund, so that HUD can
strengthen its internal capacity instead of relying on outside
contractors.
Office of the Chief Financial Officer.--The recommendation
for the OCFO includes sufficient funding to meet HUD's request
to staff the Office of Budget at 49 FTE in 2014. The Committee
directs HUD to meet this staffing level before hiring in other
OCFO functional areas, except in order to address mission
critical positions that become vacant or to fill the Chief
Financial Officer position.
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.
Travel.--The Committee has recommended targeted increases
in travel to enhance oversight of grantees. In order to ensure
that this funding is dedicated to mission compliance and
oversight, the Committee directs HUD to track the amount of
travel dedicated to oversight and report such information in
its fiscal year 2015 congressional justification, as well as
upon Committee request.
Procurement.--The Office of the Chief Procurement Officer
is responsible for obtaining all contracted goods and services
for the Department. As such, this office is involved in
everything from research projects to information technology
investments. In recent years, CPO has undergone changes aimed
at improving its performance. To monitor the impact of these
efforts, the Committee directs HUD to continue to provide semi-
annual updates to the Committees on Appropriations on how these
changes have impacted its ability to execute contracts. This
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.

Program Offices Salaries and Expenses

PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $119,600,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 220,299,000
Committee recommendation................................ 212,000,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 $212,000,000
for this account, which is $8,299,000 less than the budget
request and $12,400,000 more than the fiscal year 2013 enacted
level. The Committee recommendation supports additional FTEs
for the public housing operations monitoring, Native American
and Native Hawaiian homeownership, and strategic planning and
risk management functions, as requested. However, the
recommendation only provides an increase of eight FTEs for
Innovation and Program Demonstrations, reflecting the decrease
in Choice Neighborhoods funding, and directs that additional
FTEs instead be added to the Tenant-based Rental Assistance
[TBRA] Operations and Monitoring function.
PIH's responsibilities include the oversight of public
housing agencies [PHAs] across the country that manage public
housing and participate in the section 8 TBRA program. These
programs serve more than 3 million low-income individuals and
families across the country. Section 8 also represents the
largest single item in HUD's budget. The oversight of these
programs is therefore critical to protecting both residents and
taxpayers. The Committee recommendation targets at least
$5,000,000 to inspection efforts. This includes efforts to move
to a consistent inspection standard across housing assistance
programs, as well as oversight of section 8 units. The
Committee directs HUD to submit a report to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations within 30 days of enactment
of this act detailing what HUD has learned to date from the
inspection pilot it is currently conducting and how the
inspection funding provided here will be used to improve
standards and ensure compliance with housing quality standards.
This report should included detailed information on the amount
of funding directed to each activity and timeframes for
implementation and completion of work.

COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $99,800,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 109,740,000
Committee recommendation................................ 107,000,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 $107,000,000
for the staffing within this office, which is $2,740,000 less
than the budget request and $7,200,000 more than the fiscal
year 2013 enacted level. The additional FTEs will be used to
conduct oversight of grantees. The recommendation also includes
funding for the Office of Economic Resilience. The Committee is
achieving this increase by shifting administrative dollars to
program offices to focus on program oversight.

HOUSING

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $390,717,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 383,375,000
Committee recommendation................................ 390,000,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.

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 $390,000,000
for staffing in the Office of Housing, which is $6,625,000 more
than the budget request and $717,000 less than the fiscal year
2013 enacted level. The Committee has also directed that at
least $8,000,000 be dedicated to the Office of Risk and
Regulatory Affairs.
At the end of April, HUD announced a major reorganization
of its Multifamily Housing operations. The changes are expected
to reduce operating costs significantly, and affect 900
employees. The Committee applauds HUD's efforts to look for
ways to increase efficiencies and save taxpayer dollars.
However, the Committee needs sufficient time to understand the
impact of this restructuring and the effect it will have on
HUD's ability to process loans in a timely manner and conduct
appropriate oversight. The Committee has not reduced the budget
to reflect the proposed staffing reductions as it awaits
additional information from the Department on the
reorganization. However, the Committee will continue to
evaluate the proposal and may make adjustments to the funding
level going forward, if warranted.

POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $22,167,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 21,687,000
Committee recommendation................................ 23,000,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 $23,000,000
for this account, which is $1,313,000 more than the budget
request and $833,000 more than the fiscal year 2013 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 is 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
increase will ensure that PD&R can continue to play this
important role.

FAIR HOUSING AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $72,455,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 76,504,000
Committee recommendation................................ 75,000,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.

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 $75,000,000,
which is $1,504,000 less than the budget request and $2,545,000
more than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level.

OFFICE OF HEALTHY HOMES AND LEAD HAZARD CONTROL

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $7,385,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 7,642,000
Committee recommendation................................ 7,642,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides salary and benefits funding to
support the Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control
[OHHLHC] headquarters staff. OHHLHC administers and manages the
lead-based paint and healthy homes activities of the
Department, and is directly responsible for the administration
of the Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction program. The Office
also develops lead-based paint regulations, guidelines, and
policies applicable to HUD programs, designs lead-based paint
and healthy homes training programs, administers lead-hazard
control and healthy homes grant programs, and implements the
lead and healthy homes research program.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $7,642,000 for
this account, which is equal to the budget request and $257,000
more than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level.

Public and Indian Housing

RENTAL ASSISTANCE DEMONSTRATION

Appropriations, 2013....................................................
Budget estimate, 2014................................... $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
2013. 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.
To date, over 68 public housing authorities have received
RAD awards covering more than 12,000 units of public housing.
The Committee is pleased that small, medium and large size
housing authorities have all received awards. As intended,
these initial awardees are expected to leverage significant
resources to finance their capital improvements, including low-
income tax credits and private sector loans, multiplying the
impact of the Federal investment.
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. The Committee has also increased the
number of units that can be part of the demonstration. It will
continue to monitor the pipeline of projects, determine if a
higher level is warranted, and adjust the number if necessary
to meet demand.
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.

TENANT-BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE

Appropriations, 2013\1\\2\.............................. $18,909,409,000
Budget estimate, 2014\3\................................ 19,989,216,000
Committee recommendation\3\............................. 19,592,216,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.
\2\Includes an advance appropriation of $3,992,000,000.
\3\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, assisting 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 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
$19,592,216,000 for fiscal year 2014, including $4,000,000,000
as an advance appropriation to be made available on October 1,
2014. This amount is $397,000,000 less than the budget request
and $682,726,000 more than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level.
The Committee recommends $17,568,278,000 for the renewal
costs of section 8 vouchers, which is $400,000,000 less than
the budget request and $360,412,000 more than the fiscal year
2013 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 support
existing section 8 programs to ensure that no current voucher
holders are put at risk of losing their housing. It also
supports the first-time renewal of incremental vouchers that
were funded in prior years, including HUD-VASH vouchers.
The Committee recommendation includes several reform
proposals requested in the budget. These reforms, which include
serving more working poor, modifying utility allowances,
streamlining inspections, and encouraging public housing
authorities [PHAs] to form consortia, will result in direct
savings or create efficiencies that will improve PHA
productivity. The Committee notes that a regulation will be
needed to implement the changes to inspection protocols, and
directs HUD to include requirements for PHAs to obtain and
retain photographs of units inspected as part of this
regulation.
While the Committee has included these reforms to ensure
better use of the resources provided in the bill, 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 be working to update regulations that don't require
congressional action. In recent years, PHAs have faced serious
funding constraints and it is 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. To
that end, the Committee directs HUD to submit a report to the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 180 days
of enactment of this act on existing regulations that need to
be updated. This report should include the intended purpose of
the regulation and if it needs to be eliminated or replaced
with a different requirement. The report also may include other
regulatory requirements HUD would like to promulgate. Finally,
the report should include timeframes for updating regulations.
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
[PHARS] 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.
The Committee directs 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 notes that in
considering approaches to providing education and training to
PHAs and their boards, HUD should work with industry to see if
there are existing training programs that can support this
effort. HUD must also be mindful of the cost associated with
such requirements and consider providing information online or
supporting costs of in-person training so that this is not a
financial burden for PHAs. The Committee directs HUD to submit
a report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations
within 180 days of enactment of this act describing its
findings and how it will meet this requirement.
Set-Asides for Special Circumstances.--The Committee has
provided a set-aside of $50,000,000 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 2012,
which showed that homelessness among veterans has been reduced
by over 17 percent since 2009.
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.
The Committee has set-aside $3,000,000 from the $78,000,000
recommended for HUD-VASH 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 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
$1,685,374,000 for administrative fees, which is equal to the
budget request and $313,124,000 more than the fiscal year 2013
enacted level. Cuts to the funding provided to PHAs to help
them operate their programs are beginning to adversely affect
their ability to serve tenants. As HUD noted in its
Congressional justification and in testimony before the
Committee, several PHAs have transferred their programs to
other agencies, while others have refused new HUD-VASH vouchers
because of insufficient administrative fees. As a result, the
Committee has agreed to the Administration's request to
increase administrative fees.
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. While such a study involves a significant amount of
time and requires the voluntary participation of housing
authorities, the study should be complete by now. The Committee
directs HUD to provide at least preliminary information from
the study to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations
within 30 days of the enactment of this act, as well as the
date when final report will be issued.
Tenant Protection Vouchers.--The Committee recommendation
includes $150,000,000 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
notes that due to the timing of the original contracts, HUD is
now experiencing a surge in contract expirations, driving up
demand for these vouchers. The Committee expects that fiscal
year 2014 will be the peak in demand, which is expected to
decrease in future fiscal years.
Mainstream Vouchers.--A total of $110,564,000 is included
under this heading to support the renewal of vouchers
previously funded under the heading ``Housing for Persons with
Disabilities''. These vouchers are not included as part of the
renewal base because the Committee wants to ensure that these
vouchers remain dedicated to serving persons with disabilities
as intended.

HOUSING CERTIFICATE FUND

(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 2014, 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, 2013\1\................................. $1,871,250,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 2,000,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,000,000,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 $2,000,000,000
for the Public Housing Capital Fund, which is equal to the
budget request and $128,750,000 more than the fiscal year 2013
enacted level.
The Public Housing Capital Fund supports the maintenance of
critical affordable housing, which provides more than 1.1
million low-income households with affordable housing.
Unfortunately, limited resources have affected the ability of
public housing authorities to upgrade and preserve these
facilities. The regular deferral of maintenance has resulted in
a significant backlog of capital needs, which over the long-
term can increase the cost of maintenance and result in lost
units. A HUD study estimated the backlog of public housing
capital improvements to require approximately $26,000,000,000
to eliminate, as of June 2008. While some progress was noted
since the last study was conducted in 1998, and funding
provided for capital improvements in the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act helped, the backlog remains significant. While
the level provided is not sufficient to meet the capital needs
of public housing, the increase reflects the Committee's
commitment to this valuable asset.
Of the amount made available under this section,
$50,000,000 is for supportive services for residents of public
housing under the Resident Opportunity and Self-Sufficiency
[ROSS] program. The Committee also recommends up to $8,000,000
to support the ongoing financial and physical assessment
activities performed by the Real Estate Assessment Center
[REAC]. The Committee has not included any funding for the cost
of administrative and judicial receiverships, as requested,
since carryover balances from prior years are sufficient to
cover these activities in fiscal year 2014.
The Committee notes that HUD provided limited information
in its Congressional justification on how funding previously
provided for both REAC and receiverships has been utilized.
Similarly, the justification for funding requested in fiscal
year 2014 for REAC is insufficient for the Committee to make
informed decisions on appropriate funding levels. While this
information has been provided to the Committee upon request,
the information should be provided as part of its
justification. Therefore, the Committee directs HUD to provided
detailed information on these accounts in its fiscal year 2015
congressional justification. This should include how funding
provided in previous years was utilized and the amount
requested by activity. Receivership activities should also be
broken down by housing authority. Moreover, since REAC supports
activities of PIH and the Office of Housing, the Committee
expects HUD to detail how its activities are being coordinated
with other offices.
The Committee has also set aside $20,000,000 for emergency
capital needs, including safety and security measures necessary
to address crime and drug-related activity, as well as needs
resulting from unforeseen or unpreventable emergencies and
natural disasters, excluding presidentially declared
emergencies and natural disasters. The Committee reminds HUD
that safety and security funding is an eligible use of these
funds. The Committee continues this eligibility because there
are PHAs facing safety and security issues that rely on these
funds to protect their tenants. The Committee believes that the
level of funding recommended will support both repairs from
disasters and safety and security improvements. Therefore the
Committee directs the Department to fund eligible safety and
security projects with a portion of these funds as quickly as
possible.
Jobs-Plus.--The Committee has included up to $15,000,000
for the Jobs-Plus Initiative, similar to what was proposed in
the budget. This initiative is based on a demonstration the
Department began in 1998 to improve employment opportunities
and earnings of public housing residents. The demonstration
combined employment-related services and activities, financial
incentives to work, and community support. The data showed
that, on average, compared to other public housing residents,
those in the program earned an additional $1,300 per year from
2000-2006. As a result, these residents were either able to
leave public housing or contribute more to their housing costs.
The Committee supports HUD's efforts to find ways to help
public housing residents find employment and achieve greater
economic self-sufficiency. It also agrees with the focus on
strong partnerships with local Workforce Investment Boards.
Through such partnerships, PHAs can leverage existing systems,
services, and resources to have a greater impact on their
residents.
In reviewing the Jobs-Plus proposal, it became apparent
that there was overlap between the services that were critical
to a successful Jobs-Plus program and those being offered as
part of the existing ROSS program. The Committee believes that
applying the lessons learned from the Jobs-Plus demonstration
to ROSS employment and training programs will strengthen them.
The Committee has provided sufficient funding to support Jobs-
Plus related services while continuing other resident services
supported through the ROSS program, including services for the
elderly and disabled. In addition, the Committee has provided
funding for incentives and community outreach that are an
important to the success of the Jobs-Plus model.
In addition to the service funding provided through ROSS,
the Committee also hopes that public housing authorities will
be able to successfully leverage other resources to provide the
necessary intensive services that lead to the best outcomes.
The Committee expects that HUD will use existing research and
data to ensure that grantees implement Jobs-Plus programs
effectively. The activities highlighted include onsite services
and community engagement. The Committee also hopes the lessons
learned from this can be applied to programs for section 8
residents.
Services for Public Housing Residents.--The Committee
understands the importance of tenant services in increasing the
housing stability, health outcomes, and self-sufficiency of
public housing residents. While there are a variety of services
that PHAs offer their residents, the Committee is unaware of
the metrics HUD uses to evaluate the effectiveness of those
services, especially as provided through the ROSS program. The
Committee wants to better understand how PHAs deploy ROSS
funding and how those services affect public housing residents.
Therefore, the Committee has set-aside funding under the
Transformation Initiative to conduct an assessment of the ROSS
program. This assessment should look at various ways PHAs use
ROSS funds, identify best practices, and recommend approaches
that may increase the effectiveness of the program. It should
also provide information on how HUD measures program outcomes.
The Committee is also aware of the challenges that some
PHAs face in creating long-term sustainable plans for providing
and funding services for their residents. Some of these
challenges arise from a reliance on short-term funding sources.
The Committee believes that PHAs would benefit from assistance
in developing better funding plans, and specifically, ways to
leverage other sources of funding. Therefore, the Committee has
also set-aside funding under the Transformation Initiative to
provide technical assistance to housing authorities and
resident groups and boards to improve service delivery,
maximize leveraging of other resources, and ensure effective
services for public housing residents.
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, 2013\1\................................. $4,253,486,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 4,600,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 4,600,000,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 $4,600,000,000
for the public housing operating fund, which is equal to the
budget request and $346,514,000 more than the fiscal year 2013
enacted level. The Committee notes that in fiscal year 2012,
Congress instituted an offset of public housing authority
reserves, reducing the new funding provided to support the
operation of public housing, forcing PHAs to utilize reserves
to fund regular operations. While the Committee had intended to
restore funding in fiscal year 2013, only part of the funding
was restored in that year due to the continuing resolution. As
a result, while the increase over the 2013 enacted level is
significant, it is $26,000,000 below the fiscal year 2011
enacted level.

