[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:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fiscal year--
                                                              ----------------------------------    Committee
                                                               2013 enacted\1\                    recommendation
                                                                                 2014 estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salaries and administrative expenses.........................       $6,960,000       $6,547,000       $6,547,000
Alternative fuels research and development...................          498,000          499,000          499,000
Research, development and technology coordination............          508,000          509,000          509,000
Nationwide differential global positioning system............        7,585,000        5,600,000        5,600,000
Positioning, navigation and timing...........................          398,000        1,610,000        1,610,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total..................................................       15,949,000       14,765,000       14,765,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112-25.

    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)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Fiscal year--
                                                        --------------------------------------     Committee
                                                            2013 enacted      2014 estimate      recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resources from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund:
    Limitation on obligations\1\.......................     $3,343,000,000      2,900,000,000      3,350,000,000
    Liquidation of contract authorization..............      3,435,000,000      3,200,000,000      3,200,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112-25. Obligation limitations (and
  the related contract authority) and liquidating authority for grants-in-aid to airports are not subject to the
  sequester.

                          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:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Fiscal year--
                                                                 --------------------------------    Committee
                             Program                                   2013                       recommendation
                                                                    enacted\1\     2014 estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations and Research.........................................    $255,135,000    $266,843,000    $286,843,000
Highway Traffic Safety Grants...................................     553,391,000     561,500,000     561,500,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................     808,526,000     828,343,000     848,343,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Does not reflect March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112-25.

                        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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                (C) Families receiving project-based assistance

                    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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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

        (1) Pre-1981 act projects

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

        (3) Targeting

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


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

(a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

(m) Funding

    (1) Authorization of appropriations

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