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $119,760,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 400,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 250,000,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 $250,000,000
for the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative. This amount is
$130,240,000 more than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level and
$150,000,000 less than the amount requested by the President.
Choice Neighborhoods seeks to build on the HOPE VI program by
expanding the types of eligible grantees and allowing funding
to be used on HUD-owned or assisted housing, as well as the
surrounding community. However, the Committee notes that the
work to replace distressed public housing is not yet complete.
Therefore, the Committee has included language that stipulates
that not less than $165,000,000 of the funding provided shall
be awarded to projects where public housing authorities are the
lead applicant.
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. Since 2010, Choice
Neighborhood implementation grant recipients have used the
combined $231,160,000 they were awarded to leverage over
$2,000,000,000 in other resources. The Committee agrees with
the emphasis that HUD has placed on ensuring that projects gain
financial support from other sources, as well as its focus on
strong local and Federal partnerships.
Dr. Susan Popkin from the Urban Institute has conducted
research on HOPE VI projects and the effect of redevelopment on
residents. She has determined that integrating health,
employment and other supportive services into redevelopment
projects is critical to improving the lives of residents,
particularly those with the highest needs.
While the Committee has been encouraged by the number and
diversity of service partners participating in Choice projects
and the services proposed for residents, the ultimate success
of grantees in improving residents' lives depends on
implementation of these plans. Therefore, the Committee wants
to ensure that the services promised to public housing and
other residents in Choice Neighborhoods are delivered. As the
implementation grants move forward and HUD considers future
applications, the Committee expects HUD to ensure that these
service commitments are met. It should also work to make sure
that grantees utilize best practices in designing and
implementing service models.

FAMILY SELF-SUFFICIENCY

Appropriations, 2013\1\.................................................
Budget estimate, 2014................................... $75,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 75,000,000

\1\$59,880,000 was provided under the Tenant-Based Rental Assistance
Account for this activity, which does not reflect the March 1, 2013,
sequester under Public Law 112-25. An additional $15,000,000 was
provided for this activity under the Public Housing Capital Fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Family Self-Sufficiency [FSS] program provides funding
to help Housing Choice Voucher 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 2014, an
amount equal to the President's request. While no funding was
provided under this heading in fiscal year 2013, $59,880,000
was provided under the Tenant-Based Rental Assistance account
for FSS coordinators serving voucher holders and $15,000,000
was provided out of the Resident Opportunity and Self
Sufficient set-aside in the Public Housing Capital Fund for
coordinators assisting public housing residents. The two
programs have been consolidated to increase efficiency since
many PHAs serve both section 8 and public housing residents.

NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANT

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $648,700,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 650,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 675,000,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 $675,000,000
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 $26,300,000 more
than the amount provided in fiscal year 2013, and $25,000,000
above 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 has
reached 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, 8.5 percent of
homes on American Indian reservations and off-reservation trust
land are overcrowded, compared to 3.4 percent of households
nationwide. The number of households on reservation lands that
spend more than 50 percent of their income on housing has risen
47 percent over the past decade.
To better understand housing conditions in Indian Country,
in 2010, the Committee directed HUD to conduct a tribal housing
needs assessment. The most recent data is from 1996, and
clearly the housing conditions in Indian Country have only
gotten worse. The Committee directs HUD to complete work on the
new assessment by September 30, 2014. The Committee believes
this will provide Congress with valuable information of the
full scope of the tribal housing crisis.
The subcommittee staff conducted site visits to several
tribes over the course of the past year 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 [TDHE] 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 issues
related to Bureau of Indian Affairs [BIA] land approvals,
permitting approvals by both the Federal Government and tribal
government, 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.
The Committee believes this evaluation should highlight best
practices to assist TDHEs with addressing the significant
housing needs they face, and provide recommendations on ways to
streamline conveyance and permitting requirements.
Technical Assistance.--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 $2,000,000 for inspections
of Indian housing units, contract expertise, training,
technical assistance, oversight, and management.
The Committee has noted GAO's assessment that limited
capacity hinders the ability of many tribes to effectively
address their housing needs. The Committee expects HUD to use
the technical assistance funding provided to aid tribes with
capacity challenges, especially tribes receiving small grant
awards. The funding should be used for training, contract
expertise, and other services necessary to improve data
collection, increase leveraging, and address other needs
identified by tribes. The Committee expects that any assistance
provided by HUD will reflect the unique needs and culture of
Native Americans.
As HUD works to address the needs of tribes, and especially
smaller tribes, the Committee hopes that HUD will look to
identify opportunities to coordinate with other agencies,
including the Department of Agriculture and the Indian Health
Service.

NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANT

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $12,974,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 13,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 13,000,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Hawaiian Homelands Homeownership Act of 2000 created
the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant program to provide
grants to the State of Hawaii Department of Hawaiian Home Lands
for housing and housing-related assistance, in order to
develop, maintain, and operate affordable housing for eligible
low-income Native Hawaiian families.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $13,000,000
for the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant Program, which is
$26,000 more than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level and equal
to 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, 2013\1\............... $12,176,000 $976,000,000
Budget estimate, 2014................. 6,000,000 1,818,000,000
Committee recommendation.............. 6,000,000 1,818,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.

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 in 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 $1,818,000,000.
This subsidy amount is $6,176,000 less than the fiscal year
2013 enacted subsidy level and equal to the budget request.

NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation on
Program account guaranteed
loans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2013\1\............... $385,000 $41,504,000
Budget estimate, 2014................. ............... ...............
Committee recommendation.............. 385,000 41,504,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds.

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 $385,000 in
program subsidies to support a loan level of $41,504,000, which
is equal to the subsidy and loan levels provided in fiscal year
2013.

Community Planning and Development

HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS [HOPWA]

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $331,336,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 332,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 332,000,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 $332,000,000
for the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS [HOPWA]
program. This level of funding is equal to the President's
budget request and is $664,000 more than the fiscal year 2013
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.
The HOPWA program currently provides short-term and
permanent housing assistance and stabilizing supportive
services to more than 56,000 households in 134 eligible areas
nationwide. Of the households receiving assistance, 94 percent
have extremely low or very low incomes. According to grantee
annual reports from 2012, 15 percent of new clients,
representing 4,632 households, were homeless at program entry.
Of these, 1,147 were identified as veterans.
The HOPWA program has proven effective at helping
individuals with HIV/AIDS avoid homelessness and achieve
housing stability. Research has demonstrated that stable
housing provides a foundation for recipients to improve health,
increase economic security, and move toward self-sufficiency.
Grantees report that 90 percent of households receiving
assistance in 2011 achieved housing stability and successfully
accessed or maintained sources of income. Research also
demonstrates that housing assistance and support services are a
cost-effective alternative to hospitalization, emergency room
services, and other higher levels of care.
While the HOPWA program has demonstrated success, there is
still substantial work to be done to meet the housing demand of
low-income persons with HIV/AIDS. HOPWA grantees report they
are only able to directly address about two-fifths of the
identified eligible housing need at program's current funding
level.
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
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, 2013\1\\2\.............................. $19,301,494,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 3,143,100,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,295,000,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.
\2\Includes emergency funding of $16,000,000,000 in the Disaster Relief
Appropriations Act, 2013 (division A of Public Law 113-2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Under title I of the Housing and Community Development Act
of 1974, as amended, the Department is authorized to award
block grants to units of general local government and States
for the funding of local community development programs. A wide
range of physical, economic, and social development activities
are eligible with spending priorities determined at the local
level, but the law enumerates general objectives which the
block grants are designed to fulfill, including adequate
housing, a suitable living environment, and expanded economic
opportunities, principally for persons of low and moderate
income. Grant recipients are required to use at least 70
percent of their block grant funds for activities that benefit
low- and moderate-income persons.
Funds are distributed to eligible recipients for community
development purposes utilizing the higher of two objective
formulas, one of which gives somewhat greater weight to the age
of housing stock. Of the funds appropriated, 70 percent are
distributed to entitlement communities and 30 percent are
distributed to nonentitlement communities after deducting
designated amounts for set-asides for insular areas and Indian
CDBG.
The resources provided under this program will also fund
Integrated Planning and Investment Grants program, which is
part of the Partnership for Sustainable Communities, and
includes HUD and the Department of Transportation [DOT]. This
effort will improve coordination of transportation and housing
investments that result in more regional and local sustainable
development patterns, better strategies to increase economic
competitiveness, and more transit accessible housing choices
for residents. These funds will stimulate more integrated
regional planning to guide State, metropolitan, and local
decisions, investments, and reforms in land use,
transportation, and housing.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,295,000,000
for the Community Development Fund in fiscal year 2014. This
level is $151,900,000 more than the budget request and
$16,006,474,000 less than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level.
However, $16,000,000,000 in emergency funding was provided in
fiscal year 2013 for recovery from Hurricane Sandy and other
disasters. When disaster funding is excluded, the amount
recommended by the Committee is $6,474,000 less than the 2013
level.
The Committee has provided $3,150,000,000 for Community
Development Block Grants. The recommended amount is
$351,900,000 more than the budget request and $91,594,000 less
than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level. The Committee
recommendation does not include funding for the
Administration's proposed Neighborhood Stabilization Initiative
and has directed additional funding to the CDBG formula
instead. CDBG funding provides States and entitlement
communities across the Nation with resources that allow them to
undertake a wide range of community development activities,
including public infrastructure improvements, housing
rehabilitation and construction, job creation and retention,
and public services that primarily benefit low and moderate
income persons.
The 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.
While the Committee remains committed to the CDBG program,
it also wants to make sure that funding is used effectively.
Therefore, the Committee has included a provision in bill
language that prohibits any community from selling its CDBG
award to another community. In addition, the Committee has
added a 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 acknowledges the steps the Administration has
taken to improve the oversight and transparency in the program.
In May 2012, HUD announced the overhaul of its consolidated
planning process, which is a requirement of receiving funding.
HUD moved from an intensive paper-based planning process to an
online system. The new tools created by HUD include an expanded
planning system, a mapping tool and an electronic template for
submitting the consolidated plans. Through these tools,
communities will have increased access to information from such
sources as the U.S. Census Bureau and the American Community
Survey on the housing needs of their residents, the
characteristics of their housing stock and the extent of
homelessness in their communities. In addition, information on
HUD investments such as the location of public and multifamily
housing will be easily accessible to communities. This
information should help communities make more informed
decisions about how to allocate their resources. It will also
provide the public with additional transparency on how funds
are being allocated in their community.
The Committee understands that HUD is also beginning a
process to evaluate the program to determine if additional
changes in statute or regulation would make the CDBG program
more effective. The Committee applauds this effort and expects
to see additional recommendations on how to strengthen the
program in the fiscal year 2015 budget.
The Committee has not included language establishing a
minimum grant amount necessary to become or remain an
entitlement community. While there is some merit to the
proposal, the Committee is concerned about the impact of this
change on smaller communities. Under the proposal, communities
that would otherwise have directly received funding would have
to compete with other communities for a portion of the funding
allocated to their state. However, the amount they would have
otherwise received would not be added to their State
allocation, leaving more communities to compete for the same
amount of funding. The Committee notes that communities that
have voluntarily joined an urban county for purposes of CDBG
allocations have achieved efficiencies similar to those
envisioned under HUD's proposal. The Committee encourages HUD
to educate communities that receive small awards about the
potential program benefits of joining an urban community.
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 $10,120,000
more than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level.
Mold Remediation and Prevention.--The Committee is
concerned about the prevalence of mold in Native American
housing; a study conducted by HUD in 2003 found that 15 percent
of the housing sampled was infected with mold. Since that
study, additional tribes in places such as Montana and South
Dakota have reported even greater incidence of mold in their
housing. In 2004, the Institute of Medicine linked mold
exposure to upper respiratory symptoms and asthma. To help
address this issue, the Committee includes $10,000,000 to fund
grants for mold remediation and prevention in Native American
housing. 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 Healthy
Homes and Lead Hazard Reduction to ensure Native American
communities have the information and assistance they need to
effectively address this serious issue.
Integrated Planning and Investment Grants.--The Committee
has recommended $75,000,000 for Integrated Planning and
Investment Grants. The funding provided will support the work
of the Partnership for Sustainable Communities, an interagency
collaboration among HUD, DOT, and the Environmental Protection
Agency [EPA]. The Committee notes that GAO has recognized the
potential of this partnership to improve Federal collaboration
by developing a common set of performance measures.
The Committee has supported HUD's investments in regional
and community planning because successful planning efforts help
communities make smarter investments to improve access to
housing, transportation and jobs. It also enables communities
to leverage other funding resources and maximize the impact of
Federal investments. Under the redesigned Integrated Planning
and Investments Grants, HUD is proposing changes to the former
Sustainable Communities initiative to better reflect the goal
of helping communities make smarter investments that will
increase their economic stability and competitiveness. To
support this effort, the Committee directs HUD to give greater
weight when evaluating funding applications to projects that
are focused on increasing economic competitiveness through such
strategies as better utilizing or repurposing existing assets
or creating jobs where people live.
Part of the program redesign includes placing greater
emphasis on identifying the funding sources that grantees will
use to support the implementation of their plans. Such a
requirement will help to ensure the plans grantees develop are
utilized to guide decisions and investments. In addition, the
Committee believes applicants must demonstrate through their
plans how they will realign Federal investments to reduce
overlap or duplication.
Small and Rural Communities.--The Committee continues to be
mindful of the needs of small and rural communities and has
included a provision that requires that at least 25 percent of
the funding provided be awarded to communities with a
population less than 500,000. The Committee supports HUD's
recognition of the needs of smaller communities, including the
additional set-aside it has created for communities with a
population of less than 200,000. The Committee expects HUD to
continue to pay special attention to the unique needs of small
and rural communities that would also benefit from coordinated
transportation and housing planning.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LOAN GUARANTEES PROGRAM ACCOUNT

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation on
Program account guaranteed
loans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2013\1\............... $5,940,000 $240,000,000
Budget estimate, 2014................. ............... 500,000,000
Committee recommendation.............. ............... 500,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.

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 2014. This guaranteed loan level is $260,000,000
more than the fiscal year 2013 level and equal to the
President's request.
This program enables CDBG recipients to use their CDBG
dollars as leverage as part of economic development projects
and housing rehabilitation programs. Communities are allowed to
borrow up to five times their most recent CDBG allocation.
The Committee notes that changing to a fee-based system
requires HUD to establish clear rules and guidance on how the
program will operate. The Committee expects HUD to be ready to
implement this new system upon enactment to ensure there is no
delay for grantees that wish to utilize the program under its
new structure.

HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $998,000,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 950,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,000,000,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Title II of the National Affordable Housing Act, as
amended, authorizes the HOME Investment Partnerships Program.
This program provides assistance to States and local
governments for the purpose of expanding the supply and
affordability of housing to low-income and very low-income
people. Eligible activities include tenant-based rental
assistance, acquisition and rehabilitation of affordable rental
and ownership housing, and housing construction. To participate
in the HOME program, State and local governments must develop a
comprehensive housing affordability strategy. There is a 25
percent matching requirement for participating jurisdictions,
which can be reduced or eliminated if they are experiencing
fiscal distress.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,000,000,000
for the HOME Investment Partnership Program. This amount is
$2,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level and
$50,000,000 more than the budget request.
The Committee has retained bill language from fiscal year
2012 designed to reform and strengthen the HOME program. These
reforms will address criticism raised by the HUD OIG and media
about languishing projects, unqualified developers, and lax
oversight by the Department. The Committee notes that HUD has
published a proposed rule that will permanently incorporate
these and other reforms into HOME regulations. The Committee is
disappointed that the final rule hasn't been released yet,
requiring the Committee to retain its reform provisions. The
Committee expects the Administration to move quickly to issue a
final rule that will make these and other reforms permanent.
The Committee notes that HUD has taken important steps to
address the recommendations of the Inspector General by
improving its ability to monitor HOME grantees. In fiscal year
2012, HUD conducted 339 HOME monitoring visits compared to 137
the previous year. Moreover, by enhancing the Integrated
Disbursement and Information System [IDIS], which it uses to
track projects, HUD has improved its ability to identify risky
projects. For example, IDIS prevents grantees from starting new
activities if they have received their final disbursement for
another project, but haven't completed their activity or
entered accomplishment data for it within 120 days. As a
result, the number of projects exceeding the 120-day
requirement has been reduced by 96 percent since 2011. HUD also
has taken steps to address the number of stalled projects; the
number of HOME activities with infrequent draws has been
reduced by 65 percent and the number of projects open for more
than 4 years has decreased by 58 percent. The Committee
encourages HUD to continue its efforts to improve program
oversight and strengthen the program.

SELF-HELP AND ASSISTED HOMEOWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $53,393,000
Budget estimate, 2014\2\................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 53,500,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.
\2\The budget request shifts $10,000,000 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 $53,500,000 for the Self-Help and
Assisted Homeownership Program, which is $107,000 more than the
fiscal year 2013 enacted level. The budget request would shift
a portion of the funding for this program to the HOME program,
and transition the section 4 program into a new Capacity
Building program. This amount includes $13,500,000 for SHOP, as
authorized under section 11 of the Housing Opportunity
Extension Act of 1996. The Committee recommends $35,000,000 for
capacity building as authorized by section 4 of the HUD
Demonstration Act of 1993, and notes that funding provided
under this section requires a statutory 3-to-1 match to further
leverage resources to assist more communities. The Committee
provides $5,000,000 to carry out capacity building activities
in rural communities. 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.

HOMELESS ASSISTANCE GRANTS

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $2,028,934,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 2,381,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,261,190,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 $2,261,190,000
for Homeless Assistance Grants in fiscal year 2014. This amount
is $119,810,000 less than the President's request, and
$232,256,000 more than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level.
As part of the Committee recommendation, at least
$1,910,000,000 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, as authorized. The
recommendation also includes at least $336,000,000 for the
emergency solutions grants program [ESG], of which $50,000,000
is set aside for rapid re-housing in high-need communities.
Rapid re-housing offers lower cost interventions for those
experiencing homelessness. Eligible activities include short-
term rental assistance, or assistance with security deposits or
back rent, which allows families to stay in their homes or
quickly leave homelessness.
The Committee has been encouraged by communities' success
with rapid re-housing interventions. Indications of their
success are evident in the results of the Homelessness
Prevention and Rapid Re-housing program [HPRP], funded through
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. According to data
on the second year of HPRP, the vast majority of families with
children were able to find permanent housing after receiving
rapid re-housing assistance. Nearly 84 percent of families who
received assistance for less than 90 days exited to permanent
housing, and nearly 86 percent of those that received longer-
term assistance found housing. While rapid re-housing is not
appropriate for every person experiencing or at-risk of
homelessness, it is a valuable tool for communities to have to
assist families. Implementing solutions for homeless families
with children is particularly important as more families have
experienced homelessness in recent years. According to the most
recent Annual Homeless Assessment Report [AHAR], released by
HUD in December 2012, while the number of sheltered people in
families decreased by 5.3 percent between in 2010 and 2011, the
number has increased by 13.5 percent since 2007.
The Committee also notes the continued importance of
assisting the chronically homeless. According to the most
recent AHAR, the point-in-time count showed that chronic
homelessness decreased by 13.5 percent between 2007 and 2011.
The Committee supports continued efforts to find and create
permanent housing for the chronically homeless to achieve the
goal of ending chronic homelessness by 2015.
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
June 20, 2014. 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 2015 budget justification.
This should include estimated costs of renewing permanent
supportive housing.

Housing Programs

PROJECT-BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE

Appropriations, 2013\1\\2\.............................. $9,321,793,000
Budget estimate, 2014\1\................................ 10,270,000,000
Committee recommendation\1\............................. 10,772,000,000

\1\Includes an advance appropriation.
\2\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The section 8 project-based rental assistance [PBRA]
program provides more than 1.2 million low-income Americans
with safe, stable, and sanitary housing. This program preserves
affordable housing for many of the Nation's most vulnerable at
a time when the affordable housing stock is diminishing. Sixty-
four percent of the tenants in PBRA housing units are elderly
or disabled. Without PRBA, 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
$10,772,000,000 for the annual renewal of project-based
contracts, of which up to $265,000,000 is for the cost of
contract administrators. The recommended level of funding is
$1,451,007,000 more than the amount provided for in fiscal year
2013. The Committee has provided $500,000,000 more than the
budget request to partially address the shortfall, but even at
this level, a funding gap of $700,000,000 will remain in fiscal
year 2014. The resources provided will require HUD to partially
fund an estimated 390,000 units in fiscal year 2014.
The Committee's recommendation also includes several cost-
saving measures proposed in the administration's budget,
including applying residual receipts to offset assistance
payments for new and old regulations contracts; limiting
exception rent levels to the operating cost adjustment factor
[OCAF]; applying Small Area Fair Market Rents as a benchmark
for rents subject to comparability; and shortening vacancy
payments.
Short-Funding.--For many years, PBRA was plagued by
inadequate budgets that threatened the supply of affordable
housing. Moreover, the policy of short-funding contracts
devised to keep the program within budget jeopardized the
Department's credibility, created unnecessary administrative
inefficiencies and reduced investor confidence. The Committee
provided significant resources in the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act to address the shortfall and enable HUD to
fully fund contracts. Sufficient resources have been provided
each year since then, putting the program back on sound footing
and restoring investor confidence. Unfortunately, the
continuing resolution for fiscal year 2013 did not make
adjustments to the budget necessary to fully fund existing
contracts. Consequently, under the request, PBRA faces a
$725,000,000 shortfall before factoring in sequestration. When
combined with the impact of sequestration, the proposed program
faces a $1,200,000,000 shortfall. While the Office of
Multifamily Housing is implementing cost savings measures to
help minimize disruptions to owners and tenants alike, the
revenue that such steps are expected to generate in the next
fiscal year are minimal compared to the magnitude of the
overall shortfall problem.
As noted earlier, the Committee has partially addressed the
shortfall by recommending an additional $500,000,000 for the
program above the request. The Committee has had to make
difficult choices in allocating resources across programs and
recognizes that funding shortfalls can increase the perceived
risk to future funding and lead to unintended costs to owners,
lenders, and investors. Despite the funding shortfall in 2014,
the Committee reaffirms its commitment to the project-based
rental assistance model as evidenced by funding for section 8,
multifamily housing, and public housing programs. The Committee
encourages 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], which are typically
public housing authorities or State housing finance agencies,
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.
Oversight of Property Owners.--The Committee places a
priority on providing access to affordable housing to those
most in need. Therefore, the Committee is disturbed that some
properties continue to receive Federal subsidies despite unsafe
or unsanitary conditions. It is incumbent upon HUD to ensure
that these properties are safe for residents. Moreover, if
owners fail to maintain their properties in accordance with HUD
standards, they should be held accountable. While there is a
tension between holding property owners responsible and
ensuring tenants don't lose their housing, HUD has tools at its
disposal to hold owners accountable without putting tenants at
risk.
The Committee notes that 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.
An important part of this initiative is assessing and providing
a risk rating to the PBRA portfolio, which will be completed by
the beginning of the 2014 fiscal year.
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 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; physical inspection scores below 30; and 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 these
numbers will quickly be reduced.

HOUSING FOR THE ELDERLY

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $373,878,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 400,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 400,000,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Committee recommends an appropriation of $400,000,000
for the section 202 program. This level is equal to the budget
request and $26,122,000 above the fiscal year 2013 enacted
level. The Committee recommends $70,000,000 for service
coordinators and the continuation of existing congregate
service grants, and $20,000,000 for an Elderly Project Rental
Assistance demonstration.
The section 202 program provides over 410,000 federally
assisted, privately owned affordable apartments for the
elderly. An additional 6,399 housing units are currently in the
construction pipeline, using funding appropriated in prior
years. Assuming the current average per-unit rental assistance
rate, the 202 program will need an additional $35,777,000 in
rental assistance annually, as new housing units under
construction become available for occupancy.
While this is a sizeable Federal investment, the Committee
recognizes that the supply of affordable housing to assist low-
income elderly is insufficient to meet current demand. The
shortage is expected to increase for the foreseeable future as
the number of Americans aged 65 and older grows. The Seniors
Commission projects that by 2020, there will be an estimated
1.3 million elderly Americans with incomes at or below 150
percent of poverty.
Elderly Project Rental Assistance Demonstration.--The
Committee recommendation includes an appropriation of
$20,000,000 for HUD's proposed demonstration for elderly
housing. The Committee also provides the authority to recapture
residual receipts, collections, and other unobligated balances
in this account, which HUD projects will provide an additional
$26,000,000 in resources to contribute towards the
demonstration.
For many years, HUD and the Department of Health and Human
Services [HHS] have asserted that elderly housing investments
can achieve cost savings to Federal and State healthcare
systems. According to HUD's Office of Policy Development and
Research, 38 percent of existing section 202 tenants are frail
or near-frail, requiring assistance with basic activities of
daily living, and thus at-risk for placement in a nursing home.
The average annual housing assistance cost of a section 202
unit with Medicaid supportive services is $20,256, whereas the
national annual average cost per resident for an assisted
living unit for a Medicaid beneficiary is $37,980 per year.
Therefore, one could project that by providing section 202
housing assistance rather than Medicaid assisted living, the
savings to the Federal Government would exceed $17,500 per
person annually. While there is a simple understanding of the
macroeconomic data, HUD has offered no empirical evidence to
determine which senior populations might be appropriately
served under the section 202 program as compared to the more
expensive assisted living or nursing home care scenarios.
To that end, HUD, HHS, and the State of Vermont have
recently undertaken several new research projects intended to
provide new information on: the healthcare use of seniors that
reside in HUD-assisted housing; how coordinated health and
supportive services in affordable housing for seniors could
achieve saving in healthcare costs; and, how the elements of
housing with supportive services could enhance aging in place
for seniors. The Committee believes it is important for the new
demonstration HUD is planning to make significant headway in
addressing whether rental assistance combined with supportive
services can delay the need for more costly assisted living or
nursing home care. Based on the justification provided by HUD,
the demonstration will help develop a tool for State housing
and health agencies to coordinate services for elderly
populations that would most benefit from housing assistance
with supportive services and who are most likely to otherwise
require nursing home care. This is valuable research, but the
Committee directs HUD to use the resources provided for this
demonstration to begin answering the fundamental question of
what kinds of services make it possible to defer or avoid more
costly alternatives. The Committee directs the Office of Policy
Development and Research to work jointly with the Office of
Housing to develop the criteria, performance measures, and
other requirements related to the demonstration. The Committee
directs HUD to provide written reports prepared by both offices
semi-annually to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations on the progress of the demonstration and other
aforementioned research projects for as long as they continue.
HUD should provide the first of these written reports within 30
days of the date of enactment of this act.

HOUSING FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $164,670,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 126,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 126,000,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 $126,000,000
for the section 811 program. This level is equal to the budget
request and is $38,670,000 below the fiscal year 2013 enacted
level. This level of funding supports all PRAC renewals and
amendments, and allows the Secretary to continue to provide
project rental assistance to State housing finance agencies.
The Committee also allows HUD to collect residual receipts and
recaptures in fiscal year 2014. HUD estimates this authority
will generate an additional $12,000,000 in available resources,
increasing the total amount of funds available for project
rental assistance to $32,000,000 for new projects.

HOUSING COUNSELING ASSISTANCE

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $44,915,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 55,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 55,000,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.

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 $55,000,000
for the Housing Counseling Assistance program, which is equal
to the budget request and $10,085,000 more than the fiscal year
2013 enacted level. The funds provided will help individuals
and families across the country make better-informed housing
decisions. The Committee has included language requiring HUD to
obligate counseling grants within 120 days of enactment of this
act to ensure that funding is made quickly available to clients
in need of services.
The Housing Counseling Assistance program serves a range of
clients and needs. Those receiving counseling include
distressed homeowners facing delinquency or foreclosure,
seniors seeking a Home Equity Conversion Mortgage [HECM], low-
income renters seeking affordable housing, as well as
prospective homebuyers looking to purchase their first home. By
design, this program allows local agencies to provide the type
of counseling services their clients need.
The Committee recommendation includes increased funding to
cover activities required under The Dodd-Frank Wall Street
Reform and Consumer Protection Act, such as testing and
certification of counselors and ensuring accountability for
grant recipients, as well as counselor training. The
recommendation also includes increased funding, as requested,
for grants to housing counseling agencies.
HECM Counseling.--Borrowers who are interested in obtaining
a HECM loan are required to undergo counseling to ensure they
understand the product. In testimony before the Committee, the
HUD Inspector General voiced his concern about the
effectiveness of housing counselors in informing potential
borrowers about the HECM product. Inspector General Montoya
stated:

``We don't believe that counselors are doing as good
a job as they should be in just really identifying for
these seniors the loan they are getting into . . . they
are not really instructed on how much and how expensive
it would be . . . not instructed on the taxes and
insurance, homeowners fees that will need to be paid .
. . There's a lot of other things that we think we can
work with FHA to do to tighten up the knowledge that
these seniors need before they take this product.''

While the Committee understands that HUD has made
improvements to HECM counseling, there is more that can be
done. The Committee directs the Office of Housing Counseling to
work with HUD's OIG on improvements to HECM counseling, with a
particular focus on ensuring that spouses understand the
details of a HECM loan and the financial obligations associated
with the product. The Committee also expects that of the funds
provided for training, a portion will be directed to improving
the skills and knowledge of HECM counselors.

OTHER ASSISTED HOUSING PROGRAMS

RENTAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $1,297,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 21,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 21,000,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.

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 $21,000,000
for HUD-assisted, State-aided, noninsured rental housing
projects, consistent with the budget request. In fiscal year
2013, $1,297,000 was provided for this purpose. 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.

RENT SUPPLEMENT

(INCLUDES A RESCISSION)

Appropriations, 2013....................................................
Budget estimate, 2014................................... -$3,500,000
Committee recommendation................................ -3,500,000

The Committee recommends a rescission of $3,500,000 of
balances from section 236 payments to State-aided, noninsured
projects, which is consistent with the budget request. The
Committee did not rescind balances from this account in fiscal
year 2013.

MANUFACTURED HOUSING FEES TRUST FUND

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $6,487,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 7,530,000
Committee recommendation................................ 7,530,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 $7,530,000 to support the
manufactured housing standards programs, of which up to
$6,530,000 is expected to be derived from fees collected and
deposited in the Manufactured Housing Fees Trust Fund account
and not more than $1,000,000 shall be available from the
General Fund of the Treasury. The total amount recommended is
equal to the budget request and $1,043,000 more than the fiscal
year 2013 enacted level.
The Committee continues language allowing the Department to
collect fees from program participants for the dispute
resolution and installment programs mandated by the
Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000. These fees are to
be deposited into the Trust Fund and may be used to support the
manufactured housing standards programs subject to the overall
cap placed on the account. The Committee expects the Department
to move forward with this authority.
The Committee notes that carryover in the program will
allow HUD to continue its current activities within the amount
provided. However, the Committee recognizes that manufactured
housing production has declined substantially since peak
industry production in 1998, and 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.

Federal Housing Administration

mutual mortgage insurance program account

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation on Limitation on Administrative
direct loans guaranteed loans contract expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2013................................ $50,000,000 $400,000,000,000 \1\$206,586,000
Budget estimate, 2014............................... 50,000,000 400,000,000,000 127,000,000
Committee recommendation............................ 50,000,000 400,000,000,000 198,500,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112-25.

GENERAL AND SPECIAL RISK PROGRAM ACCOUNT

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation on Limitation on
direct loans guaranteed loans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2013\1\......... $20,000,000 $25,000,000,000
Budget estimate, 2014\1\........ 20,000,000 30,000,000,000
Committee recommendation\1\..... 20,000,000 30,000,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Administrative expenses for GSR are funded within the Office of
Housing.

program description

The Federal Housing Administration [FHA] fund covers the
mortgage and loan insurance activity of HUD mortgage/loan
insurance programs. These include the mutual mortgage insurance
[MMI] fund, cooperative management housing insurance [CMHI]
fund, general insurance [GI] fund, and the special risk
insurance [SRI] fund. For presentation and accounting control
purposes, these are divided into two sets of accounts based on
shared characteristics. The unsubsidized insurance programs of
the mutual mortgage insurance fund and the cooperative
management housing insurance fund constitute one set; and the
general risk insurance and special risk insurance funds, which
are partially composed of subsidized programs, make up the
other.

committee recommendation

The Committee has included the following amounts for the
Mutual Mortgage Insurance Program account: a limitation on
guaranteed loans of $400,000,000,000; a limitation on direct
loans of $20,000,000; and $198,500,000 for administrative
contract expenses, of which up to $71,500,000 may be
transferred to the Information Technology Fund to be used for
the maintenance of FHA information technology systems.
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.
Since its inception in 1934, FHA has played a critical role
in meeting the demands of borrowers that the private market
could not, creating housing products that have insured over 34
million homes.
When private capital froze during the recent housing
crisis, FHA's presence in the housing market expanded
dramatically. FHA provided mortgage insurance to eligible first
time homebuyers, as well as existing homeowners seeking to
refinance, enabling millions of Americans to take advantage of
low-interest rates and affordable home prices. Yet, this
increased role comes with its own risks, as FHA's Mutual
Mortgage Insurance [MMI] Fund has sustained significant losses
in recent years. Given the conditions in the housing market,
the losses to the fund are not surprising, but they are a
serious concern since the losses are draining FHA's reserves.
Beginning in 2010, the capital reserve account fell below
the 2 percent ratio mandated by Congress. Moreover, the most
recent actuarial report estimates the capital reserve account
will be depleted. The poor condition of the Fund was reinforced
by the President's budget, which estimates that $943,000,000
may be needed from Treasury in 2013 to ensure sufficient
resources are available to cover expected losses to the MMI
Fund. This would represent the first time the Fund would
require an infusion of funds from Treasury, although the need
for such a transfer will not come until the end of fiscal year
2013.
In examining the condition of the Fund, it is clear that
Home Equity Conversion Mortgages [HECM] are a driving force
behind FHA's financial condition, representing a
disproportionate share of FHA's losses. The Administration has
proposed changes to HECM that the OIG agrees will address many
of the problems with the current product. In order to expedite
these changes, HUD has also asked for authority to make changes
via a mortgagee letter. The Committee understands the urgency
of making these changes, as well as the amount of time it takes
to do a rulemaking. At the same time, the Committee is
concerned that FHA has not moved with sufficient speed to
change the program using its current authority, even as it
pursued legislative changes.
Despite the concerns with the pace of reform to HECM, the
Committee acknowledges that HUD has implemented significant
reforms to FHA over the last few years that have increased the
solvency of the Fund. These steps include raising premiums five
times, tightening lending standards, and increasing down
payment requirements for riskier mortgages. These important
changes have helped put FHA on a stronger footing, and enabled
FHA to avoid an expected draw on Treasury funds in fiscal year
2012.
FHA has also proposed additional reforms to strengthen
enforcement that require Congressional action. Many of these
reforms were discussed in a hearing before the Committee, and
have the support of HUD's IG, who also suggested other
improvements to the program. The Committee encourages FHA to
continue to work with the OIG to further strengthen oversight
of its portfolio and with Congress to enact important reforms.
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.
Multifamily Housing.--The Committee recommendation includes
a $5,000,000,000 increase in the General and Special Risk
Insurance Fund's commitment authority, which insures
multifamily and healthcare facilities. The Committee notes that
the increase in volume has been driven largely by an increase
in refinancing activities, and that many of the properties are
already insured by FHA. As a result of refinancing at a lower
interest rate, properties are in a better financial position,
helping to minimize FHA's risk. The Committee recognizes the
important role that FHA is playing to support these projects,
which provide resources for needed apartment buildings and
healthcare facilities, while also creating jobs in the private
market.
While FHA's increased role does raise the potential for
risk, the Committee notes that FHA has increased premiums for
its multifamily programs. It also recently completed an
assessment of its entire portfolio to assess areas of greatest
risk. As a result, FHA can target its oversight to properties
that represent the greatest risk to the Fund.

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, 2013............ $500,000,000,000 \1\$19,461,000
Budget estimate, 2014........... 500,000,000,000 21,200,000
Committee recommendation........ 500,000,000,000 21,200,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.

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 2013 enacted
level. The bill allows Ginnie Mae to use $21,200,000 for
salaries and expenses. This is $1,739,000 more than the fiscal
year 2013 enacted level and equal to the President's request.
Since the near collapse of the private mortgage market,
homeowners have relied on Federal programs, such as FHA, to
purchase or refinance homes. Given that Ginnie Mae serves as a
secondary market for FHA, its market share has also grown
dramatically; from just 5 percent in 2007 to over 23 percent at
the end of fiscal year 2013. The HUD Inspector General has
raised concerns about Ginnie Mae's focus on risk, particularly
its ability to identify fraudulent lenders. The Committee notes
that the leadership at Ginnie Mae has taken positive steps to
address these concerns, including undertaking a multiyear
staffing initiative designed to increase its capacity to
monitor risk. The Committee recommendation supports the
Administration's request to continue implementation of this
plan to enhance Ginnie Mae's oversight capacity. In particular,
the request and the Committee recommendation, support
additional personnel to increase on and offsite monitoring of
the increasing number of Ginnie Mae issuers, as well as
increased personnel for the Office of Enterprise Risk and the
Office of the Chief Financial Officer. The Committee supports
Ginnie Mae's efforts to address concerns raised by both GAO and
the Office of the Inspector General [OIG] by targeting areas of
need within the organization. The Committee expects Ginnie Mae
to work closely with the OIG to continue to implement measures
that will strengthen risk management practices.

Policy Development and Research

RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $45,908,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 50,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 48,000,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 $48,000,000
for research, technology, and community development activities
in fiscal year 2014. This level is $2,092,000 more than the
fiscal year 2013 enacted level and $2,000,000 less than the
budget request. The recommendation does not include funding for
the Doctoral Dissertation Research Program.
The Committee recommendation includes additional funding to
support the market surveys that are integral to HUD's ability
to understand its own programs and also help public and private
entities understand 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 undertake research in
cooperation with other groups. The six cooperative agreements
that have been signed under this authority have leveraged $2
for every dollar of Federal investment. The Committee
encourages HUD to continue to maximize this authority.

Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity

FAIR HOUSING ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $70,705,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 71,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 70,000,000

\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 $70,000,000
for the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. This
amount is $1,000,000 less than the budget request and $705,000
less than the 2013 enacted level. Of the amounts provided,
$24,000,000 is for FHAP; $1,600,000 is for the National Fair
Housing Training Academy; and $44,100,000 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.
The Committee notes that through the support of a FHIP
grant, the National Fair Housing Alliance and its affiliates
conducted research on the management and marketing of Real
Estate Owned [REO] properties in various neighborhoods. The
report resulting from this work included evidence that banks'
maintenance and marketing of REO properties in minority
neighborhoods was inferior to such activities in predominantly
white neighborhoods. As a result of this work, and additional
work of HUD's Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity,
Wells Fargo recently agreed to invest $39,000,000 in 45
affected neighborhoods. This agreement underscores the
important work fair housing organizations play in ensuring fair
and equal treatment of all persons.

Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $119,760,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 120,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 120,000,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 $120,000,000
for lead-based paint hazard reduction and abatement activities
for fiscal year 2014, of which $25,000,000 is for the Healthy
Homes Initiative. This amount is equal to the President's
budget request and $240,000 more than the amount available in
fiscal year 2013. Of this amount, the Committee recommends an
appropriation of $45,000,000 to the Lead Hazard Reduction
Program, which was established in fiscal year 2003 to focus on
major urban areas where children are disproportionately at risk
for lead poisoning.
Lead Level of Concern Adjustment for Children.--Exposure to
lead-based paint can have serious health effects for both
children and adults, but children are the most susceptible to
permanent cognitive damage. Based upon extensive research, the
Centers for Disease Control [CDC] recently redefined the level
at which children are considered to have too much lead in their
bodies from 10 micrograms to 5 micrograms of lead per deciliter
of blood in a child under the age of 6. This has increased the
number of children considered to have excessive lead content
from less than 100,000 to 500,000. Seventy percent of lead
poisonings are due to dust exposure from lead paint in the home
and are preventable. According to the 2009 American Housing
Survey, 23 million housing units have lead-based paint hazards,
of which 1.1 million are low-income households with one or more
children. Low-income households are more likely to lack the
resources for preventative maintenance and remediation of lead-
based paint hazards. Therefore, this is the population that the
program is designed to target. The funding level recommended by
the Committee will remediate 9,000 housing units in fiscal year
2014.
Healthy Homes Strategic Plan.--The Office of Healthy Homes
and Lead Hazard Control issued a long-awaited strategic plan
for healthy homes, ``Advancing Healthy Housing: A Strategy for
Action,'' in 2013. The plan represents a collaborative effort
between HUD, CDC, the Department of Health and Human Service,
the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy,
the Department of Labor, and the National Institute of
Standards and Technology to leverage resources to remedy unsafe
and unsanitary housing conditions that are injurious to the
health and safety of low-income households. Significant health
concerns identified by the working group include mold, radon,
pests, and unintentional injury. According to the strategic
plan, mold and radon appear to be the most significant health
hazards. Indoor allergens such as mold are a trigger for the
development of asthma in children. Asthma is one of the leading
chronic childhood diseases in the United States. It is
estimated that 39 percent of doctor-diagnosed asthma in
children less than 6 years of age could be prevented with the
elimination of residential hazards. Further, radon is believed
to be the leading cause of lung cancer among nonsmokers,
causing 21,000 deaths annually. Approximately 6.8 million homes
have significant radon exposure above the EPA action level.
While the Committee supports the remediation of health hazards
in homes, it is important to target the limited resources
available to those health issues where the greatest benefit to
at-risk populations can be achieved. The Committee directs HUD
to provide an implementation plan addressing costs, benefits,
and performance measures associated to addressing these health
hazards to the House and Senate Committee on Appropriations by
September 30, 2014.

Information Technology Fund

Appropriations, 2013\1\\2\.............................. $198,637,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 285,100,000
Committee recommendation................................ 210,000,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.
\2\This account was previously called ``Working Capital Fund''.

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 $210,000,000
for the Information Technology Fund for fiscal year 2014, which
is $75,000,000 less than the budget request. This amount is
$11,363,000 more than the amount provided for similar
activities in fiscal year 2013 under the ``Working Capital
Fund''. This fund is also supported by a transfer of
$71,500,000 from FHA's Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund. The
Committee directs HUD to include the amount of funding it is
requesting by project and activity in its fiscal year 2015
congressional justification.
The age of HUD's technology hampers its ability to
effectively manage its programs. In testimony before the
Committee, HUD's inspector general echoed this concern when he
discussed FHA's aging information technology [IT]
infrastructure. He noted that FHA's outdated systems, which are
15-30 years old, are susceptible to losing data and can be
vulnerable to manipulation. To address this weakness, the
Committee recommendation includes at least $45,050,000 for
development, modernization and enhancement projects, which will
allow HUD to continue to move from its antiquated systems to
modern technology.
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
recommendation modifies 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 affirms 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 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 Department has been
providing the Committees on Appropriations with regular updates
on this project, which the Committee expects to continue in
fiscal year 2014. The Committee also urges HUD to continue to
consult with the OIG as it continues this project.

Office of Inspector General

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $123,752,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 127,672,000
Committee recommendation................................ 127,000,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 $127,000,000
for the Office of Inspector General [OIG]. The amount of
funding is $3,248,000 more than the fiscal year 2013 enacted
level and $672,000 less than the President's request.
The Committee recommendation supports the OIG's request to
increases resources dedicated to creating a more robust
Inspections and Evaluation [I&E] Unit, expanding its data
mining and predictive analytics, enhancing its civil fraud
capacity, and improving its procurement and contract management
oversight effort.
The Committee is particularly interested in the OIG's
effort to expand the work of the I&E unit, which is expected to
provide more real-time evaluations and recommendations. The
Committee notes that the OIG often relies upon its older work,
which doesn't always reflect recent actions or program changes.
To assist in better understanding the status of
recommendations, the Committee directs the OIG to provide a
status of recommendations on its Web site, so that it is clear
what actions have been taken to address the issues identified.
The Committee hopes to work with the OIG on ways to improve
HUD policies and programs. This year, the HUD IG testified
before the Committee at its hearing on the Federal Housing
Administration, and was able to speak to policy changes that
could strengthen HUD's oversight of its portfolio. While this
type of work may not have a monetary amount associated with it,
on which the OIG frequently evaluates its own performance, this
type of work informs and benefits the Committee's work. The
Committee expects the OIG to place more emphasis on this kind
of systemic evaluation of HUD programs, based on audits and
investigations, that result in specific recommendations on how
programs can be improved. To help the Committee better
understand HUD's challenges, the Committee directs the OIG to
submit a report to the House and Senate Committee on
Appropriations with a list of management challenges facing the
Department, including actions the administration and Congress
can take to improve HUD's performance concurrent with its
budget submission.

Transformation Initiative

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $49,900,000
Budget estimate, 2014\2\................................ 80,000,000
Committee recommendation\2\............................. 60,000,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.
\2\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 $60,000,000 for the
Transformation Initiative [TI], which will be funded through
transfers of up to 0.5 percent from HUD programs, as requested.
In fiscal year 2013, $49,900,000 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 reduced level of funding provided, the Committee
will allow HUD to determine the appropriate use of funding
among the requested projects. However, the Committee continues
to emphasize the importance of fully funding projects. The
Committee expects the following projects be adequately funded:
Impact of REO Properties on Neighborhoods; Improving HUD
Measures of Housing Cost Inflation; Assessing Housing Quality
in the HCV program; Understanding Rapid Re-housing Models and
Outcomes for the Homeless; Effect of Housing Assistance Over
Time; Advancing Utility Allowance Modeling for HUD Housing
Programs; Project-based Rental Assistance Transfer Authority
Demonstration; Seniors and Supportive Services Demonstration;
and Section 811 Project Rental Assistance Demonstration
Evaluation.
The recommendation does not include funding for the Natural
Experiments Grant Program or Demonstration and Related Small
Grants.
In addition to the projects proposed in the budget, the
Committee recommends $500,000 for an evaluation of the ROSS
program, and at least $1,000,000 for an evaluation of the pilot
for homeless or at risk veterans living on tribal reservations
or in Indian areas modeled after HUD-VASH.
The Committee also continues to support technical
assistance targeted at improving outcomes. Of the amount
provided, the Committee recommends at least $2,000,000 for
technical assistance for public housing authorities and
residents to help develop sustainable service funding models
and improve service delivery. In addition, at least $3,000,000
must be provided to support training for public housing
authorities on finance and governance. Finally, at least
$1,000,000 is for culturally appropriate technical assistance
to support implementation of the housing plus services model on
reservations and in Indian areas as part of the HUD-VASH pilot.

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 public housing authorities
to set flat rents at levels no lower than 80 percent of the
fair market rent, except that PHAs will have to phase-in flat
rent increases as necessary to ensure that a family's existing
rental payment does not increase by more than 35 percent.
Sec. 210. This section changes the definition of a PHA that
operates public housing to include a consortion of PHAs.
Sec. 211. This section exempts Los Angeles County, Alaska,
Iowa, and Mississippi from the requirement of having a PHA
resident on the board of directors for fiscal year 2014.
Instead, the public housing agencies in these States are
required to establish advisory boards that include public
housing tenants and section 8 recipients.
Sec. 212. This section allows HUD to authorize the transfer
of existing project-based subsidies and liabilities from
obsolete housing to housing that better meets the needs of the
assisted tenants.
Sec. 213. This section exempts GNMA from certain
requirements of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990.
Sec. 214. This section reforms certain section 8 rent
calculations as related to athletic scholarships.
Sec. 215. This section provides allocation requirements for
Native Alaskans under the Native American Indian Housing Block
Grant program.
Sec. 216. This section eliminates a cap on Home Equity
Conversion Mortgages for fiscal year 2014.
Sec. 217. This section requires HUD to maintain section 8
assistance on HUD-held or owned multifamily housing.
Sec. 218. This section streamlines the inspection of units
and allows them to use alternative Federal inspection standards
to reduce duplication and focus more on risk-based inspections.
Sec. 219. This section allows the recipient of a section
202 grant to establish a single-asset nonprofit entity to own
the project and may lend grant funds to such entity.
Sec. 220. This section clarifies the use of the 108 loan
guaranteed program for nonentitlement communities.
Sec. 221. This section allows public housing authorities
with less than 400 units to be exempt from management
requirements in the operating fund rule.
Sec. 222. 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. 223. This section requires allotment holders to meet
certain criteria of the CFO.
Sec. 224. This section limits attorney fees.
Sec. 225. The section modifies the NOFA process to include
the Internet.
Sec. 226. This section establishes reprogramming and
reallocation requirements within HUD's salaries and expenses
accounts.
Sec. 227. This section requires HUD to take certain actions
against owners receiving rental subsidies that do not maintain
safe properties.
Sec. 228. This section allows the Disaster Housing
Assistance Programs to be considered HUD programs for the
purpose of income verification and matching.
Sec. 229. This section places limits on PHA compensation.
Sec. 230. This section continues to allow critical access
hospitals to be insured under section 242 of the National
Housing Act.
Sec. 231. This section requires the Secretary to report
quarterly on the status of all project-based section 8 housing.
Sec. 232. This section makes changes to the HOME Investment
Partnership program.
Sec. 233. This section extends the HOPE VI program until
September 30, 2014.
Sec. 234. This section allows the Secretary to transfer
funding from salaries and expenses accounts to the
``Information Technology Fund'' to support technology
improvements.
Sec. 235. This section changes the frequency of submitting
reports to the Committees on Appropriations on actions related
to disaster supplementals from quarterly to annually.
Sec. 236. This section eliminates an unnecessary transfer
from the Rental Housing Assistance Fund to the Flexible Subsidy
Fund.
Sec. 237. This section modifies the requirements for low-
income targeting to better target rental assistance to the
working poor.
Sec. 238. This section modifies the Rental Assistance
Demonstration included in the fiscal year 2012 bill.
Sec. 239. This section requires the Secretary to provide
the Committee with advance notification before discretionary
awards are made.
Sec. 240. This section expands the authority to facilitate
section 202 operating assistance-only contracts to fund
supportive housing units for the elderly that is aligned with
State healthcare priorities.
Sec. 241. This section modifies administrative oversight of
the SHOP program.
Sec. 242. This section modifies utility allowances to be
consistent with the size of the unit for which a family
qualifies, not the size of the unit leased.
Sec. 243. This section allows the Secretary to publish Fair
Market Rents on the Internet without having to publish them in
the Federal Register.

TITLE III

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Access Board

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $7,385,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 7,448,000
Committee recommendation................................ 7,448,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Access Board (formerly known as the Architectural and
Transportation Barriers Compliance Board) was established by
section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The Access Board
is responsible for developing guidelines under the Americans
with Disabilities Act, the Architectural Barriers Act, and the
Telecommunications Act. These guidelines ensure that buildings
and facilities, transportation vehicles, and telecommunications
equipment covered by these laws are readily accessible to and
usable by people with disabilities. The Board is also
responsible for developing standards under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act for accessible electronic and information
technology used by Federal agencies, and for medical diagnostic
equipment under section 510 of the Rehabilitation Act. The
Access Board also enforces the Architectural Barriers Act. In
addition, the Board provides training and technical assistance
on the guidelines and standards it develops to Government
agencies, public and private organizations, individuals and
businesses on the removal of accessibility barriers.
In 2002, the Access Board was given additional
responsibilities under the Help America Vote Act. The Board
serves on the Board of Advisors and the Technical Guidelines
Development Committee, which helps the Election Assistance
Commission develop voluntary guidelines and guidance for voting
systems, including accessibility for people with disabilities.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $7,448,000 for the operations of
the Access Board. This level of funding is $63,000 more than
the 2013 enacted level and equal to the President's fiscal year
2014 request.

Federal Maritime Commission

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $24,052,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 25,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 24,669,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 $24,669,000 for the salaries and
expenses of the FMC for fiscal year 2014. This amount is
$331,000 less than the budget request and $617,000 more than
the fiscal year 2013 enacted level. The request for additional
funding for travel and consulting is denied.
The Committee commends FMC's continued efforts to assist
American exporters to resolve supply chain disruptions due to
insufficient domestic container supply. Facilitating the
accessibility of U.S. exports to foreign markets is a key
factor in the Nation's economic recovery. The Committee also
supports FMC's continued efforts to protect consumers from
potentially unlawful, unfair, or deceptive ocean transportation
practices related to the movement of household goods or
personal property in international oceanborne trade.

National Railroad Passenger Corporation

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $20,459,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 25,300,000
Committee recommendation................................ 21,000,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 $21,000,000 for the Amtrak Office
of Inspector General [OIG]. This funding level is $4,300,000
less than the budget request and $541,000 more than the fiscal
year 2013 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. The Committee continues to direct
the OIG to report on its progress in addressing the
recommendations of the Council of Inspectors General on
Integrity and Efficiency and the recommendations of the
National Academy of Public Administrators in its semi-annual
report.

National Transportation Safety Board

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $102,195,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 103,027,000
Committee recommendation................................ 103,027,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 $103,027,000 for the National
Transportation Safety Board, which is equal to the budget
request and $832,000 more than the fiscal year 2013 enacted
level. The Committee has also continued to include language
that allows NTSB to make payments on its lease for the NTSB
training facility with funding provided in the bill.

Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation

PAYMENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT CORPORATION

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $214,869,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 204,100,000
Committee recommendation................................ 215,300,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $215,300,000
for the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation or NeighborWorks,
for fiscal year 2014. This amount is $11,200,000 more than the
budget request and $431,000 more than the fiscal year 2013
enacted level. The Committee has included $138,300,000 to
support NeighborWorks core programs, and continues to support
the set-aside of $5,000,000 for the multifamily rental housing
initiative, which has been successful in developing innovative
approaches to producing mixed-income affordable housing
throughout the Nation. The Committee directs NeighborWorks to
provide a status report on this initiative in its fiscal year
2015 budget justification.
Housing Counseling Assistance.--The Committee has included
$77,000,000 to continue the National Foreclosure Mitigation
Counseling Program [NFMC] initiated by Congress in fiscal year
2008. NFMC is not a permanent program, and while the number of
foreclosures have fallen from their peak in recent months, the
number remains elevated. According to Lender Processing
Services' Mortgage Monitor Report for April 2013, ``While
delinquencies are resolving, foreclosure inventories are still
significantly higher than pre-crisis across all products''.
Therefore the Committee believes resources are still warranted
to assist families facing foreclosure.
According to NeighborWorks' December 2012 Congressional
report, NFMC has helped support counseling for over 1,450,000
borrowers. Moreover, the outcomes associated with NFMC
demonstrate the impact it is having on people's lives.
According to an independent evaluation of the program conducted
by the Urban Institute issued in December 2011, NFMC-assisted
homeowners were 89 percent more likely to receive a loan
modification cure on the first attempt than noncounseled
homeowners. The report also found that 9 months after receiving
a modification, counseled homeowners were 67 times more likely
to remain current on their mortgage. The Urban Institute also
estimated a counseling cost benefit ratio of 2.4.
Equity Sharing.--The Committee notes that equity sharing
models have proven to be successful in helping first-time
homeowners purchase a home, while preserving the long-term
affordability of housing. NeighborWorks organizations across
the country have been utilizing various equity sharing models,
including programs that try to align the need for seniors to
transition to assisted-housing with the needs of those trying
to buy their first home. As the housing market begins to
recover, equity sharing is a useful tool to help maintain
housing affordability. The Committee encourages NeighborWorks
to continue to fund these programs and to promote their use by
its organizations.
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 also 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, 2013\1\................................. $3,293,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 3,595,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,595,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 $3,595,000 for
the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness [USICH].
This amount is equal to the budget request and $302,000 more
than the fiscal year 2013 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 to 2020,
consistent with timing of goals contained in its plan.

TITLE IV

GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS ACT

Section 401 requires pay raises to be absorbed within
appropriated levels in this act or previous appropriations
acts.
Section 402 prohibits pay and other expenses for non-
Federal parties in regulatory or adjudicatory proceedings
funded in this act.
Section 403 prohibits obligations beyond the current fiscal
year and prohibits transfers of funds unless expressly so
provided herein.
Section 404 limits expenditures for consulting service
through procurement contracts where such expenditures are a
matter of public record and available for public inspection.
Section 405 authorizes the reprogramming of funds and
specifies the reprogramming procedures for agencies funded by
this act.
Section 406 ensures that 50 percent of unobligated balances
may remain available for certain purposes.
Section 407 requires departments and agencies under this
act to report information regarding all sole-source contracts.
Section 408 prohibits the use of funds for employee
training unless such training bears directly upon the
performance of official duties.
Section 409 prohibits the use of funds for eminent domain
unless such taking is employed for public use.
Section 410 prohibits funds in this act to be transferred
without express authority.
Section 411 protects employment rights of Federal employees
who return to their civilian jobs after assignment with the
Armed Forces.
Section 412 prohibits the use of funds for activities not
in compliance with the Buy American Act.
Section 413 prohibits funding for any person or entity
convicted of violating the Buy American Act.
Section 414 prohibits funds for first-class airline
accommodation in contravention of section 301-10.122 and 301-
10.123 of title 41 CFR.
Section 415 prohibits funds in this act or any prior act
for going to the group ACORN or any of its affiliates,
subsidiaries, or allied organizations.
Section 416 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 417 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 418 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 419 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 2013.
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 2014.
Section 421 restricts the number of employees agencies
funded in this act may send to international conferences.
[Section 422 makes special allowances for technical
differences in estimates of discretionary new budget
authority.]

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 2014:

Title I--Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration:
Bridges in Critical Corridors
Federal Railroad 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 27, 2013,
the Committee ordered favorably reported an original bill (S.
1243) making appropriations for the Departments of
Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and related
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2014, and for
other purposes, provided, that the bill be subject to amendment
and that the bill be consistent with its spending allocations,
by a recorded vote of 22-8, a quorum being present. The vote
was as follows:
Yeas Nays
Chairwoman Mikulski Mr. Shelby
Mr. Leahy Mr. McConnell
Mr. Harkin Mr. Alexander
Mrs. Murray Mr. Graham
Mrs. Feinstein Mr. Coats
Mr. Durbin Mr. Blunt
Mr. Johnson Mr. Johanns
Ms. Landrieu Mr. Boozman
Mr. Reed
Mr. Pryor
Mr. Tester
Mr. Udall
Mrs. Shaheen
Mr. Merkley
Mr. Begich
Mr. Coons
Mr. Cochran
Ms. Collins
Ms. Murkowski
Mr. Kirk
Mr. Moran
Mr. Hoeven

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

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

TITLE 12--BANKS AND BANKING

Chapter 13--National Housing

Subchapter II--Mortgage Insurance

Sec. 1701q. Supportive housing for the elderly

(a) Purpose

* * * * * * *

(f) Initial selection criteria and processing

(1) Selection criteria

* * * * * * *

(2) Delegated processing

(A) [In issuing a capital advance under this
subsection for any project for which financing for the
purposes described in the last two sentences of
subsection (b) is provided by a combination of a
capital advance under subsection (c)(1) and sources
other than this section, within 30 days of award of the
capital advance, the Secretary shall delegate review
and processing of such projects to a State or local
housing agency that--] The Secretary shall establish
procedures to delegate the award, review and processing
of projects to a State or local housing agency that--;
(i) is in geographic proximity to the
property;

* * * * * * *

(iii) may or may not be providing low-
income housing tax credits in combination with
the [capital advance] funding under this
section[,];\1\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\So in original. The comma probably should be a semicolon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iv) agrees to issue a firm commitment
within 12 months of delegation.
(B) The Secretary shall retain the authority to
process [capital advances] funding under this section
in cases in which no State or local housing agency has
applied to provide delegated processing pursuant to
this paragraph or no such agency has entered into an
agreement with the Secretary to serve as a delegated
processing agency.
(C) [An agency to which review and processing is
delegated pursuant to subparagraph (A) may assess a
reasonable fee which shall be included in the capital
advance amounts and may recommend project rental
assistance amounts in excess of those initially awarded
by the Secretary.] The Secretary shall develop a
schedule for reasonable fees under this subparagraph to
be paid to delegated processing agencies, which shall
take into consideration any other fees to be paid to
the agency for other funding provided to the project by
the agency, including bonds, tax credits, and other gap
funding.
Assistance under subsection (c)(2) may be provided
for projects which identify in the application for
assistance a defined health and other supportive
services program including sources of financing the
services for eligible residents and memoranda of
understanding with service provision agencies and
organizations to provide such services for eligible
residents at their request. Such supportive services
plan and memoranda of understating shall--
(i) identify the target populations
to be served by the project;
(ii) set forth methods for outreach
and referral;
(iii) identify the health and other
supportive services to be provided; and
(iv) identify the terms under which
such services will be made available to
residents of the project.
[(D)] (E) Under such delegated system, the
Secretary shall retain the authority to approve rents
and development costs and to execute [a capital
advance] funding under this section within 60 days of
receipt of the commitment from the State or local
agency. The Secretary shall provide to such agency and
the project sponsor, in writing, the reasons for any
reduction in [capital advance amounts or project rental
assistance] funding under this section and such
reductions shall be subject to appeal.

* * * * * * *

Sec. 1715z-7. Mortgage insurance for hospitals

(a) Purpose

* * * * * * *

(i) Termination of exemption for critical access hospitals

(1) In general

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

TITLE 23--HIGHWAYS

CHAPTER 1--FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

Sec. 149. Congestion mitigation and air quality improvement program

(a) Establishment.-- * * *

* * * * * * *

(m) Operating Assistance.--A State may obligate funds
apportioned under section 104(b)(2) in an area of such State
that is otherwise eligible for obligations of such funds for
operating costs under chapter 53 of title 49 or on a system
[that was previously eligible under this section] for which
CMAQ funding was made available, obligated or expended in
fiscal year 2012, and shall have no imposed time limitation.
------

TITLE 42--THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE

Chapter 8--Low-Income Housing

Subchapter I--General Program of Assisted Housing

Sec. 1437. Declaration of policy and public housing agency organization

(a) Declaration of policy

* * * * * * *

(b) Public housing agency organization

(1) Required membership

* * * * * * *

(3) Nondiscrimination

No person shall be prohibited from serving on the
board of directors or similar governing body of a
public housing agency because of the residence of that
person in a public housing project or status as
assisted under section 1437f of this title.
(4) Salary.--
(A) General.--This paragraph establishes
the maximum salary that a public housing agency
may provide to its employees and the maximum
annual contract amounts that may be paid to its
contract personnel using funds provided under
this Act. A public housing agency shall use the
same salary structure as described in this
paragraph and follow the requirements of
uniform administrative rules for Federal grants
and cooperative agreements and principles and
standards for determining costs for Federal
awards for all payments that it makes to its
employees and for personnel hired as
contractors when funds provided under this Act
are used for such payments.
(B) Salary structure.--
(i) The base salary of public
housing agency employees and the
contract amount paid to contracted
personnel from funds provided under
this Act shall be based on the Federal
General Schedule (GS) basic rate of
pay, including locality adjustment,
established under sections 5303 and
5304 of title 5, United States Code as
follows:
(I) For public housing
agencies with fewer than 250
total units (public housing and
section 8 housing vouchers),
the base salary of a public
housing agency employee or
total annual payment to each
contracted personnel shall not
exceed the basic rate of pay,
including a locality
adjustment, for GS-11, step 10;
(II) For public housing
agencies with 250 to 1249 total
units (public housing and
section 8 housing vouchers),
the base salary of a public
housing employee or total
annual payment to each
contracted personnel shall not
exceed the basic rate of pay,
including locality adjustment,
for GS-13, step 10;
(III) For public housing
agencies with 1250 or more
total units (public housing and
section 8 housing vouchers),
the base salary of a public
housing agency employee or
total annual payment to each
contracted personnel shall not
exceed the basic rate of pay,
including locality adjustment,
9 for GS-15, step 10.
(ii) Any amount of salary paid to
an employee or of total annual payment
to each contracted personnel that
exceeds the amount provided under the
structure of this paragraph must be
from non-Act sources.
(iii) The salary structure provided
in subparagraph (B)(i) shall be subject
to any requirements that may be
established for the General Schedule by
an appropriations Act or by
Presidential executive order for any
Federal fiscal year.
(iv) A public housing agency must
certify that it has established
detailed performance measures that
describe how public housing agency
employees or personnel hired as
contractors may receive a salary or
contract increase within the limits of
subparagraph (B)(i). The certification
shall be transmitted to the Secretary
in a format as determined by the
Secretary.
(C) Definitions.--For purposes of this
section--
(i) Employee includes any member of
a public housing agency organization
whose salary is paid in whole or in
part from funds provided under this
Act, and regardless of whether such
employee is full-time or part-time,
temporary or permanent.
(ii) Contracted personnel includes
any member of a public housing agency
organization whose position is procured
under uniform administrative rules for
Federal grants and cooperative
agreements and who is paid in whole or
in part from funds provided under this
Act, and regardless of whether such
individual is full-time or part-time,
hourly, temporary or permanent. No such
position shall be for a period beyond 5
years without re-procurement.
(iii) Salary includes the annual
basic rate of pay, including a locality
adjustment, as provided in sub-
paragraph (B) and any additional
adjustments, such as may be provided
for overtime or shift differentials,
bonuses, or contract payments including
bonuses. Salary does not include fringe
benefits as defined in principles and
standards for determining costs for
Federal awards.
(D) Disclosure of records.--Each public
housing agency shall make available to the
Secretary upon request such financial and other
records as the Secretary deems necessary for
purpose of review and monitoring compliance
with this section.

* * * * * * *

Sec. 1437a. Rental payments

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

(1) * * *
(2) Rental payments for public housing families.--
(A) Authority for family to select.-- * * *
(B) Allowable rent structures.--
(i) Flat rents.--[Except as
otherwise provided under this clause,
each] Each public housing agency shall
establish, for each dwelling unit in
public housing owned or operated by the
agency, a flat rental amount for the
dwelling unit, which shall not be lower
than 80 percent of the applicable fair
market rental established under section
8(c) of this Act and which shall--
(I) be based on the rental
value of the unit, as
determined by the public
housing agency; and
(II) be designed in
accordance with subparagraph
(D) so that the rent structures
do not create a disincentive
for continued residency in
public housing by families who
are attempting to become
economically self-sufficient
through employment or who have
attained a level of self-
sufficiency through their own
efforts.
[The rental amount for a dwelling unit
shall be considered to comply with the
requirements of this clause if such amount does
not exceed the actual monthly costs to the
public housing agency attributable to providing
and operating the dwelling unit. The preceding
sentence may not be construed to require
establishment of rental amounts equal to or
based on operating costs or to prevent public
housing agencies from developing flat rents
required under this clause in any other manner
that may comply with this clause.] Public
housing agencies must comply by June 1, 2014,
with the requirement of this clause, except
that if a new flat rental amount for a dwelling
unit will increase a family's existing rental
payment by more than 35 percent, the new flat
rental amount shall be phased in as necessary
to ensure that the family's existing rental
payment does not increase by more than 35
percent annually. The preceding sentence shall
not be construed to require establishment of
rental amounts equal to 80 percent of the fair
market rental in years when the fair market
rental falls from the prior year.

* * * * * * *

(b) Definition of terms under this chapter

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

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

* * * * * * *

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

* * * * * * *

Sec. 1437f. Low-income housing assistance

(a) Authorization for assistance payments

* * * * * * *

(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.

* * * * * * *

(o) Voucher program

* * * * * * *

(1) Authority

* * * * * * *

(2) Amount of monthly assistance payment

* * * * * * *

(A) Tenant-based assistance; rent not exceeding
payment standard

* * * * * * *

For a family receiving project-based
assistance, the rent that the family is
required to pay shall be determined in
accordance with section 1437a(a)(1) of this
title, and the amount of the housing assistance
payment shall be determined in accordance with
subsection (c)(3) of this section.
(D) Utility allowance.--
(i) General.--In determining the
monthly assistance payment for a family
under subparagraphs (A) and (B), the
amount allowed for tenant-paid
utilities shall not exceed the
appropriate utility allowance for the
family unit size as determined by the
public housing agency regardless of the
size of the dwelling unit leased by the
family.
(ii) Exception for families in
including persons with disabilities.--
Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), upon
request by a family that includes a
person with disabilities, the public
housing agency shall approve a utility
allowance that is higher than the
applicable amount on the utility
allowance schedule if a higher utility
allowance is needed as a reasonable
accommodation to make the program
accessible to and usable by the family
member with a disability.

* * * * * * *

(8) Inspection of units by PHAs

(A) In general

* * * * * * *

[(D) Annual inspections

[Each public housing agency providing
assistance under this subsection (or other
entity, as provided in paragraph (11)) shall
make an annual inspection of each assisted
dwelling unit during the term of the housing
assistance payments contract for the unit to
determine whether the unit is maintained in
accordance with the requirements under
subparagraph (A). The agency (or other entity)
shall retain the records of the inspection for
a reasonable time and shall make the records
available upon request to the Secretary, the
Inspector General for the Department of Housing
and Urban Development, and any auditor
conducting an audit under section 1437c(h) of
this title.]
(D) Biennial inspections.--
(i) Requirement.--Each public
housing agency providing assistance
under this subsection (or other entity,
as provided in paragraph (11)) shall,
for each assisted dwelling unit, make
inspections not less often than
biennially during the term of the
housing assistance payments contract
for the unit to determine whether the
unit is maintained in accordance with
the requirements under subparagraph
(A).
(ii) Use of alternative inspection
method.--The requirements under clause
(i) may be complied with by use of
inspections that qualify as an
alternative inspection method pursuant
to subparagraph (E).
(iii) Records.--The public housing
agency (or other entity) shall retain
the records of the inspection for a
reasonable time, as determined by the
Secretary, and shall make the records
available upon request to the
Secretary, the Inspector General for
the Department of Housing and Urban
Development, and any auditor conducting
an audit under section 5(h).
(iv) Mixed-finance properties.--The
Secretary may adjust the frequency of
inspections for mixed-finance
properties assisted with vouchers under
paragraph (13) to facilitate the use of
the alternative inspections in
subparagraph (E).
(E) Alternative inspection method.--An
inspection of a property shall qualify as an
alternative inspection method for purposes of
this subparagraph if--
(i) the inspection was conducted
pursuant to requirements under a
Federal, State, or local housing
program (including the Home investment
partnership program under title II of
the Cranston-Gonzalez National
Affordable Housing Act and the low-
income housing tax credit program under
section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986); and
(ii) pursuant to such inspection,
the property was determined to meet the
standards or requirements regarding
housing quality or safety applicable to
properties assisted under such program,
and, if a non-Federal standard or
requirement was used, the public
housing agency has certified to the
Secretary that such standard or
requirement provides the same (or
greater) protection to occupants of
dwelling units meeting such standard or
requirement as would the housing
quality standards under subparagraph
(B).
(F) Interim inspections.--Upon notification
to the public housing agency, by a family (on
whose behalf tenant-based rental assistance is
provided under this subsection) or by a
government official, that the dwelling unit for
which such assistance is provided does not
comply with the housing quality standards under
subparagraph (B), the public housing agency
shall inspect the dwelling unit--
(i) in the case of any condition
that is life-threatening, within 24
hours after the agency's receipt of
such notification, unless waived by the
Secretary in extraordinary
circumstances; and
(ii) in the case of any condition
that is not life-threatening, within a
reasonable time frame as determined by
the Secretary.''.
(E) (G) Inspection guidelines

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

* * * * * * *

Sec. 1437n. Eligibility for assisted housing

(a) Income eligibility for public housing

(1) Income mix within projects

* * * * * * *

(2) PHA income mix

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

* * * * * * *

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

(1) In general

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

* * * * * * *

(1) Pre-1981 act projects

* * * * * * *

(3) Targeting

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

* * * * * * *

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

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(m) Funding

(1) Authorization of appropriations

There are authorized to be appropriated for grants
under this section $574,000,000 for [fiscal year 2010.]
fiscal year 2014.

* * * * * * *

(o) Sunset

No assistance may be provided under this section after
[September 30, 2010.] September 30, 2014.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 130--NATIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING

SUBCHAPTER II--INVESTMENT IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Part A--Home Investment Partnerships

Sec. 12755. Tenant and participant protections

(a) Lease

* * * * * * *

(b) Termination of tenancy

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

* * * * * * *

Part B--Community Housing Partnership

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

(a) In general

* * * * * * *

(b) Recapture and reuse

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

[(c) Direct reallocation criteria

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

* * * * * * *

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, 2015\1\]
October 1, 2020
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\So in original. Probably should be followed by a period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
------

TITLE 49--TRANSPORTATION

PART B--AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT AND NOISE

CHAPTER 471--AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT

SUBCHAPTER I--AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT

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

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

* * * * * * *

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

* * * * * * *

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

HOUSING OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM EXTENSION ACT, 1996, PUBLIC LAW 104-120

Part D--Specified Model Programs

Assistance for Self-Help Housing Providers

(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
constructionof 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.
Such term does not include any costs for the
rehabilitation,improvement, or construction of
dwellings.
(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) require such organization or consortia to use
grant amounts only as provided in this section;

* * * * * * *

(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.
------

SAFE, ACCOUNTABLE, FLEXIBLE, EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT: A
LEGACY FOR USERS, 2005, PUBLIC LAW 109-59

TITLE IV--MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY

Subtitle A--Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety

SEC. 4138. HIGH RISK CARRIER COMPLIANCE REVIEWS.

From the funds authorized by section 31104(i) of title 49,
United States Code, the Secretary shall ensure that compliance
reviews are completed on motor carriers that have demonstrated
through performance data that they pose the highest safety
risk. At a minimum, a compliance review shall be conducted
whenever a motor carrier is rated as [category A or B] high-
risk for 2 consecutive months.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 4144. MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

(a) Establishment and Duties.-- * * *

* * * * * * *

(d) Termination Date.--Notwithstanding the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.), the advisory committee shall
terminate on [September 30, 2010] September 30, 2014.
------

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

DIVISION B

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

TITLE I

EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS TO ADDRESS HURRICANES IN THE GULF
OF MEXICO

CHAPTER 9

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Community Planning and Development

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND

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

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

TITLE II

FURTHER HURRICANE DISASTER RELIEF AND RECOVERY

CHAPTER 9

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Community Planning and Development

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

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

CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008, PUBLIC LAW 110-161

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

TITLE II

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Housing Programs

[FLEXIBLE SUBSIDY FUND

[(TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

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

SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008, PUBLIC LAW 110-252

TITLE II--DOMESTIC MATTERS

CHAPTER 6--HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Community Planning and Development

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND

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

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

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

TITLE I--RELIEF AND RECOVERY FROM NATURAL DISASTERS

CHAPTER 10--TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Community Planning and Development

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND

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

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

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

TITLE II

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Rental Assistance Demonstration

To conduct a demonstration designed to preserve and improve
public housing and certain other multifamily housing through
the voluntary conversion of properties with assistance under
section 9 of the United States Housing Act of 1937,
(hereinafter, ``the Act''), or the moderate rehabilitation
program under section 8(e)(2) of the Act [(except for funds
allocated under such section for single room occupancy
dwellings as authorized by title IV of the McKinney-Vento
Homeless Assistance Act)], to properties with assistance under
a project-based subsidy contract under section 8 of the Act,
which shall be eligible for renewal under section 524 of the
Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of
1997, or assistance under section 8(o)(13) of the Act, the
Secretary may transfer amounts provided through contracts under
section 8(e)(2) of the Act or under the headings ``Public
Housing Capital Fund'' and ``Public Housing Operating Fund'' to
the headings ``Tenant-Based Rental Assistance'' or ``Project-
Based Rental Assistance'': Provided, That the initial long-term
contract under which converted assistance is made available may
allow for rental adjustments only by an operating cost factor
established by the Secretary, and shall be subject to the
availability of appropriations for each year of such term:
Provided further, That project applications may be received
under this demonstration until September 30, 2015: Provided
further, That any increase in cost for ``Tenant-Based Rental
Assistance'' or ``Project-Based Rental Assistance'' associated
with such conversion 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 [60,000] 120,000 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 [and
2013] through 2015, 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,]
either for conversion of assistance available for such
vouchers, subject to the 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 or for conversion of assistance available for such
tenant protection vouchers to assistance under a project-based
subsidy contract under section 8 of the Act, which shall have a
term of no less than 20 years, with rent adjustments limited to
an operating cost factor established by the Secretary, and
shall be subject to the availability of appropriations for each
year of such term, and which shall be eligible for renewal
under section 524 of the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform
and Affordability of 1997 (42 U.S.C. 1437f note): Provided
further, That amounts made available under the headings
``Project-Based Rental Assistance'' and ``Other Assisted
Housing Programs, Rental Housing Assistance'' during the period
of conversion under the previous proviso, which may extend
beyond fiscal year 2015 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
with respect to applications submitted the Secretary may
transfer amounts under the heading ``Other Assisted Housing
Programs, Rental Housing Assistance'', amounts made available
for tenant protection vouchers under the heading ``Tenant-Based
Rental Assistance'', 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] four
provisos, the Comptroller General of the United States shall
conduct a study of the long-term impact of the previous
[proviso] four provisos on the ratio of tenant-based vouchers
to project-based vouchers.

* * * * * * *

DISASTER RELIEF APPROPRIATIONS, 2013, PUBLIC LAW 113-2

DIVISION A--DISASTER RELIEF APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2013

TITLE X

ADDITIONAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE

CHAPTER 9

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

GRANTS TO THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION

For an additional amount for ``Grants to the National
Railroad Passenger Corporation'' for the Secretary of
Transportation to make capital and debt service grants to the
National Railroad Passenger Corporation to advance capital
projects that address Northeast Corridor infrastructure
recovery and resiliency in the affected areas, $86,000,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That none of the
funds may be used to subsidize operating losses of the
Corporation: Provided further, That as a condition of
eligibility for receipt of such funds, the Corporation shall
not, after the enactment of this division, use any funds
provided for Capital and Debt Service Grants to the National
Railroad Passenger Corporation in this division [or any other
Act] for operating expenses, which includes temporary transfers
of such funds: Provided further, That the Administrator of the
Federal Railroad Administration may retain up to one-half of 1
percent of the funds provided under this heading to fund the
award and oversight by the Administrator of grants made under
this heading: Provided further, That for an additional amount
for the Secretary to make operating subsidy grants to the
National Railroad Passenger Corporation for necessary repairs
related to the consequences of Hurricane Sandy, $32,000,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided further, That each
amount under this heading is designated by the Congress as
being for an emergency requirement pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985.

BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL

PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93-344, AS
AMENDED
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget authority Outlays
----------------------------------------------------
Committee Amount of Committee Amount of
guidance\1\ bill guidance bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee guidance
to its subcommittees of amounts for 2014: Subcommittee on
Transportation and Housing and Urban Development, and
Related Agencies
Mandatory.............................................. NA ........... NA ...........
Discretionary.......................................... 54,045 54,045 NA \2\117,478
Security........................................... 186 186 NA NA
Nonsecurity........................................ 53,859 53,859 NA NA
Projections of outlays associated with the recommendation:
2014................................................... ............ ........... ........... \3\37,144
2015................................................... ............ ........... ........... 35,202
2016................................................... ............ ........... ........... 14,386
2017................................................... ............ ........... ........... 6,207
2018 and future years.................................. ............ ........... ........... 7,680
Financial assistance to State and local governments for NA 32,892 NA 30,628
2014......................................................

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\There is no section 302(a) allocation to the Committee on Appropriations for fiscal year 2014.
\2\Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
\3\Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.

NA: Not applicable.

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

Office of the Secretary

Salaries and expenses......................................... 102,276 113,109 109,340 +7,064 -3,769
Immediate Office of the Secretary......................... (2,613) (2,652) (2,652) (+39) ................
Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary.................. (982) (1,000) (1,000) (+18) ................
Office of the General Counsel............................. (19,476) (20,504) (20,502) (+1,026) (-2)
Office of the Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy (10,087) (12,804) (10,271) (+184) (-2,533)
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs. (10,517) (13,326) (13,026) (+2,509) (-300)
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs (2,495) (2,627) (2,627) (+132) ................
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration...... (25,418) (27,468) (26,686) (+1,268) (-782)
Office of Public Affairs.................................. (2,016) (2,203) (2,051) (+35) (-152)
Office of the Executive Secretariat....................... (1,592) (1,714) (1,714) (+122) ................
Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization.... (1,366) (1,386) (1,386) (+20) ................
Office of Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response.. (10,756) (10,849) (10,849) (+93) ................
Office of the Chief Information Officer................... (14,958) (16,576) (16,576) (+1,618) ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................ 102,276 113,109 109,340 +7,064 -3,769

Research and technology....................................... ................ 14,765 14,765 +14,765 ................
National infrastructure investments........................... 499,000 500,000 550,000 +51,000 +50,000
Aviation consumer call center................................. ................ 7,500 ................ ................ -7,500
Financial management capital.................................. 4,980 10,000 10,000 +5,020 ................
Cyber security initiatives.................................... 9,980 6,000 6,000 -3,980 ................
Office of Civil Rights........................................ 9,365 9,551 9,551 +186 ................
Transportation planning, research, and development............ 8,982 9,750 9,750 +768 ................
(Rescission).............................................. ................ -2,750 -2,750 -2,750 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................ 8,982 7,000 7,000 -1,982 ................

Working capital fund.......................................... (172,000) ................ (178,000) (+6,000) (+178,000)
Minority Business Resource Center Program..................... 920 925 925 +5 ................
(Limitation on guaranteed loans).......................... (18,367) (18,367) (18,367) ................ ................
Minority business outreach.................................... 3,062 3,088 3,088 +26 ................
Payments to air carriers (Airport and Airway Trust Fund)...... 142,714 146,000 146,000 +3,286 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Office of the Secretary.......................... 781,279 817,938 856,669 +75,390 +38,731
=========================================================================================
Federal Aviation Administration

Operations.................................................... 9,634,089 9,707,000 9,707,000 +72,911 ................
Air traffic organization.................................. (7,427,853) (7,311,790) (7,311,790) (-116,063) ................
Aviation safety........................................... (1,250,485) (1,204,777) (1,216,777) (-33,708) (+12,000)
Commercial space transportation........................... (16,238) (16,011) (17,011) (+773) (+1,000)
Finance and management.................................... (580,953) (807,646) (802,520) (+221,567) (-5,126)
Human resource management................................. (98,660) (107,193) (106,193) (+7,533) (-1,000)
Staff offices............................................. (199,885) (199,801) (192,780) (-7,105) (-7,021)
Next Gen.................................................. (60,014) (59,782) (59,477) (-537) (-305)
Facilities and equipment (Airport and Airway Trust Fund)...... 2,725,270 2,777,798 2,730,000 +4,730 -47,798
Research, engineering, and development (Airport and Airway 167,221 166,000 160,000 -7,221 -6,000
Trust Fund...................................................
(Rescission).............................................. ................ ................ -26,183 -26,183 -26,183
Grants-in-aid for airports (Airport and Airway Trust (3,435,000) (3,200,000) (3,200,000) (-235,000) ................
Fund)(Liquidation of contract authorization).................
(Limitation on obligations)............................... (3,343,300) (2,900,000) (3,350,000) (+6,700) (+450,000)
Administration............................................ (100,798) (106,600) (106,600) (+5,802) ................
Airport Cooperative Research Program...................... (14,970) (15,000) (15,000) (+30) ................
Airport technology research............................... (29,192) (29,500) (29,500) (+308) ................
Small community air service development program........... (5,988) ................ (6,000) (+12) (+6,000)
(Rescission of contract authority).................... ................ -450,000 ................ ................ +450,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Federal Aviation Administration.............. 12,526,580 12,200,798 12,570,817 +44,237 +370,019

Limitations on obligations.......................... (3,343,300) (2,900,000) (3,350,000) (+6,700) (+450,000)
=========================================================================================
Federal Highway Administration

Limitation on administrative expenses......................... (416,126) (429,855) (429,855) (+13,729) ................

Federal-aid highways (Highway Trust Fund):
(Liquidation of contract authorization)................... (39,882,583) (40,955,000) (40,995,000) (+1,112,417) (+40,000)
(Limitation on obligations)........................... (39,619,602) (40,256,000) (40,256,000) (+636,398) ................
(Exempt contract authority)........................... (739,000) (739,000) (739,000) ................ ................
Bridges in critical corridors................................. ................ ................ 500,000 +500,000 +500,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Federal Highway Administration................... ................ ................ 500,000 +500,000 +500,000

Limitations on obligations.............................. (39,619,602) (40,256,000) (40,256,000) (+636,398) ................
Exempt contract authority............................... (739,000) (739,000) (739,000) ................ ................
=========================================================================================
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

Motor carrier safety operations and programs (Highway Trust (251,000) (259,000) (259,000) (+8,000) ................
Fund)(Liquidation of contract authorization).................
(Limitation on obligations)............................... (250,498) (259,000) (259,000) (+8,502) ................
Motor carrier safety grants (Highway Trust Fund) (Liquidation (310,000) (313,000) (317,000) (+7,000) (+4,000)
of contract authorization)...................................
(Limitation on obligations)............................... (309,380) (313,000) (317,000) (+7,620) (+4,000)

National Motor Carrier Safety Program (Highway Trust Fund)

(Limitation on obligations)............................... ................ ................ (19,000) (+19,000) (+19,000)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration...... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
(Limitations on obligations)............................ (559,878) (572,000) (595,000) (+35,122) (+23,000)
=========================================================================================
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Operations and research (general fund)........................ 139,866 148,343 148,343 +8,477 ................
Vehicle safety................................................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
Operations and research (Highway Trust Fund) (Liquidation of (115,500) (118,500) (138,500) (+23,000) (+20,000)
contract authorization)......................................
(Limitation on obligations)............................... (115,269) (118,500) (138,500) (+23,231) (+20,000)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Operations and Research....................... 255,135 266,843 286,843 +31,708 +20,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................ 255,135 266,843 286,843 +31,708 +20,000

Highway traffic safety grants (Highway Trust Fund) (554,500) (561,500) (561,500) (+7,000) ................
(Liquidation of contract authorization)......................
(Limitation on obligations)............................... (553,391) (561,500) (561,500) (+8,109) ................
Highway safety programs (23 USC 402).................. (234,530) (235,000) (235,000) (+470) ................
National priority safety programs (23 USC 405)........ (264,470) (272,000) (272,000) (+7,530) ................
High-visibility enforcement........................... (28,942) (29,000) (29,000) (+58) ................
Administration expenses............................... (25,449) (25,500) (25,500) (+51) ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, National Highway Traffic Safety 139,866 148,343 148,343 +8,477 ................
Administration.....................................

Limitations on obligations.......................... (668,660) (680,000) (700,000) (+31,340) (+20,000)
=========================================================================================
Federal Railroad Administration

Safety and operations......................................... 178,239 184,500 184,500 +6,261 ................
Offsetting fee collections................................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................ 178,239 184,500 184,500 +6,261 ................

Railroad research and development............................. 34,930 35,250 35,250 +320 ................
Capital assistance for national high-perfomance passenger rail ................ ................ 100,000 +100,000 +100,000
service......................................................

Railroad Grants (Legislative proposal):
(Liquidation of contract authorization)................... ................ (6,414,750) ................ ................ (-6,414,750)
(Limitation on obligations)............................... ................ (6,414,750) ................ ................ (-6,414,750)
Current passenger rail service........................ ................ (2,700,000) ................ ................ (-2,700,000)
Railroad research, development and technology......... ................ (54,750) ................ ................ (-54,750)
Rail service improvement program...................... ................ (3,660,000) ................ ................ (-3,660,000)
Next generation high-speed rail service (rescission).. ................ ................ -1,973 -1,973 -1,973
Northeast corridor improvement (rescission)........... ................ ................ -4,419 -4,419 -4,419

National Railroad Passenger Corporation:
Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation..... ................ ................ 1,452,000 +1,452,000 +1,452,000
Operating grants to the National Railroad Passenger 465,068 ................ ................ -465,068 ................
Corporation..............................................
Capital and debt service grants to the National Railroad 950,096 ................ ................ -950,096 ................
Passenger Corporation....................................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................ 1,415,164 ................ 1,452,000 +36,836 +1,452,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Federal Railroad Administration.................. 1,628,333 219,750 1,765,358 +137,025 +1,545,608
(Limitations on obligations)............................ ................ (6,414,750) ................ ................ (-6,414,750)
=========================================================================================
Federal Transit Administration

Administrative expenses....................................... 102,508 109,888 109,888 +7,380 ................
Formula Grants (Hwy Trust Fund, Mass Transit Account (9,400,000) (9,500,000) (9,500,000) (+100,000) ................
(Liquidation of contract authorization)......................
(Limitation on obligations)............................... (8,461,044) (8,595,000) (8,595,000) (+133,956) ................
Public transportation emergency relief........................ ................ 25,000 15,000 +15,000 -10,000
Research and technical assistance............................. 43,912 49,000 55,300 +11,388 +6,300
Capital investment grants..................................... 1,951,090 1,981,742 1,942,938 -8,152 -38,804
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority capital and 149,700 150,000 150,000 +300 ................
preventive maintenance.......................................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................ 149,700 150,000 150,000 +300 ................

Administrative Provisions

Federal Transit Administration (rescission)................... ................ ................ -96,156 -96,156 -96,156
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Federal Transit Administration................... 2,247,210 2,315,630 2,176,970 -70,240 -138,660
Appropriations...................................... (2,247,210) (2,315,630) (2,273,126) (+25,916) (-42,504)
Rescissions......................................... ................ ................ (-96,156) (-96,156) (-96,156)
Rescissions of contract authority................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
Limitations on obligations.............................. (8,461,044) (8,595,000) (8,595,000) (+133,956) ................
=========================================================================================
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation

Operations and maintenance (Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund).... 32,194 32,855 33,000 +806 +145

Maritime Administration

Maritime security program..................................... 173,944 208,000 186,000 +12,056 -22,000
Operations and training....................................... 155,945 152,168 153,803 -2,142 +1,635
Ship disposal................................................. 5,489 2,000 4,800 -689 +2,800
Assistance to small shipyards................................. 9,960 ................ 10,000 +40 +10,000

Maritime Guaranteed Loan (Title XI) Program Account:
Administrative expenses................................... 3,733 2,655 3,500 -233 +845
Guaranteed loans subsidy.................................. ................ ................ 35,000 +35,000 +35,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................ 3,733 2,655 38,500 +34,767 +35,845
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Maritime Administration.......................... 349,071 364,823 393,103 +44,032 +28,280
=========================================================================================
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Operational expenses:
General fund.............................................. 20,679 21,015 21,015 +336 ................
Pipeline Safety Fund...................................... 638 639 639 +1 ................
Pipeline safety information grants to communities......... (998) (1,500) (1,500) (+502) ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................ 21,317 21,654 21,654 +337 ................

Hazardous materials safety.................................... 42,253 45,801 45,000 +2,747 -801
Offsetting fee collections................................ ................ -6,000 ................ ................ +6,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................ 42,253 39,801 45,000 +2,747 +5,199

Pipeline safety:
Pipeline Safety Fund...................................... 90,498 133,000 130,854 +40,356 -2,146
Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund............................ 18,536 18,573 18,573 +37 ................
Pipeline safety design review fee......................... ................ -2,000 -2,000 -2,000 ................
Pipeline Safety Design Review Fund........................ ................ 2,000 2,000 +2,000 ................
Pipeline safety user fees................................. -91,136 -133,639 -131,493 -40,357 +2,146
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................ 17,898 17,934 17,934 +36 ................

Emergency preparedness grants:
Limitation on emergency preparedness fund................. (28,130) (28,130) (28,130) ................ ................
(Emergency preparedness fund)......................... (188) (188) (188) ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 81,468 79,389 84,588 +3,120 +5,199
Administration.....................................

Research and Innovative Technology Administration

Research and development...................................... 15,949 ................ ................ -15,949 ................

Office of Inspector General

Salaries and expenses......................................... 79,465 85,605 86,605 +7,140 +1,000

Surface Transportation Board

Salaries and expenses......................................... 29,254 30,775 32,250 +2,996 +1,475
Offsetting collections.................................... -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Surface Transportation Board..................... 28,004 29,525 31,000 +2,996 +1,475
=========================================================================================
Total, title I, Department of Transportation............ 17,909,419 16,294,656 18,646,453 +737,034 +2,351,797
Appropriations...................................... (17,909,419) (16,747,406) (18,777,934) (+868,515) (+2,030,528)
Rescissions......................................... ................ (-2,750) (-131,481) (-131,481) (-128,731)
Rescissions of contract authority................... ................ (-450,000) ................ ................ (+450,000)
Limitations on obligations.............................. (52,652,484) (59,417,750) (53,496,000) (+843,516) (-5,921,750)
=========================================================================================
TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Management and Administration

Executive Offices............................................. ................ 14,540 ................ ................ -14,540
Administration, operations, and management.................... 536,713 ................ 521,375 -15,338 +521,375
Administration Support Offices................................ ................ 505,313 ................ ................ -505,313

Program Office Salaries and Expenses:
Public and Indian Housing................................. 199,600 220,299 212,000 +12,400 -8,299
Community Planning and Development........................ 99,800 109,740 107,000 +7,200 -2,740
Housing................................................... 390,717 383,375 390,000 -717 +6,625
Policy Development and Research........................... 22,167 21,687 23,000 +833 +1,313
Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity........................ 72,455 76,504 75,000 +2,545 -1,504
Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control........... 7,385 7,642 7,642 +257 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................ 792,124 819,247 814,642 +22,518 -4,605
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Management and Administration.................... 1,328,837 1,339,100 1,336,017 +7,180 -3,083
=========================================================================================
Public and Indian Housing

Tenant-based rental assistance:
Renewals.................................................. 17,207,866 17,968,278 17,568,278 +360,412 -400,000
Tenant protection vouchers................................ 74,850 150,000 150,000 +75,150 ................
Administrative fees....................................... 1,372,250 1,685,374 1,685,374 +313,124 ................
Family self-sufficiency coordinators...................... 59,880 ................ ................ -59,880 ................
Veterans affairs supportive housing....................... 74,850 75,000 78,000 +3,150 +3,000
Section 811 mainstream voucher renewals................... 111,794 110,564 110,564 -1,230 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal (available this fiscal year)................... 18,901,490 19,989,216 19,592,216 +690,726 -397,000

Advance appropriations.................................... 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 ................ ................
Less appropriations from prior year advances.............. -3,992,000 -4,000,000 -4,000,000 -8,000 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Tenant-based rental assistance appropriated in 18,909,490 19,989,216 19,592,216 +682,726 -397,000
this bill..............................................

Rental assistance demonstration program....................... ................ 10,000 10,000 +10,000 ................
Public Housing Capital Fund................................... 1,871,250 2,000,000 2,000,000 +128,750 ................
Public Housing Operating Fund................................. 4,253,486 4,600,000 4,600,000 +346,514 ................
Choice neighborhoods.......................................... 119,760 400,000 250,000 +130,240 -150,000
Family self-sufficiency....................................... ................ 75,000 75,000 +75,000 ................
Native American housing block grants.......................... 648,700 650,000 675,000 +26,300 +25,000
Native Hawaiian housing block grant........................... 12,974 13,000 13,000 +26 ................
Indian housing loan guarantee fund program account............ 12,176 6,000 6,000 -6,176 ................
(Limitation on guaranteed loans).......................... (976,000) (1,818,000) (1,818,000) (+842,000) ................
Native Hawaiian loan guarantee fund program account........... 385 ................ 385 ................ +385
(Limitation on guaranteed loans).......................... (41,504) ................ (41,500) (-4) (+41,500)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Public and Indian Housing........................ 25,828,221 27,743,216 27,221,601 +1,393,380 -521,615
=========================================================================================
Community Planning and Development

Housing opportunities for persons with AIDS................... 331,336 332,000 332,000 +664 ................

Community development fund:
CDBG formula.............................................. 3,241,594 2,798,100 3,150,000 -91,594 +351,900
Indian CDBG............................................... 59,880 70,000 70,000 +10,120 ................
Integrated planning and investment grants................. ................ 75,000 75,000 +75,000 ................
Neighborhood stabilization Initiative..................... ................ 200,000 ................ ................ -200,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................ 3,301,474 3,143,100 3,295,000 -6,474 +151,900

Community development loan guarantees (section 108):
(Limitation on guaranteed loans).......................... (240,000) (500,000) (500,000) (+260,000) ................
Credit subsidy............................................ 5,940 ................ ................ -5,940 ................
Capacity building............................................. ................ 20,000 ................ ................ -20,000
HOME investment partnerships program.......................... 998,000 950,000 1,000,000 +2,000 +50,000
Self-help and assisted homeownership opportunity program...... 53,393 ................ 53,500 +107 +53,500
Homeless assistance grants.................................... 2,028,934 2,381,000 2,261,190 +232,256 -119,810
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Community Planning and Development............... 6,719,077 6,826,100 6,941,690 +222,613 +115,590
=========================================================================================
Housing Programs

Project-based rental assistance:
Renewals.................................................. 9,032,571 10,007,000 10,507,000 +1,474,429 +500,000
Contract administrators................................... 288,422 265,000 265,000 -23,422 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal (available this fiscal year)................... 9,320,993 10,272,000 10,772,000 +1,451,007 +500,000

Advance appropriations.................................... 400,000 400,000 400,000 ................ ................
Less appropriations from prior year advances.............. -399,200 -400,000 -400,000 -800 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Project-based rental assistance appropriated in 9,321,793 10,272,000 10,772,000 +1,450,207 +500,000
this bill..............................................
=========================================================================================
Housing for the elderly....................................... 373,878 400,000 400,000 +26,122 ................
Housing for persons with disabilities......................... 164,670 126,000 126,000 -38,670 ................
Housing counseling assistance................................. 44,915 55,000 55,000 +10,085 ................
Rental housing assistance..................................... 1,297 21,000 21,000 +19,703 ................
Rent supplement (rescission).................................. ................ -3,500 -3,500 -3,500 ................
Manufactured housing fees trust fund.......................... 6,487 7,530 7,530 +1,043 ................
Offsetting collections.................................... -3,992 -6,530 -6,530 -2,538 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................ 2,495 1,000 1,000 -1,495 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Housing Programs................................. 9,909,048 10,871,500 11,371,500 +1,462,452 +500,000
Appropriations...................................... (9,913,040) (10,881,530) (11,381,530) (+1,468,490) (+500,000)
Rescissions......................................... ................ (-3,500) (-3,500) (-3,500) ................
Offsetting collections.............................. (-3,992) (-6,530) (-6,530) (-2,538) ................
=========================================================================================
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).............................. (50,000) (20,000) (20,000) (-30,000) ................
Offsetting receipts....................................... -9,676,000 -10,841,000 -10,841,000 -1,165,000 ................
Proposed offsetting receipts [HECM]....................... -170,000 -57,000 -57,000 +113,000 ................
Administrative contract expenses.......................... 206,586 127,000 198,500 -8,086 +71,500

General and Special Risk Program Account:
(Limitation on guaranteed loans).......................... (25,000,000) (30,000,000) (30,000,000) (+5,000,000) ................
(Limitation on direct loans).............................. (20,000) (20,000) (20,000) ................ ................
Offsetting receipts....................................... -588,000 -926,000 -926,000 -338,000 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Federal Housing Administration................... -10,227,414 -11,697,000 -11,625,500 -1,398,086 +71,500
=========================================================================================
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................................... 19,461 21,200 21,200 +1,739 ................
Offsetting collections.................................... -100,000 -100,000 -100,000 ................ ................
Offsetting receipts....................................... -647,000 -707,000 -707,000 -60,000 ................
Proposed offsetting receipts [HECM]....................... -23,000 -12,000 -12,000 +11,000 ................
Additional contract expenses.............................. ................ 1,000 1,000 +1,000 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Government National Mortgage Association......... -750,539 -796,800 -796,800 -46,261 ................
=========================================================================================
Policy Development and Research

Research and technology....................................... 45,908 50,000 48,000 +2,092 -2,000

Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity

Fair housing activities....................................... 70,705 71,000 70,000 -705 -1,000

Office of Health Homes and Lead Hazard Control

Lead hazard reduction......................................... 119,760 120,000 120,000 +240 ................

Management and Administration

Information Technology Fund................................... ................ 285,100 210,000 +210,000 -75,100
Working capital fund.......................................... 198,637 ................ ................ -198,637 ................
(By transfer)............................................. (71,500) ................ (71,500) ................ (+71,500)
Office of Inspector General................................... 123,752 127,672 127,000 +3,248 -672
Transformation initiative..................................... 49,900 ................ ................ -49,900 ................
(By transfer)............................................. ................ (80,000) (60,000) (+60,000) (-20,000)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Management and Administration.................... 372,289 412,772 337,000 -35,289 -75,772
=========================================================================================
Total, Management and Administration.................... (1,701,126) (1,751,872) (1,673,017) (-28,109) (-78,855)
=========================================================================================
Total, title II, Department of Housing and Urban 33,415,892 34,939,888 35,023,508 +1,607,616 +83,620
Development............................................
Appropriations...................................... (40,223,884) (43,192,918) (43,276,538) (+3,052,654) (+83,620)
Rescissions......................................... ................ (-3,500) (-3,500) (-3,500) ................
Advance appropriations.............................. (4,400,000) (4,400,000) (4,400,000) ................ ................
Offsetting receipts................................. (-11,204,000) (-12,643,000) (-12,643,000) (-1,439,000) ................
Offsetting collections.............................. (-3,992) (-6,530) (-6,530) (-2,538) ................
(By transfer)........................................... (71,500) (80,000) (131,500) (+60,000) (+51,500)
(Limitation on direct loans)............................ (70,000) (40,000) (40,000) (-30,000) ................
(Limitation on guaranteed loans)........................ (926,257,504) (932,318,000) (932,359,500) (+6,101,996) (+41,500)
=========================================================================================
TITLE III--OTHER INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Access Board.................................................. 7,385 7,448 7,448 +63 ................
Federal Maritime Commission................................... 24,052 25,000 24,669 +617 -331
Amtrak Office of Inspector General............................ 20,459 25,300 21,000 +541 -4,300
National Transportation Safety Board.......................... 102,195 103,027 103,027 +832 ................
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation......................... 214,869 204,100 215,300 +431 +11,200
United States Interagency Council on Homelessness............. 3,293 3,595 3,595 +302 ................
=========================================================================================
Total, title III, Other Independent Agencies............ 372,253 368,470 375,039 +2,786 +6,569
=========================================================================================
OTHER APPROPRIATIONS

Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013 (Public Law 113-2)

Department of Transportation

Federal Aviation Administration

Facilities and Equipment (emergency).......................... 30,000 ................ ................ -30,000 ................

Federal Highway Administration

Emergency Relief Program (emergency).......................... 2,022,000 ................ ................ -2,022,000 ................

Federal Railroad Administration

Operating Grants to the National Railroad Passenger 118,000 ................ ................ -118,000 ................
Corporation (emergency) (Public Law 113-2)...................

Federal Transit Administration

Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program (emergency).... 10,900,000 ................ ................ -10,900,000 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Department of Transportation..................... 13,070,000 ................ ................ -13,070,000 ................

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Community Planning and Development

Community Development Fund (emergency)........................ 16,000,000 ................ ................ -16,000,000 ................
=========================================================================================
Other Appropriations.................................... 29,070,000 ................ ................ -29,070,000 ................
=========================================================================================
Grand total (net)....................................... 80,767,564 51,603,014 54,045,000 -26,722,564 +2,441,986
Appropriations...................................... (58,505,556) (60,308,794) (62,429,511) (+3,923,955) (+2,120,717)
Rescissions......................................... ................ (-6,250) (-134,981) (-134,981) (-128,731)
Rescissions of contract authority................... ................ (-450,000) ................ ................ (+450,000)
Advance appropriations.............................. (4,400,000) (4,400,000) (4,400,000) ................ ................
Emergency appropriations............................ (29,070,000) ................ ................ (-29,070,000) ................
Offsetting receipts................................. (-11,204,000) (-12,643,000) (-12,643,000) (-1,439,000) ................
Offsetting collections.............................. (-3,992) (-6,530) (-6,530) (-2,538) ................
(Limitation on obligations)............................. (52,652,484) (59,417,750) (53,496,000) (+843,516) (-5,921,750)
(By transfer)........................................... 71,500 80,000 131,500 +60,000 +51,500
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------